Hawaiʻi stands at a pivotal energy crossroads. Gov. Josh Green has promoted liquefied natural gas as a key part of the state’s energy future, even signing a nonbinding agreement with JERA, Japan’s largest power producer. JERA recently proposed a $2 billion LNG power plant that would generate electricity on Oʻahu.

Supporters say LNG could lower electricity costs. But a closer look at the numbers suggests the opposite. LNG risks locking Hawaiʻi into higher costs for decades.

The governor has pointed to a study by the Hawaiʻi State Energy Office, which concludes that LNG could reduce energy costs and, in turn, lower electricity rates. On its face, that conclusion is appealing.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

Hawaiʻi’s high electricity prices, which are driven largely by imported oil, make any cheaper alternative worth considering.

But the details matter. And when those details are examined, the case for LNG begins to unravel.

At a recent briefing before the Hawaiʻi House Energy and Environmental Protection Committee, Matthias Fripp of Energy Innovation presented a sharp critique of the HSEO analysis. His conclusion is that the study significantly understates the true cost of LNG.

Most notably, Fripp found that the study omits a major expense — the cost of LNG fuel itself. It also leaves out several other costs that, while smaller individually, add up quickly. When these are included, total costs rise by an estimated $1.2 billion. That reverses the study’s conclusion. Instead of benefits exceeding costs, the costs of LNG would exceed benefits by $300 million.

Put simply, LNG would not lower electricity rates. It would likely increase them.

Not surprisingly, HSEO Director Mark Glick defended the study, saying its calculations are sound. But he did not address the specific discrepancies Fripp identified. Glick also expressed frustration that these concerns were not raised earlier.

In fact, they were. Fripp flagged the issue in an email to HSEO three weeks before the briefing, which HSEO staff acknowledged receiving. Yet HSEO did not follow up or clarify its methodology before the briefing.

That lack of transparency is troubling. The stakes are too high for unanswered questions.

Glick described the study as a “desktop analysis” meant to spark discussion. But it is already doing far more than that. The study is shaping policy and being used to justify moving forward with LNG.

LNG would be a major long-term commitment. In addition to power plants, it would require billions of dollars in infrastructure, including import terminals for LNG tankers, storage facilities, regasification systems, and pipelines. These are all long-lived investments, and their costs would ultimately appear in monthly electric bills.

Once built, this system creates a perverse incentive to keep using it, even as cleaner and cheaper alternatives become available. This is the classic “lock-in” problem: a multibillion-dollar commitment that makes it harder and more expensive to pivot later to clean affordable energy. It also exposes Hawaiʻi to the volatility of global fossil fuel markets since LNG is a fossil fuel.

All of this comes at a time when better options are already within reach. Hawaiʻi has some of the world’s best solar resources. Solar power, paired with battery storage, is now among the lowest-cost sources of electricity and is displacing oil-fired generation across the islands. Unlike LNG, solar does not require imported fuel or massive new infrastructure, and its costs continue to fall.

Fripp’s analysis makes clear that LNG is not a bridge to a cheaper future. Instead, it is a costly detour.
Hawaiʻi now faces a decision with long-term consequences. The state can invest in a system that is clean, local, and increasingly affordable. Or it can commit to another generation of imported fossil fuel, with higher long-term costs and greater financial risk.

Locking Hawaiʻi into LNG would be a mistake that residents would pay for — month after month in higher electricity bills — for decades.

Policymakers should pause and reassess. Hawaiʻi deserves an energy strategy grounded in transparency, sound economics, and long-term thinking. That means rejecting LNG and accelerating investment in solar, battery storage, and other renewable resources,

The path forward is clear. The only question is whether Hawaiʻi will take it — or pay the price for not doing so.