Column: Green’s energy deal lacking on cost, safety and environment

By Wayne Chung Tanaka and Sherry Pollack, June 25, 2026 | Originally published by Honolulu Star- Advertiser

Gov. Josh Green does Hawaii no favors seeking the federal government’s assistance in financing his liquefied natural gas (LNG) agenda, or pushing no-bid contracts for LNG trader JERA.

We’ve seen how well no-bid contracts go — think the governor’s “kauhale” push, with millions in public funds unaccounted for. With JERA’s LNG proposal estimated to require billions in capital costs, what could go wrong?

After discussions with Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Green announced he “anticipates federal investments will go towards both natural gas and renewable infrastructure.” This would be laughable if ratepayers weren’t about to be locked into decades of debt, while cheap, clean local energy is pushed out of our reach. Federal “investments” in “renewable infrastructure” seems far-fetched when the Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to clean energy, gutting subsidies and tax credits while spending nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to pay energy companies to abandon projects.

And when a massive, federally financed LNG infrastructure project starts to encounter the same or worse cost increases, supply chain issues and mishaps like we’ve seen with rail or any number of major public works projects, Hawaii’s people will have to deal with the financial and political fallout.

“I have a bridge to sell you.”

There’s a story of a man who made his living repeatedly “selling” a bridge to gullible victims. The irony is not lost when LNG is promoted as a “bridge” fuel to transition us to renewable energy, promising cost savings and assuring us we’ll have “massive” amounts of solar and renewables in the process.

Yet the numbers just don’t add up, especially considering the recent LNG power plant proposed by JERA. It would supply half the energy needs for Oahu, energy that experts say won’t be needed if you factor in potential renewable energy development. This, along with the “take or pay” nature of typical LNG contracts means we would have to pay for fuel we may not even need, for years or decades at a time. We would also likely forego the cost savings of much cheaper local renewable energy, whose development would be displaced or delayed by LNG economics.

Moreover, LNG prices are notoriously volatile. Just ask the people of the Philippines about their surging electricity bills due to LNG shipping disruptions, after JERA sold their government on LNG using the same public relations playbook they are using here.

Notably, JERA just decided it can’t issue an earnings forecast for the next year — yet we are asked to rely on LNG market predictions for the next two decades.

LNG proponents have conveniently ignored the cost savings of solar. When investing in solar plus batteries, you’re investing in a reliable, fixed-cost project where the “fuel” — sunlight — is literally free. These systems already pay for themselves. The governor’s energy office failed to consider the potential cost savings of renewable energy such as solar and battery storage in its “analysis” — even as this technology continues to get cheaper and better year after year.

To be clear, financial costs are just one of the many problems with LNG that’s being ignored: air pollutants that can cause cancer, respiratory issues and heart disease; public safety risks from gas pipeline and facility explosions; climate-destroying methane pollution; and environmental impacts from heat and chemical discharges, among other serious issues. These human costs and impacts must be discussed.

Bottom line: LNG raises prices for families, harms public health, and devastates the climate and environment. Don’t buy this bridge to nowhere.

Wayne Chung Tanaka is executive director of Sierra Club of Hawai‘i; Sherry Pollack is co-founder of 350Hawaii, which works to end fossil-fuel pollution.