Hawaiian Electric Co. last week submitted a Power Supply Improvement Plan in response to repeated orders by the state Public Utilities Commission to develop a more sustainable business model.

It was a mandate the PUC repeated in April when it rejected the utility’s first attempt, the integrated resource plan submitted by HECOfor itself and its neighbor island siblings, the HawaiiElectric Light Co. and the Maui Electric Company.

At best, the current proposal, should be seen as another transitional plan, falling far short of the more transformational blueprint the commission had envisioned. HECO’s proposal would, at least in theory, allow for a broader adoption of renewable energy on its grid.

But it hasn’t fundamentally changed its legacy configuration as an energy producer, one with perhaps reduced production costs but with no new revenue sources to maintain its distribution function, other than revamped customer fees to begin in 2017.

HECO executives face a tall order: Explain to the PUC and the ratepayers how a new monthly base fee of $55 can be offset, even by reduced kilowatt-hour usage rates, to produce bills that will be significantly lower in the long term.

Further, although HECO President and CEO Dick Rosenblum asserts that investing in solar upgrades will still yield a savings for newly installed systems, the projected growth curve seems rosy. On top of the $55 base proposed for all ratepayers, new PV adopters would pay an additional monthly interconnection fee of $16.

And the utility should be pressed for a clear explanation of why, even now, so many prospective solar customers have been waiting so long for approval to bring their generated electricity to the grid, under the utility’s net-metering scheme.

If HECO really expects Hawaii to become a national leader in clean-energy adoption, it must be out in front innovating to overcome the technical barriers.

Already the list of parties filing to be official intervenors in the case is long, including various alternative-energy entities and advocacy groups. The reason is plain: The plan sets goals for 2030, but the pathway to achieve them seems more of an obstacle course.

Among the aims:

» Derive more than 65 percent of energy on the grid from renewable sources.

» On solar energy specifically, nearly triple the market penetration of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems.

» Decrease customer bills by 20 percent.

» Retire inefficient, costly oil-fired steam generators.

» Transition to greater usage of liquefied natural gas (LNG) at the generators, which burns cleaner and can be acquired more cheaply than the oil now in use.

Where LNG is concerned, it’s hard to argue with the logic of securing a cheaper energy source for that part of the energy portfolio that will be dedicated to fossil fuels anyway. HECO presents a rational timetable for shepherding the various stages of LNG import through their approvals — from container loads to an eventual large-scale infrastructure of storage, processing and delivery.

But the supply contracts have yet to be signed, so it remains to be seen what kind of savings could be passed on to the customers there.

Rosenblum, in a meeting last week with the Star-Advertiser editorial board and news staff, said non-solar customers had previously borne much of the costs of grid maintenance. Solar customers will be assessed with a fairer share of those costs, he added, now that the solar industry is mature and the subsidies instituted in its early years are no longer needed.

The artificially low rates for solar produced a "bubble" in which early adopters flooded the market, Rosenblum said, and the rest of the customer base shouldn’t be expected to carry them any longer.

He’s right that spreading the costs more fairly must be part of the solution, but so far there’s little sign of out-of-the-box thinking to blunt the impact on ratepayers.

Blue Planet Foundation, one of the most outspoken critics of the utility, expressed disappointment with the plan. The nonprofit, a clean-energy advocacy organization, was expecting a greater focus on business transformation in the proposal, said CEO Jeff Mikulina, and the finding of alternative revenue streams.

"For example, can the utility help customers get electric vehicles, lowering their commuting costs?" Mikulina asked. "Can the utility help renters and condo owners access clean power with community solar programs? By delivering services like these, the utility could engineer a win-win, because these same services will simultaneously improve the grid for everyone."

We agree with that sentiment. Judging by the plan, HECO is as risk-averse as ever, which is what we’ve come to expect of most corporations answering to shareholders rather than customers.

The PUC has its own imperative as it scrutinizes the plan: Tell this utility, with its public franchise and highly compensated executives, that this plan doesn’t go far enough in meeting its public responsibility.