Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) have a new, old playbook: Crush independent power producers (IPPs) such as Hu Honua Bioenergy that stand in the way of the monopoly’s drive to gain total control over power generation and distribution.

This monopoly has resorted to deceptive, unsupported claims that it has customers’ interests at heart in refusing to extend Hu Honua’s milestone date deadlines.

In response to the complaint filed in federal court by Hu Honua Bioenergy, HECO and HELCO spokesperson Jim Kelly made the disingenuous claim that by failing to extend a deadline for Hu Honua, the utility was protecting its customers (“Green-energy firm sues power utilities,” Star-Advertiser, Dec. 2).

He also publicly stated, “Hu Honua now estimates the project cost has more than doubled to over $200 million as a result of its own mistakes, which it now apparently expects Hawaii Electric Light’s customers to pay for.” This assertion is simply false.

After the PUC approved Hu Honua’s power purchase agreement (PPA), the plant’s investors agreed, at their own expense, to increase investment in the project in order to extend the plant’s serviceable life, improve efficiency, enhance emissions control, and provide additional capacity.

While these improvements increased construction costs, they would have had zero impact on ratepayers because they would have been entirely absorbed by the investors.

Equally important, after construction delays that occurred under the previous owners, the new ownership group entered into negotiations with HELCO to extend milestone deadlines. And in May of 2015, Hu Honua made a pricing proposal to HELCO that would have saved Hawaii Island ratepayers over $90 million, beyond its approved PPA pricing.

At the time, HELCO acknowledged this proposal would benefit its ratepayers and help it meet its renewable energy goals. Had HELCO accepted that May 2015 proposal the plant would now be close to completion and ready to send power to the grid.

If HELCO’s actions were taken to protect its ratepayers, why did it terminate Hu Honua’s PPA instead of locking in savings of more than $90 million for consumers? How did it help the community to kill a renewable biomass facility and forego hundreds of new local jobs and the creation of a new agriculture industry? And how were the interests of consumers or the state of Hawaii served by failing to advance the state’s renewable energy goals?

Finally, why would HECO/HELCO terminate Hu Honua Bioenergy’s PUC-approved PPA when the facility is 50 percent complete, with more than $120 million invested and $125 million already committed to complete the plant, within 14 to 16 months?

There are no good answers to these questions from a consumer protection or community benefits standpoint. It only makes perfect sense to a utility attempting to control every part of the island’s electrical system between the power plant and the customer.

With so much money invested, Hu Honua had no choice but to seek financial damages, including for amounts already spent, through its complaint in federal court.

HELCO’s contract to purchase Hamakua Energy Partner’s fossil fuel power plant, followed by its immediate termination of Hu Honua’s PPA, and plans to continue using its inefficient and polluting fossil fuel units are all part of the game plan. The utility’s own numbers show its fossil fuel units will cost consumers substantially more than Hu Honua over the life of its PPA.

If consumers examine the facts, they will see through the utility’s smokescreen and conclude it again failed to act in the public interest when it terminated Hu Honua’s PPA and prevented the completion of its renewable biomass facility.