Lawmakers are not wrong that a policy blueprint could guide the state toward a green-energy future that is already set out in law. However, Senate Bill 2510 is not such a map and, in fact, gets out ahead of the actual data that could provide the guidance Hawaii needs.

The bill passed this session and awaits Gov. David Ige’s final decision, which should be a veto. Legislators should focus instead on enabling the study to help determine what balance to strike among “firm” power and various forms of renewable energy.

SB 2510 seeks to establish a state energy policy to achieve certain goals — including a dubious requirement that at least one-third of the state’s renewable energy be generated by firm renewable energy more reliably than the intermittent sunshine and wind.

These would include hydroelectric power, geothermal and biofuels, already in limited use, as well as H-POWER, the garbage-to-energy plant that incinerates Oahu’s refuse as a primary fuel. Each of these has its disadvantages, too, not the least of which is a carbon-emission level that Hawaii wants to avoid, with the effect of greenhouse gases already producing climate shifts.

The firm-power argument was also part of the case built in favor of the Hawaii island biomass project, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC, aka Honua Ola.

SB 2510 does not mention Hu Honua specifically. Whether or not the 33.33% firm-power benchmark was inserted to affect the final approval prospects for that project, it’s really a moot issue. The state Public Utilities Commission last week denied Hu Honua’s most recent effort to move ahead with a previously negotiated power-purchase agreement with Hawaiian Electric. At this point, the project’s fate rests as it should with the PUC, not the Legislature.

State Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz, chairman of the powerful Senate Ways and Means Committee and champion of SB 2510, defended the bill in a floor speech May 3, saying “it is a policy and planning document … it states goals.”

That is not how Hawaiian Electric executives see it, correctly pointing out that the bill states what would seem to be percentage mandates. In pursuit of Hawaii’s green-energy goals, the utility has been seeking renewable energy projects from wide-ranging sources; meanwhile, though, the Legislature was working to clamp down with what seems to be arbitrary limits on “firm” and other forms of renewable energy.

The bill frames its policy as requirements and uses the term “shall” throughout. It would limit any single type of renewable energy, except geothermal, to 45% of production per island.

Such words carry legal weight, and policymaking authorities such as the PUC have to interpret them conservatively.

Further, circumstances vary from island to island, and there does not appear to be the necessary flexibility in this legislation. On Kauai, the utility is already at 45% for solar, said David Bissell, KIUC president.

That all said, there is the recognized need to keep the islands’ isolated electric grids producing power in a stable way, so that business and ordinary life can proceed predictably. We are not yet at the point where the utilities — primarily Hawaiian Electric and Kauai Island Utility Cooperative — can keep variable power sources balanced and deliver the needed power load without fail.

The bill does call for a study from the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and an update to the state’s energy functional plan for the minimum percentage of firm renewable generation for each island, and appropriates $200,000 for each project.

That is the fact-finding that should have preceded SB 2510. Next year the Legislature should see that this step is taken first — rather than putting the cart before the horse.

Ige should send the bill back, with a rejection notice firmly attached.