Hawaii Attorney General seeks dismissal of residents' anti-public trust lawsuit against the State and Governor Neil S. Abercrombie. In a Response dated November 8, 2013, David M. Louie claimed residents had no merit to file suit over the State's Energy Agreement - on the ridiculous notion that said document, trumpeted as the leading and most ambitious energy plan in the United States, is both nonbinding and unenforceable.
.On September 25, 2013 lead Plaintiffs Edward Wagner, Alfredo Bowman, Maya Dolena, Allen Frenzel, Kenneth Love, and Daniel Lovejoy filed Complaint, stating Gov. Abercrombie and the State fooled residents into thinking they were getting cleaner energy and lower electric rates from developing more indigenous sources like solar, geothermal, and wind - all freely and abundantly available across the Hawaiian Islands. Rather, residents are soon realizing they were sold an empty promise as the State and its State-approved monopoly, Hawaiian Electric Industries run circles around the Public Utilities Commission with multimillion dollar unproven, harmful biodiesel test projects.
The battle heats up as Plaintiffs vow a major push forward bringing the force of other dissatisfied residents to join the class action lawsuit. As is also certain, the State will not go-it-alone, there is no option but to involve all parties to Energy Agreement including HEI to this fire pit - it will be no bonfire.
State of Hawaii Summary Response: November 8, 2013, signed by David M. Louie, Attorney General of Hawaii.
Defendants STATE of Hawaii and Neil S. Abercrombie, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii (Defendants), by and through their attorneys, the Department of the Attorney General State of Hawaii and hereby moves this honorable Court for an order dismissing Plaintiffs Edward Wagner, Alfredo Bowman, Maya Dolena, Allen Frenzel, Kenneth Love, and Daniel Lovejoy's Complaint filed September 25, 2013, as to all causes of action against Defendants, or in the alternative for summary judgment as to all causes of action in favor for Defendants and against Plaintiffs, based upon Plaintiff's failure to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted, and Plaintiffs' to join indispensable parties.
The state claims the Complaint must be dismissed for:
a. failure to state a claim for breach of public trust, as electricity is not a natural resource protected under the public trust;
b. failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as the Energy Agreement is an unenforceable and nonbinding memorandum of understanding, for which enforcement cannot be enjoined;
c. failure to state a claim for breach of public trust, as the Complaint fails to advance factual allegations supporting its conclusion assertions the Defendant State "enforced," "enacted" and "implemented" the Energy Agreement in breach of the public trust; and
d. failure to join indispensable parties, namely the remaining parties to the Energy Agreement, and all proper parties to an administrative proceeding for review of the Energy Agreement.
Download and Read the full Hawaii Attorney General order dismissing Plaintiffs
http://charleneongreen.org/docs/11082013_hawaii_response_energy_agreement_lawsuit.pdf
