After months of legal pursuit, Mr Ed Wagner and company gain some foothold in reaffirming that the State of Hawaii has an obligation to reign in high electricity charges and not allow Hawaiian Electric Industries (HECO, HEI) to manipulate the State's clean energy agreement to secure for itself higher profit margins.
According a public letter sent by Mr. Wagner... "On Thursday, May 29, Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Karl Sakamoto ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
.( ratepayers ) during a 2 hour hearing about attorney John Carroll's class action Breach of Public Trust lawsuit against Hawaiian Electric, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie.
Contrary to the defendants request for a Motion To Dismiss the lawsuit for lack of merit or Motion For Summary Judgement, the Court accepted the amended lawsuit as a valid complaint.
The defendants argued that electricity is NOT a natural resource but a manufactured commodity. However, the judge ruled otherwise, stating that because electricity can be produced by using several natural, renewable resources such as solar, wind, and geothermal sources, electricity and its production are constitutionally protected.
In other words, the State of Hawaii IS in violation of our Public Trust Doctrine in the State Constitution because electricity IS natural, not a commodity created by HECO.
This ruling sets a precedent for our country in regard to electricity being a constitutionally protected natural resource under Article XI of Hawaii's State Constitution, Conservation, Control, and Development of Resources.
http://lrbhawaii.org/con/conart11.html
Judge Sakamoto further ruled that the 2008 Lingle-HECO Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative ( HCEI ) MOU agreement IS a contractual agreement, not merely a non-binding MOU as claimed by Hawaiian Electric and the State.
He stated that "decoupling" and the “filed rate doctrine” are beyond the scope of his normal involvement and the statute ( HRS 269-6 ) requires that exclusive jurisdiction be with the PUC.
He therefore ordered that the lawsuit be heard under the PUC's jurisdiction because it is both a regulatory body AND a quasi-judicial body."
