Response to TASC Information requests
Content
FILED
September 3, 2015
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Hawai 'i Public Utilities Commission
465 South King Street
Kekuanao'a Building, First Floor
Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96813
DIS SEP - 3 P 3: l 2
PUBLIC UTILITiES
. COHMISSIOH
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: Docket No. 2015-0022- Application of Hawaiian Electric Companies and NextEra
Energy, Inc. for Approval of the Proposed Change of Control and Related Matters
Applicants' Responses to TASC Information Requests 51 to 55
Enclosed for filing are the responses of the Hawaiian Electric Companies 1 and NextEra Energy,
Inc. (together, "Applicants") to The Alliance for Solar Choice's ("TASC") fourth submission of
information requests ("IRs"), TASC-IR.s 51 to 55, submitted in this proceeding on August 19,
2015. Also enclosed is a certificate of service.
Further, the Applicants incorporate by reference all of the General Objections attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" to the Applicants' responses to the IRs submitted by TASC. For the purpose of
avoiding unnecessary duplication and repetition, each and every response submitted herewith is
subject to the General Objections set forth in Exhibit "A".
In accordance with Order No. 32739, filed on April1, 2015 in the subject docket, documents
provided electronically are being provided in Word format, Excel, or compatible spreadsheet
format to the extent possible, and otherwise in pdf format.
Very truly yours,
Dean K. Matsuura
Manager, Regulatory Rate Proceedings
Enclosures
1
The "Hawaiian Electric Companies" are Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Maui Electric Company, Limited and
Hawai'i Electric Light Company, Inc.
Hawaiian Electric
PO BOX 2750 I HONOLULU, HI 96840-0001
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-51
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 1 of 2
TASC-IR-51
Regarding the testimony of Alan Oshima at page 15, lines 21-23, and Applicants’
response to UL-IR-29, please provide an update to the parts of TASC IR-47 listed
below, which ask for information about the estimated $3.7 million cost estimate for
consultants:
a.
b.
c.
What amount of the estimated $3.7 million on consultants has been spent to
date?
Please provide a breakout of the consultants that have been used by Applicants
to date and the amount paid to each of those consultants to date.
Please provide a copy of all communications between Applicants and any
consultants regarding distributed energy resources or ratemaking.
From this point forward, please consider this a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response.
a.
Approximately $2.8 million of the estimated $3.7 million in transaction costs
related to consultants has been spent through July 31, 2015.
b.
Below is a breakout ($000’s), by consultant, of the $2.8 million spent to date as
referenced in subpart a. above:
Anthology
Bennet Group
Concentric
DTL
Ernst & Young US LLP
Integrity Graphics
Joele Frank
$2
$230
$513
$84
$149
$2
$1,135
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-51
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 2 of 2
Maui Economic Development
MAUI NATIVE HAWAIIAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION
NSTI
SKD Knickerbocker
Tulchin Research LLC
University of Hawaii
Total
c.
See the response to TASC-IR-47, subpart c.
$15
$8
$15
$565
$70
$20
$2,807
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-52
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-52
Regarding the testimony of Alan Oshima at page 15, lines 21-23, and Applicants’
response to UL-IR-29, please provide an update to TASC IR-48, which asks for the
following information about the estimated $0.6 million cost estimate for communications:
a.
b.
c.
d.
What amount of the estimated $0.6 million on communications has been spent to
date?
Which consultants have Applicants retained, or contracted with, in order to assist
with communications related to the Proposed Change of Control?
Which consultants were used to purchase media advertisements?
Please provide a breakout of the advertisements run to date and which of the
Applicants paid for which advertisement.
From this point forward, please consider this a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response.
a.
To date (through July 2015), NextEra Energy has spent approximately $1.77
million on communications.
b.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
c.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
d.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-53
Please (a) identify all third parties, including but not limited to contractors, consultants
and experts, who have been retained by Applicants, or will be retained by Applicants, to
assist with, consult on, or otherwise provide assistance to Applicants with regard to the
proposed transaction, and (b) please provide a breakout of all such third parties that
have been used by Applicants to date and the amount paid to each of those third parties
to date. This is a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response. Please refer to
Attachment 1 of this response for a list of advisors, consultants, and other third parties
who have been retained to assist with, consult on, or otherwise provide assistance with
regard to the proposed transaction, and the amount paid and/or accrued for each party
as of July 31, 2015.
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
NextEra Energy
Transaction costs for advisors, consultants,
and other third parties as of July 31, 2015
Third Party
Alston & Bird
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
Anthology Marketing Group
Ashford & Wriston, LLP
Bennet Group
Blackstone Holdings
Boies Schiller & Flexner
Boston Consulting Group
Building Industry Association
Citibank
Concentric Energy Advisors
D.F. King
Deloitte and Touche
DTL
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
Ernst & Young
Feldman Gale PA
Fitch, Inc.
Gordon M Arakaki
Integrity Graphics
Intralinks
Joele Frank
JP Morgan
Kaimana Hila
Maui Economic Development
Maui Native Hawaiian Chamber Foundation
Moody's Investor Service
Morihara Lau & Fong
MykroBel LLC
National Conference of State Legislature
NSTI
P Plus Corporation
Amount
($000's)
$75
$58
$2
$21
$230
$1,017
$68
$0
$0
$8,060
$513
$0
$105
$84
$4
$149
$0
$75
$24
$2
$4
$1,135
$0
$0
$15
$8
$175
$832
$8
$0
$15
$45
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Third Party
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Radey Thomas
Rod S. Aoki, Attorney-at-Law
Schlack Ito
Securities and Exchange Commission
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
SKD Knickerbocker
Slovin Ito
Squire Patton Boggs US LLP
Standard & Poors Financial Services LLC
Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher
StrataG Consulting, Inc.
Tulchin Research
University of Hawaii
Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz
Total
Amount
($000's)
$0
$49
$0
$223
$482
$109
$565
$76
$31
$250
$84
$22
$70
$20
$6,650
$21,354
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
Hawaiian Electric Companies
Transaction costs for advisors, consultants,
and other third parties as of July 31, 2015
Third Party
Cades Schutte1
Damon L. Schmidt, Esq1
Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel1
Merrimack Energy Group Inc.1
Rod S. Aoki1
Total
1
Services retained by applicant Hawaiian Electric, but invoices paid by HEI.
Amount
($000's)
$58
$12
$405
$0
$0
$475
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-54
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 1 of 2
TASC-IR-54
Please provide both a map and a list of all the real property owned, leased, rented or
controlled by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and their parents, subsidiaries and
affiliates, in the State of Hawai‘i, including the location and acreage of each property. If
such data is unavailable, please provide a reasonable estimate of the acreage.
Response:
The Hawaiian Electric Companies (“Companies”) object to providing the documents
sought in this information request on the grounds that this information request is overlybroad and unduly burdensome, and well beyond the scope of this proceeding. The
purpose of this proceeding is to address the Application filed by the Hawaiian Electric
Companies and NextEra Energy in this Docket No. 2015-0022.1 As set forth in Order
No. 32695 at pages 13-18 (Standards of Review), the overall scope of this proceeding
is to determine whether NextEra Energy is fit, willing, and able to perform the service
currently offered by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and whether the proposed
acquisition is reasonable and in the public interest. The specific issues to be addressed
in this proceeding are set forth in Order No. 32739 at pages 8-10 (Statement of Issues).
The Companies further object to providing the documents sought in this
information request on the grounds that the documents sought contain critical
emergency response and infrastructure information that if disclosed, could increase risk
to the Companies’ facilities, jeopardize its emergency and disaster preparedness plans,
and/or adversely impact its ability to respond to potential terrorist threats.
See also the general objections in Exhibit A to this set of responses.
1
See Order No. 32738 issued on April 1, 2015 in this docket at page 8 (“The purpose of this proceeding
is to address the Application filed by the HECO Companies and NextEra.”).
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-54
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 2 of 2
Subject to and without waiving the specific objections and general objections to
this set of responses, the Companies provide the following response. The following is
an estimate of the acreage of all property owned, leased, rented or controlled by the
Hawaiian Electric Companies (excluding easements).
Hawaiian Electric Acreage:
685.2 acres
Maui Electric Acreage:
177.7 acres
Hawai‘i Electric Light Acreage:
167.2 acres
Total Estimated Acreage:
1,030.1 acres
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-55
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-55
Please provide the total combined acreage of all of the real property owned, leased,
rented or controlled by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and their parents, subsidiaries
and affiliates, in the State of Hawai‘i. If such data is unavailable, please provide a
reasonable estimate of the total combined acreage.
Response:
See the response to TASC-IR-54.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 5
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
For the purpose of avoiding unnecessary duplication and repetition, each and every
response to the foregoing Information Requests are subject to the objections set forth below.
1.
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Hawai i Electric Light Company, Inc., Maui
Electric Company, Limited, and NextEra Energy, Inc. (hereinafter collectively “Applicants”)
object to each and every definition and each and every instruction in the Information Request to
the extent the definitions and/or instructions purport to expand Applicants’ obligations beyond
the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding.
2.
Applicants object to the definition of the terms “you,” “your,” and “yourself” to
the extent that they invade the attorney-client or other privilege.
3.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it requests
information well beyond the purpose of this proceeding, which is intended to address the
Application filed by the Hawaiian Electric Companies and NextEra Energy.1 As set forth in
Order No. 32695 at pages 13-18 ("Standard of Review"), the overall scope of this proceeding is
to determine whether NextEra Energy is fit, willing, and able to perform the service currently
offered by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and whether the proposed acquisition is reasonable
and in the public interest. The specific issues to be addressed in this proceeding are set forth in
Order No. 32739 at pages 8-10 ("Statement of Issues"). Further, in granting intervention in this
docket, the Commission stated that “participation will be limited to the issues as established by
the commission in this docket”2 and it will “preclude any attempts to broaden the issues or to
unduly delay the proceeding[.]”3 In addition, the Commission reminded all parties “that it is
imperative that their involvement in this docket reflect a high standard of quality, relevance, and
timeliness.”4
4.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, and/or to the extent
the request seeks information that reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal
1
See Order No. 32738, issued on April 1, 2015 in this docket, at 8 (“The purpose of this proceeding is to address
the Application filed by the HECO Companies and NextEra.”).
2
Order No. 32695, issued March 2, 2015 in this docket, at 62.
3
Id. at 63.
4
Id. at 62-63 (emphasis added).
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 5
theories of the Applicants and their attorneys, which is also protected from disclosure by the
attorney work product doctrine.
5.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents within the sole knowledge or possession of other Parties in this
proceeding.
6.
Applicants are large corporations with employees located in many different
locations. These documents are kept in numerous locations and frequently are moved from site
to site as employees change jobs or as the business is reorganized. Therefore, it is possible that
not every relevant document may have been consulted in developing Applicants' response.
Rather, these responses provide information that Applicants obtained after a reasonable and
diligent search conducted in connection with this Information Request. To the extent that the
Information Request proposes to require more, Applicants object on the grounds that compliance
would impose an undue burden or expense on Applicants.
7.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents containing trade secrets, and proprietary commercial and/or financial
information, on the grounds that (a) the information or documents are subject to a NonDisclosure Agreement, (b) the disclosure of such proprietary commercial and financial
information on a public basis or to entities engaged in competing businesses could adversely
impact Applicants’ transactions with customers, adversely impact Applicants’ costs of doing
business, and result in higher costs to customers, and (c) the uncontrolled disclosure of
proprietary information would give providers of competitive services information useful in
making their own marketing decisions, without expending the time and money necessary to
gather and develop the data, and would allow providers of competitive services to profit or
otherwise derive benefits at the expense of Applicants and their customers.
8.
Applicants object to each Information Request seeking internal communications,
audit and/or management reports that reveal internal deliberations, analyses, appraisals and
recommendations regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of the organization’s system of
internal controls, risk management practices, corporate governance, and/or Applicants’ potential
rights, remedies and strategies (i.e., “self-critical assessments”) on public policy grounds.
Requiring that this information be subject to review by parties in a regulatory proceeding would
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 5
have a “chilling” effect on deliberative and self-analysis processes. Subjecting such sensitive
internal deliberations to review in a regulatory proceeding would inhibit robust and candid
internal dialogue and evaluation of this nature in the future, and the Applicants’ internal
communications and management process would be seriously hampered. Requests for
information revealing self-critical assessments should balance the need for the information
against the Applicants’ need to manage. By analogy, for example, the Federal Freedom of
Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Uniform Information Practices Act
(Modified), Chapter 92F of the Hawai i Revised Statutes, contain broad disclosure requirements
based on the public’s interest in open government. However, the broad policy in favor of
disclosure still allows for exceptions that are intended to permit the efficient and effective
functioning of government by protecting the internal deliberative process.5 The Applicants
object to disclosure of such information revealing self-critical assessments even under a
protective order, unless it is shown that the need for the information outweighs the harm (i.e., the
“chilling” effect on deliberative and self-analysis processes).
9.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
customer-specific information or documents on the grounds that (a) such information is
confidential and has been protected from disclosure by the Commission in other proceedings,
(b) in some cases, the customer-specific information is already subject to a protective order in
another docket, and (c) the disclosure of such information has not been consented to by the
customer.
10.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
confidential forecast information, which is maintained by Applicants as non-public, confidential
information. Public disclosure of forecast information from which income and earnings
information could be derived, may trigger requirements under the rules and guidelines of the
Securities and Exchange Commission and/or the New York Stock Exchange that information
that is meaningful to investors be released to all investors, if the information is disclosed beyond
a limited number of “insiders” (including persons required by agreement to maintain the
5
See generally Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. West Penn Power Company, 73 PA PUC 122 (July 20,
1990), West Law Slip Op. (“deliberative process privilege” recognized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission with respect to its own internal staff reports).
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 5
confidentiality of the information and to use it only for proper purposes). Forecast of earnings,
etc., are the types of information that, if selectively released, could violate such requirements.
11.
Applicants object to each Information Request seeking “all” communications,
correspondence, e-mails, documents and other information relating to a particular subject, unless
otherwise noted in the response, on the grounds that such requests generally are overly broad,
unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive and vexatious. To the extent these requests could be
interpreted to include hard copy and electronic forms of communications (i.e., e-mails), the
number of e-mails relating to certain topics may be voluminous and very difficult and timeconsuming to locate, compile and review. To capture all e-mail relating to specific subjects, for
each person having any involvement whatsoever in the process, including persons who are no
longer employees, every e-mail generated or received directly or as a “cc” over the course of
years would have to be located, reviewed and evaluated. On this basis, attempting to locate,
review, evaluate, copy, scan and produce “all” documentation including communications,
correspondence, e-mails and other information would be unduly burdensome, onerous and
time-consuming. Moreover, the need to review each communication and document to exclude
those that are protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, or to
exclude or redact information that Applicants are precluded from disclosing by confidentiality
agreements or arrangements with vendors, bidders or other entities, makes such requests even
more burdensome, onerous and time-consuming. In addition, information produced pursuant to
such requests could include preliminary and/or outdated analyses, which have been superseded
by later analyses that are more relevant to the subject-matter of this proceeding.
12.
Applicants object to Information Requests asking Applicants to list documents
that are not produced on the grounds that (a) attempts to list the documents would be unduly
burdensome given the volume of documents, (b) adequate time has not been provided to survey,
much less list, all such documents, and (c) listing documents subject to the attorney-client
privilege and/or attorney work product privilege could result in the disclosure of privileged
information.
13.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it is vague,
ambiguous, overly broad, imprecise, or utilizes terms that are subject to multiple interpretations
but are not properly defined or explained for purposes of such information requests.
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 5
14.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it is unlimited in
time or not limited to the time frame relevant to this proceeding.
15.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this docket and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
16.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
documents not within the present possession, custody, or control of Applicants, their agents,
employees, representatives, and attorneys, or purports to expand Applicants’ obligations beyond
the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding.
17.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
documents or information easily available to the Requesting Party because it is already on file
with the Commission or otherwise part of the public record.
18.
Applicants object to each Information Request that seeks information regarding
Applicants’ confidential security measures designed and implemented to protect Applicants’
assets, particularly measures associated with critical information protection, cybersecurity and
physical security.
19.
Applicants object to each Information Request that asks Applicants to make
computations, compute ratios, reclassify, trend, calculate, or otherwise rework data contained in
its files or records.
20.
Applicants expressly reserve and do not waive any and all objections they may
have to the admissibility, authenticity or relevancy of the information provided in its responses.
21.
In the event any document or information within the scope of any privilege or
objection is disclosed, its disclosure is inadvertent and shall not constitute a waiver of the
privilege or objection.
22.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing general objections and without waiving
these objections, Applicants intend in good faith to respond to these Information Requests.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document, together with this Certificate of
Service, were duly served on the following parties, by having said copies delivered by electronic
service, as set forth below:
Party
Electronic
Service
DIVISION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACY
335 Merchant Street
Room 326
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
DEAN T. YAMAMOTO
CARLITO P. CALIBOSO
WIL K. YAMAMOTO
TYLER P. MCNISH
YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO
A Limited Liability Law Company
1099 Alakea Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for PANIOLO POWER COMPANY, LLC
and THE GAS COMPANY, LLC, dba HAWAII GAS
TIM LINDL
KEYES, FOX & WIEDMAN LLP
436 14th Street, Suite 1305
Oakland, CA 94612
1
Attorney for The Alliance for Solar Choice
RICHARD WALLSGROVE
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION
55 Merchant Street, 17th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
MOLLY A. STEBBINS
CORPORATION COUNSEL
WILLIAM V. BRILHANTE, JR.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, HI 96720
1
Electronic
Service
Party
PATRICK K. WONG
CORPORATION COUNSEL
MICHAEL J. HOPPER
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MAUI
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793
1
DOUGLAS S. CHIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAII
DEBORAH DAY EMERSON
GREGG J. KINKLEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Department of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for the DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND TOURISM
ROBIN KAYE
FRIENDS OF LANAI
P.O. Box 631739
Lanai City, HI 96763
1
DAVID J. MINKIN
BRIAN T. HIRAI
PETER J. HAMASAKI
McCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MacKINNON LLP
Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for HAWAII ISLAND ENERGY
COOPERATIVE
and KAUAI ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE
COLIN A. YOST, ESQ.
Counsel for HAWAII PV COALITION
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2020
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for HAWAII PV COALITION
2
1
Electronic
Service
Party
WARREN S. BOLLMEIER II
PRESIDENT
HAWAII RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE
46-040 Konane Place 3816
Kaneohe, HI 96744
1
LESLIE COLE-BROOKS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HAWAII SOLAR ENERGY ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 37070
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
J. DOUGLAS ING
PAMELA J. LARSON
DAVID Y. NAKASHIMA
WATANABE ING LLP
First Hawaiian Center
999 Bishop Street, 23rd Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
1
Attorneys for HAWAII WATER SERVICE
COMPANY, INC.
CHRIS MENTZEL
CEO
HINA POWER CORP
P.O. Box 158
Kihei, HI 96753
1
ERNEST Y. W. LAU, P.E.
MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER
HONOLULU BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
630 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
AMY E. EJERCITO
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL
AFFAIRS
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION 1260
700 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
HENRY Q CURTIS
TREASURER
KA LEI MAILE ALII HAWAIIAN CIVIC CLUB
P.O. BOX 37313
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
3
Electronic
Service
Party
HENRY Q CURTIS
VICE PRESIDENT FOR CONSUMER ISSUES
LIFE OF THE LAND
P.O. BOX 37158
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
DOUGLAS S. CHIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAII
DEBORAH DAY EMERSON
BRYAN C. YEE
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Office of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for the OFFICE OF PLANNING, STATE OF
HAWAII
THOMAS L. TRAVIS
VICE-PRESIDENT
PUNA PONO ALLIANCE
RR 2 Box 3317
Pahoa, HI 96778
1
ERIK KVAM
PRESIDENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTION COALITION OF
HAWAII, INC.
1110 University Avenue, Suite 402
Honolulu, Hawaii 96826
1
ISAAC H. MORIWAKE
KYLIE W. WAGER
EARTHJUSTICE
850 Richards Street, Suite 400
Honolulu, HI 96813-4501
1
Attorneys for SIERRA CLUB
BRUCE NAKAMURA, ESQ.
JOSEPH A. STEWART, ESQ.
AARON R. MUN, ESQ.
KOBAYASHI, SUGITA & GODA
999 Bishop Street, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for SUNEDISON, INC.
4
1
Electronic
Service
Party
SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONG
ATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION
1050 Bishop Street, #514
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorney for SunPower Corporation and
Tawhiri Power LLC
JAMES M. CRIBLEY
MICHAEL R. MARSH
CASE LOMBARDI & PETTIT
Mauka Tower, Pacific Guardian Center
737 Bishop Street, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for ULUPONO INITIATIVE LLC
JAMES J. SCHUBERT
Associate Counsel
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (09C)
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 96860-3134
DON J. GELBER
JONATHAN B. GELBER
Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & N ervell
700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
1
Attorneys for AES HAWAll, INC.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 3, 2015.
Tyler Oya
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
Regulatory Affairs
5
September 3, 2015
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Hawai 'i Public Utilities Commission
465 South King Street
Kekuanao'a Building, First Floor
Honolulu, Hawai 'i 96813
DIS SEP - 3 P 3: l 2
PUBLIC UTILITiES
. COHMISSIOH
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: Docket No. 2015-0022- Application of Hawaiian Electric Companies and NextEra
Energy, Inc. for Approval of the Proposed Change of Control and Related Matters
Applicants' Responses to TASC Information Requests 51 to 55
Enclosed for filing are the responses of the Hawaiian Electric Companies 1 and NextEra Energy,
Inc. (together, "Applicants") to The Alliance for Solar Choice's ("TASC") fourth submission of
information requests ("IRs"), TASC-IR.s 51 to 55, submitted in this proceeding on August 19,
2015. Also enclosed is a certificate of service.
Further, the Applicants incorporate by reference all of the General Objections attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" to the Applicants' responses to the IRs submitted by TASC. For the purpose of
avoiding unnecessary duplication and repetition, each and every response submitted herewith is
subject to the General Objections set forth in Exhibit "A".
In accordance with Order No. 32739, filed on April1, 2015 in the subject docket, documents
provided electronically are being provided in Word format, Excel, or compatible spreadsheet
format to the extent possible, and otherwise in pdf format.
Very truly yours,
Dean K. Matsuura
Manager, Regulatory Rate Proceedings
Enclosures
1
The "Hawaiian Electric Companies" are Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Maui Electric Company, Limited and
Hawai'i Electric Light Company, Inc.
Hawaiian Electric
PO BOX 2750 I HONOLULU, HI 96840-0001
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-51
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 1 of 2
TASC-IR-51
Regarding the testimony of Alan Oshima at page 15, lines 21-23, and Applicants’
response to UL-IR-29, please provide an update to the parts of TASC IR-47 listed
below, which ask for information about the estimated $3.7 million cost estimate for
consultants:
a.
b.
c.
What amount of the estimated $3.7 million on consultants has been spent to
date?
Please provide a breakout of the consultants that have been used by Applicants
to date and the amount paid to each of those consultants to date.
Please provide a copy of all communications between Applicants and any
consultants regarding distributed energy resources or ratemaking.
From this point forward, please consider this a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response.
a.
Approximately $2.8 million of the estimated $3.7 million in transaction costs
related to consultants has been spent through July 31, 2015.
b.
Below is a breakout ($000’s), by consultant, of the $2.8 million spent to date as
referenced in subpart a. above:
Anthology
Bennet Group
Concentric
DTL
Ernst & Young US LLP
Integrity Graphics
Joele Frank
$2
$230
$513
$84
$149
$2
$1,135
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-51
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 2 of 2
Maui Economic Development
MAUI NATIVE HAWAIIAN CHAMBER FOUNDATION
NSTI
SKD Knickerbocker
Tulchin Research LLC
University of Hawaii
Total
c.
See the response to TASC-IR-47, subpart c.
$15
$8
$15
$565
$70
$20
$2,807
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-52
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: NextEra Energy
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-52
Regarding the testimony of Alan Oshima at page 15, lines 21-23, and Applicants’
response to UL-IR-29, please provide an update to TASC IR-48, which asks for the
following information about the estimated $0.6 million cost estimate for communications:
a.
b.
c.
d.
What amount of the estimated $0.6 million on communications has been spent to
date?
Which consultants have Applicants retained, or contracted with, in order to assist
with communications related to the Proposed Change of Control?
Which consultants were used to purchase media advertisements?
Please provide a breakout of the advertisements run to date and which of the
Applicants paid for which advertisement.
From this point forward, please consider this a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response.
a.
To date (through July 2015), NextEra Energy has spent approximately $1.77
million on communications.
b.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
c.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
d.
See the response to TASC-IR-48.
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-53
Please (a) identify all third parties, including but not limited to contractors, consultants
and experts, who have been retained by Applicants, or will be retained by Applicants, to
assist with, consult on, or otherwise provide assistance to Applicants with regard to the
proposed transaction, and (b) please provide a breakout of all such third parties that
have been used by Applicants to date and the amount paid to each of those third parties
to date. This is a continuing request.
Response:
Applicants object to the instruction regarding this information request being a
“continuing request” in that the instruction purports to expand Applicants’ obligations
beyond the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding. Subject to, and without
waiving this specific objection and the general objections provided with this set of
information requests, Applicants provide the following response. Please refer to
Attachment 1 of this response for a list of advisors, consultants, and other third parties
who have been retained to assist with, consult on, or otherwise provide assistance with
regard to the proposed transaction, and the amount paid and/or accrued for each party
as of July 31, 2015.
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
NextEra Energy
Transaction costs for advisors, consultants,
and other third parties as of July 31, 2015
Third Party
Alston & Bird
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing
Anthology Marketing Group
Ashford & Wriston, LLP
Bennet Group
Blackstone Holdings
Boies Schiller & Flexner
Boston Consulting Group
Building Industry Association
Citibank
Concentric Energy Advisors
D.F. King
Deloitte and Touche
DTL
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
Ernst & Young
Feldman Gale PA
Fitch, Inc.
Gordon M Arakaki
Integrity Graphics
Intralinks
Joele Frank
JP Morgan
Kaimana Hila
Maui Economic Development
Maui Native Hawaiian Chamber Foundation
Moody's Investor Service
Morihara Lau & Fong
MykroBel LLC
National Conference of State Legislature
NSTI
P Plus Corporation
Amount
($000's)
$75
$58
$2
$21
$230
$1,017
$68
$0
$0
$8,060
$513
$0
$105
$84
$4
$149
$0
$75
$24
$2
$4
$1,135
$0
$0
$15
$8
$175
$832
$8
$0
$15
$45
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Third Party
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Radey Thomas
Rod S. Aoki, Attorney-at-Law
Schlack Ito
Securities and Exchange Commission
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
SKD Knickerbocker
Slovin Ito
Squire Patton Boggs US LLP
Standard & Poors Financial Services LLC
Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher
StrataG Consulting, Inc.
Tulchin Research
University of Hawaii
Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz
Total
Amount
($000's)
$0
$49
$0
$223
$482
$109
$565
$76
$31
$250
$84
$22
$70
$20
$6,650
$21,354
Applicants' Response to TASC-IR-53
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Applicants
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
Hawaiian Electric Companies
Transaction costs for advisors, consultants,
and other third parties as of July 31, 2015
Third Party
Cades Schutte1
Damon L. Schmidt, Esq1
Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel1
Merrimack Energy Group Inc.1
Rod S. Aoki1
Total
1
Services retained by applicant Hawaiian Electric, but invoices paid by HEI.
Amount
($000's)
$58
$12
$405
$0
$0
$475
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-54
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 1 of 2
TASC-IR-54
Please provide both a map and a list of all the real property owned, leased, rented or
controlled by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and their parents, subsidiaries and
affiliates, in the State of Hawai‘i, including the location and acreage of each property. If
such data is unavailable, please provide a reasonable estimate of the acreage.
Response:
The Hawaiian Electric Companies (“Companies”) object to providing the documents
sought in this information request on the grounds that this information request is overlybroad and unduly burdensome, and well beyond the scope of this proceeding. The
purpose of this proceeding is to address the Application filed by the Hawaiian Electric
Companies and NextEra Energy in this Docket No. 2015-0022.1 As set forth in Order
No. 32695 at pages 13-18 (Standards of Review), the overall scope of this proceeding
is to determine whether NextEra Energy is fit, willing, and able to perform the service
currently offered by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and whether the proposed
acquisition is reasonable and in the public interest. The specific issues to be addressed
in this proceeding are set forth in Order No. 32739 at pages 8-10 (Statement of Issues).
The Companies further object to providing the documents sought in this
information request on the grounds that the documents sought contain critical
emergency response and infrastructure information that if disclosed, could increase risk
to the Companies’ facilities, jeopardize its emergency and disaster preparedness plans,
and/or adversely impact its ability to respond to potential terrorist threats.
See also the general objections in Exhibit A to this set of responses.
1
See Order No. 32738 issued on April 1, 2015 in this docket at page 8 (“The purpose of this proceeding
is to address the Application filed by the HECO Companies and NextEra.”).
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-54
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 2 of 2
Subject to and without waiving the specific objections and general objections to
this set of responses, the Companies provide the following response. The following is
an estimate of the acreage of all property owned, leased, rented or controlled by the
Hawaiian Electric Companies (excluding easements).
Hawaiian Electric Acreage:
685.2 acres
Maui Electric Acreage:
177.7 acres
Hawai‘i Electric Light Acreage:
167.2 acres
Total Estimated Acreage:
1,030.1 acres
Applicants’ Response to TASC-IR-55
DOCKET NO. 2015-0022
Respondent: Hawaiian Electric Companies
Page 1 of 1
TASC-IR-55
Please provide the total combined acreage of all of the real property owned, leased,
rented or controlled by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and their parents, subsidiaries
and affiliates, in the State of Hawai‘i. If such data is unavailable, please provide a
reasonable estimate of the total combined acreage.
Response:
See the response to TASC-IR-54.
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 5
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
For the purpose of avoiding unnecessary duplication and repetition, each and every
response to the foregoing Information Requests are subject to the objections set forth below.
1.
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Hawai i Electric Light Company, Inc., Maui
Electric Company, Limited, and NextEra Energy, Inc. (hereinafter collectively “Applicants”)
object to each and every definition and each and every instruction in the Information Request to
the extent the definitions and/or instructions purport to expand Applicants’ obligations beyond
the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding.
2.
Applicants object to the definition of the terms “you,” “your,” and “yourself” to
the extent that they invade the attorney-client or other privilege.
3.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it requests
information well beyond the purpose of this proceeding, which is intended to address the
Application filed by the Hawaiian Electric Companies and NextEra Energy.1 As set forth in
Order No. 32695 at pages 13-18 ("Standard of Review"), the overall scope of this proceeding is
to determine whether NextEra Energy is fit, willing, and able to perform the service currently
offered by the Hawaiian Electric Companies, and whether the proposed acquisition is reasonable
and in the public interest. The specific issues to be addressed in this proceeding are set forth in
Order No. 32739 at pages 8-10 ("Statement of Issues"). Further, in granting intervention in this
docket, the Commission stated that “participation will be limited to the issues as established by
the commission in this docket”2 and it will “preclude any attempts to broaden the issues or to
unduly delay the proceeding[.]”3 In addition, the Commission reminded all parties “that it is
imperative that their involvement in this docket reflect a high standard of quality, relevance, and
timeliness.”4
4.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, and/or to the extent
the request seeks information that reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal
1
See Order No. 32738, issued on April 1, 2015 in this docket, at 8 (“The purpose of this proceeding is to address
the Application filed by the HECO Companies and NextEra.”).
2
Order No. 32695, issued March 2, 2015 in this docket, at 62.
3
Id. at 63.
4
Id. at 62-63 (emphasis added).
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 5
theories of the Applicants and their attorneys, which is also protected from disclosure by the
attorney work product doctrine.
5.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents within the sole knowledge or possession of other Parties in this
proceeding.
6.
Applicants are large corporations with employees located in many different
locations. These documents are kept in numerous locations and frequently are moved from site
to site as employees change jobs or as the business is reorganized. Therefore, it is possible that
not every relevant document may have been consulted in developing Applicants' response.
Rather, these responses provide information that Applicants obtained after a reasonable and
diligent search conducted in connection with this Information Request. To the extent that the
Information Request proposes to require more, Applicants object on the grounds that compliance
would impose an undue burden or expense on Applicants.
7.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information or documents containing trade secrets, and proprietary commercial and/or financial
information, on the grounds that (a) the information or documents are subject to a NonDisclosure Agreement, (b) the disclosure of such proprietary commercial and financial
information on a public basis or to entities engaged in competing businesses could adversely
impact Applicants’ transactions with customers, adversely impact Applicants’ costs of doing
business, and result in higher costs to customers, and (c) the uncontrolled disclosure of
proprietary information would give providers of competitive services information useful in
making their own marketing decisions, without expending the time and money necessary to
gather and develop the data, and would allow providers of competitive services to profit or
otherwise derive benefits at the expense of Applicants and their customers.
8.
Applicants object to each Information Request seeking internal communications,
audit and/or management reports that reveal internal deliberations, analyses, appraisals and
recommendations regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of the organization’s system of
internal controls, risk management practices, corporate governance, and/or Applicants’ potential
rights, remedies and strategies (i.e., “self-critical assessments”) on public policy grounds.
Requiring that this information be subject to review by parties in a regulatory proceeding would
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 5
have a “chilling” effect on deliberative and self-analysis processes. Subjecting such sensitive
internal deliberations to review in a regulatory proceeding would inhibit robust and candid
internal dialogue and evaluation of this nature in the future, and the Applicants’ internal
communications and management process would be seriously hampered. Requests for
information revealing self-critical assessments should balance the need for the information
against the Applicants’ need to manage. By analogy, for example, the Federal Freedom of
Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Uniform Information Practices Act
(Modified), Chapter 92F of the Hawai i Revised Statutes, contain broad disclosure requirements
based on the public’s interest in open government. However, the broad policy in favor of
disclosure still allows for exceptions that are intended to permit the efficient and effective
functioning of government by protecting the internal deliberative process.5 The Applicants
object to disclosure of such information revealing self-critical assessments even under a
protective order, unless it is shown that the need for the information outweighs the harm (i.e., the
“chilling” effect on deliberative and self-analysis processes).
9.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
customer-specific information or documents on the grounds that (a) such information is
confidential and has been protected from disclosure by the Commission in other proceedings,
(b) in some cases, the customer-specific information is already subject to a protective order in
another docket, and (c) the disclosure of such information has not been consented to by the
customer.
10.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
confidential forecast information, which is maintained by Applicants as non-public, confidential
information. Public disclosure of forecast information from which income and earnings
information could be derived, may trigger requirements under the rules and guidelines of the
Securities and Exchange Commission and/or the New York Stock Exchange that information
that is meaningful to investors be released to all investors, if the information is disclosed beyond
a limited number of “insiders” (including persons required by agreement to maintain the
5
See generally Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. West Penn Power Company, 73 PA PUC 122 (July 20,
1990), West Law Slip Op. (“deliberative process privilege” recognized by the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission with respect to its own internal staff reports).
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 5
confidentiality of the information and to use it only for proper purposes). Forecast of earnings,
etc., are the types of information that, if selectively released, could violate such requirements.
11.
Applicants object to each Information Request seeking “all” communications,
correspondence, e-mails, documents and other information relating to a particular subject, unless
otherwise noted in the response, on the grounds that such requests generally are overly broad,
unduly burdensome, onerous, oppressive and vexatious. To the extent these requests could be
interpreted to include hard copy and electronic forms of communications (i.e., e-mails), the
number of e-mails relating to certain topics may be voluminous and very difficult and timeconsuming to locate, compile and review. To capture all e-mail relating to specific subjects, for
each person having any involvement whatsoever in the process, including persons who are no
longer employees, every e-mail generated or received directly or as a “cc” over the course of
years would have to be located, reviewed and evaluated. On this basis, attempting to locate,
review, evaluate, copy, scan and produce “all” documentation including communications,
correspondence, e-mails and other information would be unduly burdensome, onerous and
time-consuming. Moreover, the need to review each communication and document to exclude
those that are protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, or to
exclude or redact information that Applicants are precluded from disclosing by confidentiality
agreements or arrangements with vendors, bidders or other entities, makes such requests even
more burdensome, onerous and time-consuming. In addition, information produced pursuant to
such requests could include preliminary and/or outdated analyses, which have been superseded
by later analyses that are more relevant to the subject-matter of this proceeding.
12.
Applicants object to Information Requests asking Applicants to list documents
that are not produced on the grounds that (a) attempts to list the documents would be unduly
burdensome given the volume of documents, (b) adequate time has not been provided to survey,
much less list, all such documents, and (c) listing documents subject to the attorney-client
privilege and/or attorney work product privilege could result in the disclosure of privileged
information.
13.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it is vague,
ambiguous, overly broad, imprecise, or utilizes terms that are subject to multiple interpretations
but are not properly defined or explained for purposes of such information requests.
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 5
14.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it is unlimited in
time or not limited to the time frame relevant to this proceeding.
15.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this docket and is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
16.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
documents not within the present possession, custody, or control of Applicants, their agents,
employees, representatives, and attorneys, or purports to expand Applicants’ obligations beyond
the permissible scope of discovery in this proceeding.
17.
Applicants object to each Information Request to the extent that it seeks
documents or information easily available to the Requesting Party because it is already on file
with the Commission or otherwise part of the public record.
18.
Applicants object to each Information Request that seeks information regarding
Applicants’ confidential security measures designed and implemented to protect Applicants’
assets, particularly measures associated with critical information protection, cybersecurity and
physical security.
19.
Applicants object to each Information Request that asks Applicants to make
computations, compute ratios, reclassify, trend, calculate, or otherwise rework data contained in
its files or records.
20.
Applicants expressly reserve and do not waive any and all objections they may
have to the admissibility, authenticity or relevancy of the information provided in its responses.
21.
In the event any document or information within the scope of any privilege or
objection is disclosed, its disclosure is inadvertent and shall not constitute a waiver of the
privilege or objection.
22.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing general objections and without waiving
these objections, Applicants intend in good faith to respond to these Information Requests.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document, together with this Certificate of
Service, were duly served on the following parties, by having said copies delivered by electronic
service, as set forth below:
Party
Electronic
Service
DIVISION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACY
335 Merchant Street
Room 326
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
DEAN T. YAMAMOTO
CARLITO P. CALIBOSO
WIL K. YAMAMOTO
TYLER P. MCNISH
YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO
A Limited Liability Law Company
1099 Alakea Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for PANIOLO POWER COMPANY, LLC
and THE GAS COMPANY, LLC, dba HAWAII GAS
TIM LINDL
KEYES, FOX & WIEDMAN LLP
436 14th Street, Suite 1305
Oakland, CA 94612
1
Attorney for The Alliance for Solar Choice
RICHARD WALLSGROVE
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION
55 Merchant Street, 17th Floor
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
MOLLY A. STEBBINS
CORPORATION COUNSEL
WILLIAM V. BRILHANTE, JR.
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, HI 96720
1
Electronic
Service
Party
PATRICK K. WONG
CORPORATION COUNSEL
MICHAEL J. HOPPER
DEPUTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL
COUNTY OF MAUI
200 South High Street
Wailuku, Maui, HI 96793
1
DOUGLAS S. CHIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAII
DEBORAH DAY EMERSON
GREGG J. KINKLEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Department of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for the DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND TOURISM
ROBIN KAYE
FRIENDS OF LANAI
P.O. Box 631739
Lanai City, HI 96763
1
DAVID J. MINKIN
BRIAN T. HIRAI
PETER J. HAMASAKI
McCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MacKINNON LLP
Five Waterfront Plaza, 4th Floor
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for HAWAII ISLAND ENERGY
COOPERATIVE
and KAUAI ISLAND UTILITY COOPERATIVE
COLIN A. YOST, ESQ.
Counsel for HAWAII PV COALITION
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2020
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for HAWAII PV COALITION
2
1
Electronic
Service
Party
WARREN S. BOLLMEIER II
PRESIDENT
HAWAII RENEWABLE ENERGY ALLIANCE
46-040 Konane Place 3816
Kaneohe, HI 96744
1
LESLIE COLE-BROOKS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HAWAII SOLAR ENERGY ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 37070
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
J. DOUGLAS ING
PAMELA J. LARSON
DAVID Y. NAKASHIMA
WATANABE ING LLP
First Hawaiian Center
999 Bishop Street, 23rd Floor
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
1
Attorneys for HAWAII WATER SERVICE
COMPANY, INC.
CHRIS MENTZEL
CEO
HINA POWER CORP
P.O. Box 158
Kihei, HI 96753
1
ERNEST Y. W. LAU, P.E.
MANAGER AND CHIEF ENGINEER
HONOLULU BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
630 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
AMY E. EJERCITO
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL
AFFAIRS
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION 1260
700 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
HENRY Q CURTIS
TREASURER
KA LEI MAILE ALII HAWAIIAN CIVIC CLUB
P.O. BOX 37313
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
3
Electronic
Service
Party
HENRY Q CURTIS
VICE PRESIDENT FOR CONSUMER ISSUES
LIFE OF THE LAND
P.O. BOX 37158
Honolulu, HI 96837
1
DOUGLAS S. CHIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HAWAII
DEBORAH DAY EMERSON
BRYAN C. YEE
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Office of the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for the OFFICE OF PLANNING, STATE OF
HAWAII
THOMAS L. TRAVIS
VICE-PRESIDENT
PUNA PONO ALLIANCE
RR 2 Box 3317
Pahoa, HI 96778
1
ERIK KVAM
PRESIDENT
RENEWABLE ENERGY ACTION COALITION OF
HAWAII, INC.
1110 University Avenue, Suite 402
Honolulu, Hawaii 96826
1
ISAAC H. MORIWAKE
KYLIE W. WAGER
EARTHJUSTICE
850 Richards Street, Suite 400
Honolulu, HI 96813-4501
1
Attorneys for SIERRA CLUB
BRUCE NAKAMURA, ESQ.
JOSEPH A. STEWART, ESQ.
AARON R. MUN, ESQ.
KOBAYASHI, SUGITA & GODA
999 Bishop Street, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for SUNEDISON, INC.
4
1
Electronic
Service
Party
SANDRA-ANN Y.H. WONG
ATTORNEY AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION
1050 Bishop Street, #514
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorney for SunPower Corporation and
Tawhiri Power LLC
JAMES M. CRIBLEY
MICHAEL R. MARSH
CASE LOMBARDI & PETTIT
Mauka Tower, Pacific Guardian Center
737 Bishop Street, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
Attorneys for ULUPONO INITIATIVE LLC
JAMES J. SCHUBERT
Associate Counsel
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (09C)
Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI 96860-3134
DON J. GELBER
JONATHAN B. GELBER
Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & N ervell
700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100
Honolulu, HI 96813
1
1
Attorneys for AES HAWAll, INC.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 3, 2015.
Tyler Oya
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.
Regulatory Affairs
5
