PUC stakeholder meeting advances debate over wheeling definitions, credits and implementation

The Public Utilities Commission convened a second stakeholder meeting on its investigatory docket about electricity wheeling to solicit feedback on proposed definitions, implementation options and a work plan the Commission posted to its case and docket management system.

Abby Raub, an economist with the Commission, opened the session and told participants the Commission posted a proposed work plan on Jan. 31 and is accepting written comments through March 21. "The purpose of today's meeting is to invite feedback on the proposed work plan," Raub said.

Chair Leo Asuncion reported a related bill, Senate Bill 133, was amended in committee to extend the working group's report deadline to the end of 2026 and to expand the bill to include retail wheeling. "If we come up with a better definition here, that's what we go to the ledge with," Asuncion said, urging the group to align its work with the legislature's drafting.

Why it matters: the definition and design choices will shape whether government-owned or -supported renewable projects can use incumbent utilities' wires to deliver value to other public agencies, how those projects are credited or paid, and who bears interconnection and administrative costs. Stakeholders said choices could affect agency budgets, developer incentives and local communities.

Key points from discussion

- Definition scope and language: Multiple stakeholders said the draft statutory definition read from the bill appeared ambiguous and focused narrowly on state agencies, excluding counties and intra-agency transfers. Commissioner Colin Yost said the statutory language "isn't a very clear definition" and urged the working group to consider broader, clearer phrasing. Participants recommended using terms such as "entity" or "customer account" to clarify whether intra-agency transfers and county or federal entities are captured.

- "Benefit" versus directional language: PUC staff and utilities discussed whether to keep the phrase "for the benefit of" or use language that emphasizes a directional relationship (a generator intentionally directing value from point A to point B). Stakeholders noted electricity is fungible on the grid, so the work plan should avoid implying electrons are physically delivered while capturing the intentional assignment of value.

- Sale, provide or credit: Agencies that filed comments prefer crediting mechanisms rather than being characterized as sellers on the market. Commission counsel warned that labeling a party a "seller" could trigger public-utility classifications. The utilities and the Commission asked agencies to specify whether they want credits, direct sale, or other arrangements in their written submissions.

- Excess generation, caps and aggregation: Hawaiian Electric and other participants noted existing distributed energy resource (DER) programs typically cap credits relative to customer bills and use separate metering. The group discussed whether wheeling programs should cap credits at an agency's bill, enable annual reconciliation, or allow the utility to pay for excess exports. Hawaiian Electric said technical account identification is feasible but the administrative attribution of benefits across many accounts is the main challenge.

- Interconnection and project size: Utilities said technical interconnection will follow existing interconnection processes and that larger, utility-scale projects require standard interconnection studies and potential grid upgrades. Stakeholders debated whether to set minimum project-size thresholds and whether large projects should trigger community benefits or notification processes similar to RFP proceedings.

- Renewable energy zones and land availability: The Commission presented Hawaiian Electric's renewable energy zone map and asked agencies to indicate whether they hold or can offer land in those zones. Hawaiian Electric and developers emphasized the need for concrete land offers and RFIs/RFP responses to turn zone potential into viable projects.

What the Commission asked of stakeholders

The PUC requested written comments on the proposed work plan and draft definitions by March 21, and asked agencies to provide details on account structures or candidate land parcels to inform design and implementation. The Commission outlined the next stakeholder meetings: April (design and interconnection requirements), June 24 (costs and rate design), and Aug. 26 (final recommendations).

Closing: The meeting concluded with a reminder of the April 22 meeting date and further encouragement that agencies and developers submit concrete feedback to help the Commission refine definitions and potential compensation frameworks.