Source: http://hisuperferry.blogspot.com/2008/
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 00:54:50
Document Index: 385009562

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 4', 'art 2']

Hawaii Superferry unofficial blog: 2008
Revisions on 12/31/08 Begin with the 4th Paragraph Down:
This Part 4 will look at the timing and logistical problems and incompatibilities with the possibility of whether there could be a second 'large capacity ferry vessel' company that could get approval to operate under Act 2. Part 5 of this series will look at how 'need' was and was not estabilished by the PUC, commented on formally by Mina Morita, and how Act 2 subtly altered that PUC conditioned 'need' to at one point what Act 2 calls 'critical' need, regardless of the fact that there was never a formal study undertaken to determine if in fact these designs would satisify any 'need' at all.
For Part 4 the ideal document to be able to review and reference would be the Operating Agreement between DOT and HSF dated 9/7/05 and any amendments to that. If I were a State Supreme Court Justice, I would want to get a complete and thorough look at that document as it may shed light on any exclusive points of agreement that may exist that could logistically limit use of harbor facilities by any other 'large capacity ferry vessel' company, or any other points that the State might not be able to repeat for another company. Unfortunately that document is not available to the wider public to view, so I cannot draw from it.
Nevertheless, one can make some interesting conclusions, not widely known, from the official documents that are available to the public on this, and so I will make use of those listed in Part 1 of this series.
First, we should review some of the timeframe involved with Act 2. Act 2 was passed by the Legislature on 10/31/2007 and was enacted by the Governor on 11/02/2007. Act 2 (except for Section 16) will be repealed no later than the 45th day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, following adjournment sine die (early May) of the regular session of 2009, which would be about July 6th, 2009. That can be expected to be a total of a few days more than 20 months.
Assuming another company had a qualified 'large capacity ferry vessel' available to operate here by the end of those 20 months, that other 'large capacity ferry vessel' company would in that time period need to:
1) Attain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the PUC;
2) Negotiate an operating agreement with the DOT that would not be in conflict with the other ferry company's operating agreement;
3) Issue a PUC approved tariff and schedule that would not conflict with the other ferry company's schedule;
4) Rely upon the State and DOT Harbors Division to have the additional facilities/alterations in place at the necessary harbors ferry terminals/barges while not in conflict with the other ferry company's logistical demands;
5) Rely upon Legislative approval for any additional funding not approved nor authorized by Act 2 that would be necessary for ferry terminal/barge alterations to assist more than one 'large capacity ferry vessel' company;
6) Comply with DOT and Belt Collins requirements in preparing the Act 2 'EIS.' (Presumed to be 1 'EIS' for the two or more companies; although, this is not clarified in Act 2 and might require 2 or more Act 2 'EIS's done simultaneously.); and
7) Rely upon the OEQC accepting the Act 2 Final Draft 'EIS' by the early July 2009 deadline.
Regarding the above point 1) A CPCN from the PUC: How long might this take and should it be given before or after the EIS is accepted? As an example for the time that it might take, on July 22, 2004, HSF filed an application for a CPCN and through an expedited process received a 'conditioned' CPCN on Dec. 30, 2004, a minimum expected period of about 5 months. It is clear under Chapter 343 that the CPCN should not be issued until after the EIS is completely resolved. (See Letter from OTF Hawaii County Member Michael Matsukawa, from page 58 of the OTF November Report to the Legislature and Formal Complaint from Rep. Hermina Morita to the PUC.) But, under Act 2 presumably the 'EIS' would not need to be resolved before the CPCN is issued, although it is hard to understand why the PUC would issue the CPCN to a new company in light of recent events without knowing whether the Act 2 'EIS' would be accepted. Nevertheless, under Act 2 the question of when the CPCN would be needed for a second 'large capacity ferry vessel' company depends on when it's vessel/s would actually be here to operate or not.
Regarding the above point 2) Negotiate an operating agreement with the DOT that would not be in conflict with any other ferry company's operating agreement: How long might this take? As an example of the time that it might take, HSF appears to have begun negotiations in mid-2004 with DOT for use of harbor facilities. A Letter of Intent (LOI) from DOT was later agreed to on December 9, 2004, and the completed Harbors Operating Agreement was reached on September 7, 2005. That is a minimum of 10 months of negotiations with DOT, or 13 to 14 months from the beginning of the PUC/Consumer Advocate applications to the completed Harbors Operating Agreement with DOT. As to whether this could be done with a second or more 'large capacity ferry vessel' company and not be in conflict with the prior Harbors Operating Agreement of Sept. 7, 2005, would require reviewing completely the Harbors Operating Agreement of Sept. 7, 2005, something not available to the general public but which should be available to the Hawaii State Supreme Court Justices.
Regarding the above point 3) Issue a PUC approved tariff and schedule that would not conflict with the other ferry company's schedule: What is the example of the tariff and schedule from HSF and how long did it take to issue following PUC approval of a CPCN for HSF? HSF's initial tariff and schedule is here and was issued much later but prior to need on April 11, 2007, more than 27 months after PUC approval of it's CPCN. The significant point here is not the amount of time involved but instead it would be whether another company could propose a schedule that would be compatible with HSF's schedule using at different times much of the same relatively limited pier space.
Regarding the above point 4) Additional facilities/alterations in place at the necessary harbors ferry terminals/barges while not in conflict with the other ferry company's logistical demands: Refers to each harbor's limited ferry pier space and barge/ramp measurements in place. For ferry pier space at Honolulu Pier 19 & 20, Kahului Harbor Pier 2, Nawiliwili Pier 1, and Kawaihae Pier 1 et.al., the key question is whether the State DOT may have already exclusively agreed to lease to HSF those gated facilities completely, all of the time? This would be determined by the Harbors Operating Agreement of Sept. 7, 2005. Click here to see properly scaled graphical representations of each pier mentioned above, pp. 25-33.
Another key problem would be HSF's approved plan to base both Hull 615 and Hull 616 at Pier 19 & 20 in Honolulu along with the barge there and begin both of those vessels' daily routes from that point. The space at the State's Ferry Piers 19 & 20 would not allow more than 2 'large capacity ferry vessels' with the barge to be there overnight as a base. A solution might be that HSF base Hull 616 at Kawaihae Harbor overnight which could actually be the basis of a much more efficient routing system than HSF currently has planned. These would likely be changes from HSF's existing Operating Agreement that HSF might not agree to.
For barge/ramp measurements there are no other American made Austal 'large capacity ferry vessels' (beyond Hulls 615 & 616) available for this purpose, and the exact measurements for the barge/ramps would likely vary for any other 'large capacity ferry vessel' type. In fact, recently DOT stated that they were waiting on the exact measurements for Hull 616 before they could finalize the design of any barge/ramp for use at Kawaihae Harbor. If a different maker were likely used for another 'large capacity ferry vessel', at a minimum some sort of adjustable alterations might need to be made to the barge ramps in order to marry to the slightly different exit/entrance heights of the vessels (as between Austal vs. Incat). Adjustable alterations to the barge/ramps would need to be able to be done within the 20 month life of Act 2 and not interrupt the service of HSF. This kind of adjustable alteration to the existing barge/ramps might or might not be possible. The alternative is that these space-consuming barge/ramps may very well not be useful for any other 'large capacity ferry vessels' than HSF's.
For an enlightening look at internal DOT communications on the development of harbor facilities for HSF click here.
Regarding the above point 5) Legislative approval for any additional funding not approved nor authorized by Act 2 that would be necessary for ferry terminal/barge alterations to assist more than one 'large capacity ferry vessel' company: From the Final OTF Report of Dec. 29, 2008, "At the Nov. 6, 2008 OTF meeting, DOT-Harbors informed the OTF [and media] that the State had reached the limit of the State funding authority...[as approved by the Legislature]. As such, the State did not intend to fund further ferry specific harbor improvements in excess of the $40 million appropriated by the Legislature." For further explanation of how all of the $40 million+ has been spent, see the State Auditor's Report Part II pp. 18, 22, and 30. Therefore, there is no more funding reauthorized by Act 2 available for any additional harbor alterations to facilitate the use of harbor facilities by any more than the one intended 'large capacity ferry vessel' company.
Regarding the above point 6) DOT/Belt Collins preparation of the Act 2 'EIS': DOT/Belt Collins had stated the following schedule in their Scoping Meetings with the public...
...But those dates were recently pushed back to the Act 2 Draft 'EIS' being released sometime in January 2009 and the 45 day comment period beginning then. Under this new schedule DOT/Belt Collins are giving themselves less time for Final Draft preparation and even less leeway should OEQC require additional re-submission as potentially envisioned in Act 2 Part III Section 12.
Regarding the above point 7) OEQC accepting the Act 2 Final Draft 'EIS' by the early July 2009 deadline: Act 2 (except for Section 16) will be repealed no later than the 45th day, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, following adjournment sine die (early May) of the regular session of 2009, which would be about July 6th, 2009. That can be expected to be a total of a few days more than 20 months.
It is interesting to note that the DOT controlled OTF Committee just recommended to the Legislature in its Final Report (pp. 3 & 25), "Repeal the repeal date set forth in Act 2, Part 4, Section 18 (p. 25)." This would have the effect of creating a moving target for any other potential 'large capacity ferry vessel' companies and it may also be proposed to create a permanent exception to Chapter 343 for 'large capacity ferry vessels' not originally a part of Act 2 nor likely envisioned by Legislators previously voting for Act 2. Furthermore, this last proposal by the DOT/OTF could potentially be used to circumvent too narrow a State Supreme Court ruling on Act 2.
Am publishing this now, will make additions later,
Posted by Mauibrad at 8:44 AM 2 comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 11:54 PM 3 comments: Links to this post
This report will rely upon the content of Act 2 and the applicable citations from Act 2 as listed in The Act 2 Citations Creating a 'Closed Class of One'.
Due to references in Act 2, I have also undertaken to look at the PUC's Dec. 2004 CPCN, Hermina Morita's formal complaint to the PUC on that CPCN, HSF's Tariff, all of the OTF Committee reports, the RRA report and RRA Appendix with EO 07-10, and the State Auditor's Report I and II. I did not have access to the protected Operating Agreement of 9/7/05 between the State and HSF which I believe would provide uniquely useful information on the special privilege awarded here. Additionally, to put 'large capacity ferry vessel' in context of the whole ferry industry, I reference a few related documents, and I accessed a database of ferry vessels operating in the U.S. maintained by the U.S. DOT RITA BTS, and developed reports from that.
This report is not a legal document, but it is intended to provide insight where legal scholars may lack the time to research and/or ferry industry knowledge to place the relatively newly coined phrase/class 'large capacity ferry vessel' into proper context. In evaluating Act 2 for a 'closed class of one,' I will be looking at the type of vessel within the industry as limited by Act 2, timing limitations involved in Act 2, the special advantage of previous agreements between DOT and HSF that Act 2 re-legalized, and determining need for 'public convenience and necessity.'
Part 2 of this report to follow,
Although the more important point right now would be going over the list of citations (that is completed) from Act 2 that creates a "closed class of one," I feel I first have to point out a significant and telling mistake that has been made regarding the reporting requirements under Act 2 Section 4.
Following reading and re-reading Act 2 line-by-line, the Governor's enabling EO 07-10, and the PUC's decision on this of Dec. 30, 2004, I decided to review the last few OTF reports.
In the OTF meeting of October 9, 2008, showing up in the OTF Document Report of October 31, 2008, on pages 7-10, OTF Kauai Member Lynn McCrory brings up a number of questions based on the code of Act 2 and the Governor's EO. In posing one question to the Committee, Member McCrory read from Act 2 Section 4(c),
"The governor shall also review and determine the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols established pursuant to this section and report to the legislature at the end of each fiscal quarter of the State on the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols established pursuant to this section and the costs incurred by the State in establishing and maintaining the enforcement activities required under this section."
Quoting further from the OTF Report, "Member McCrory asked if the Governor prepares a quarterly report on the efficacy and appropriateness of the conditions and protocols, as well as costs incurred. Member Formby said he would check but he believed the [Rapid Risk Assessment] RRA and [OTF] legislative reports meet that specific requirement. Member Formby also noted that...DOT continues to compile additional cost data." The cumulative cost data that Member Formby referred to was presented a month later in the next OTF Report of November on page 45 of that document.
Ms. McCrory continued a line of questioning regarding the efficacy of the conditions and protocols in protecting natural resources which over the summer had become an issue on the outer islands.
To clarify, the OTF Reports are a seperate requirement under Act 2, Section 13. The OTF Reports DO NOT fulfill the requirements of Act 2, Section 4. Furthermore, regarding the 'Rapid Risk Assessment' as it was fashioned, it DID NOT fulfill all of the requirements of Act 2, Section 4 either.
Act 2 Section 4(c) calls on the Governor to, "review and determine the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols [EO] established pursuant to this section and report to the legislature at the end of each fiscal quarter of the State on the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols established pursuant to this section and the costs incurred."
Act 2 Section 4 is referring to the efficacy and appropriateness of the Governor's EO conditions and protocols, NOT merely whether the company and it's passengers were in compliance with the EO's limited conditions as they exist. Furthermore, the RRA was based only on limited observations in the first half of the year when ridership was not high and conditions were different from the next quarter, and the RRA was submitted as one document not as quarterly reports to the Legislature. Furthermore, the RRA did not include information on costs incurred to the state. But, most importantly, the RRA content dealt mostly with determining compliance with the Governor's EO, and not in evaluating the efficacy and appropriateness of the conditions and protocols themselves. Lastly, the point of Act 2 Section 4 was to enable the Governor to amend the EO and improve it throughout the year. There have been no official amendments by the Governor to EO 07-10.
How Belt Collins lost the intent of Act 2 Section 4(c) can be seen partly in the following quote from the RRA Appendix p.15:
"The purpose of the Rapid Risk Assessment (RRA) is to provide early and independent assessment of: 1) observed environmental risks associated with the Hawaii Superferry operation, if any, and 2) operational compliance with mitigation measures enumerated in section 4(a) of Act 2, Executive Order (EO) 07-10 and the Agreement between Hawaii Superferry, Inc. and the State of Hawaii..."
"The RRA shall commence on contract award. The RRA shall be completed within three (3) months of commencement of field investigations. At the end of the three (3) month period, a written report shall be delivered by the RRA contractor to the Governor, Director of DOT, Chairperson of DLNR, and Chairperson of DOA."
The quarterly reports were suppose to be from the Governor (or her designee) to the Legislature in addition to the monthly and annual reports from the OTF to the Legislature.
How badly Belt Collins missed the intent of Act 2 Section 4, especially by mostly focusing in the RRA on evaluating compliance with the EO rather than recommendations on improved EO conditions and protocols, has to make one wonder if their staff and consultants working on this have all actually read and understand all of Act 2 much less whether they have the capability and initiative of carrying it out fully and properly under the new 'EIS' by creating real solutions as with original and thorough mitigation measures.
Mahalo to Lynn McCrory for caring enough about natural resources to ask the right questions, even if she was not given the right answers,
Posted by Mauibrad at 1:46 AM No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 5:41 PM No comments: Links to this post
I am about half way through Act 2 listing the conditions that create a "closed class of one," but in the process I came across the following. Where are these quarterly reports?
"PART II SECTION 4. (c) The governor shall also review and determine the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols established pursuant to this section and report to the legislature at the end of each fiscal quarter of the State on the efficacy and appropriateness of all conditions or protocols established pursuant to this section and the costs incurred by the State in establishing and maintaining the enforcement activities required under this section."
There's more where this came from,
Posted by Mauibrad at 4:37 PM 2 comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 11:06 PM No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 2:06 PM No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 3:31 AM No comments: Links to this post
Posted by Mauibrad at 9:59 PM No comments: Links to this post
"Happy Holidays from Go!
We have extended our $39* fare sale!. In celebration of the holidays this year, Go! is offering special $39* and $48* one-way fares. Be sure to visit http://www.iflygo.com/ now because these great deals will go fast. Our exciting $39* fares are valid for travel through December 31, 2008 and must be purchased by 10 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, Thursday, December 18, 2008. Go! also today announced it is adding extra flights to its regular schedule during the holiday season due to high demand. Continuing our mission to bring you closer to your friends and families at the lowest possible cost, we have added the following extra flights during the holidays [see their website].
* Tickets must be purchased at http://www.iflygo.com/. Tickets are nontransferable and nonrefundable. Seats are limited and fares may not be available on all flights or in all markets...$39 special fares are valid for travel from December 15, 2008 through December 31, 2008 and must be purchased by 10:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, Thursday, December 18, 2008. Other restrictions may apply."
Posted by Mauibrad at 9:35 PM No comments: Links to this post
From www.inversecondemnation.com:
"Live Blog of HAWSCT Superferry Oral Arguments (Dec. 18, 2008)"
"On Thursday, December 18, 2008, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 'round 2' of the Hawaii Superferry case. Starting at about 8:45, this page will go live with updates.
Bookmark this page and return then, or sign up below to receive a reminder email. Your email will not be saved, and will not be used for any purpose other than to remind you.
The arguments are scheduled to last for one hour (1/2 hour per side), and although the Justices have the discretion to keep going past that time, they rarely do..."
Hope somebody can live blog the reading of the decision too,
Posted by Mauibrad at 1:06 PM No comments: Links to this post
Atty. Robert H. Thomas has a good recap today of the State Supreme Court case and hopes to be live blogging it on Thursday. Briefly from www.inversecondemnation.com:
"Hawaii Superferry Supreme Court Briefs"
"The case that would not go away, the 'Hawaii Superferry' litigation, is back in the Hawaii Supreme Court this week, with oral arguments scheduled for 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 18, 2008. I'll be attending the oral arguments, and technology and typing skills permitting, live blogging it.
'A prior review by this court in Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation of the State of Hawaiʻi (Sierra Club I), 115 Hawai`i 299, 167 P.3d 292 (2007) [for that opinion, and the briefs in that phase, go here]...'"
My understanding, Robert, is that they each have only 30 minutes to orally restate their cases and that the proceedings on Thursday will be short. Not sure it will be too conducive to live blogging. The decision may be as early as Thursday or Friday.
Posted by Mauibrad at 6:57 PM No comments: Links to this post