House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

On energy and environmental protection hearing to order. Today is Thursday, January 30, 2025. 9:00am we are in Conference Room 325 and also streaming via video conference.

Today we are going to rely on the protocol that was outlined at our last hearing and if there are questions or concerns that come up, then we will remind folks about, you know, the expectations. But we'd like to move straight into the bills that we have to hear this morning.

So we're going to begin with House Bill 974 relating to energy. This will allow the state to enter into step in agreements for payment obligations arising under certain power purchase agreements and establish the power purchasing cost trust fund.

Establish that revenues from online on bill charges for power purchase agreements and accompanying reserves shall be held in trust by the state and the independent power producer shall hold a beneficial interest in the revenue and Reserve to the extent of the amounts owed under the covered power purchase agreements.

Appoints, authorizes and empowers an electric utility to serve as a billing, collection, payment and managing agent of the Department of Budget and Finance in the service of performing step in agreements. The first on our agenda to testify is the Deputy. Oh is the AG and they are coming in from Zoom. Oh, in person. Sorry, My apologies.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Deputy Attorney General Randall Nishiyama for the Department of the Attorney General. We've submitted our written comments regarding this bill. Our principal concern is that we need to ensure that any obligations that the Department of Budget and Finance or the. State takes on does not create any liability or obligation to the state other.

Than the monies in the trust fund. Thank you very much. And we're available for questions that you may have.

Thank you. Next up, we have DCCA in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Michael Angelo. I'm the Executive Director at the Division of Consumer Advocacy. We stand on our testimony providing written comments on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And I, I did fail to introduce my colleagues. So my name is Representative Perruso. I serve as the Vice Chair of this Committee. To my right is the Chair of the Committee, Representative Nicole Lowen. And then we also have Representative Matthias Kusch. So thank you for being here.

Next up to testify, we have the PUC in support in person.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Max Markrich. I'm an economist at the PUC. I'm here on behalf of our Chair, Leo Sunshin. We stand in support of this bill and our written testimony and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify we have Nicole Bulgarino from Ameresco on zoom.

Yes. Can you hear me?

We can hear you, but we cannot see you.

Is that working?

Not quite. Maybe turn your camera on.

Yes, I have turned it on. I'm not sure. Yes, I apologize. I'm not sure why it's not.

Do you have a camera cover like a over your camera?

Oh, there we go. Perfect. All right. I just hit another button to clear it and reset it. Well, good morning Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and support of HB974. My name is Nicole Bulgarino. I'm the President of Federal Solutions and Utility Infrastructure at Ameresco.

Ameresco is a leading clean tech integrator and renewable energy asset developer, owner and operator. We have several projects online globally but have made a large commitment in Hawaii over the past 15 years. Most recently we completed the Kapono solar project which is a 42 megawatt, 168 megawatt hour photovoltaic and battery project in Eva.

As an independent power producer, this bill is important to us to support the increasing need for reliability in Hawaii. Enable enable us to do to provide the three critical renewable energy projects we currently have in the stage three with Hawaiian Electric.

Due to the Hawaiian Electric's current financial status, the ability to obtain financing is extremely challenging and ultimately could result in not being able to provide the needed renewable power to Hawaii. With the aging and pending retirement the utilities fossil fuel generators not enough energy poses a risk of blackouts like what we went experienced last year.

And new renewable generation can provide reliable and affordable energy to the residents. Because this is so important to the energy reliability in Hawaii, we would appreciate passing this bill to allow us to work with all the stakeholders to amend the bills and everyone's satisfaction.

So thank you again for the opportunity to provide the written testimony and hear this morning as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify we have Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima from Hawaiian Electric in person.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima. I'm Vice President of Resource procurement for Hawaiian Electric. And Hawaiian Electric is here to testify in strong support of HB974.

Many independent power producers have raised concerns with the utility's credit rating and that impacts on the developer's ability to obtain financing or to obtain financing at reasonable rates. This bill will help our customers by ensuring the development of new renewable energy projects but at reasonable costs.

The bill proposes a step in agreement to mitigate the risk to IPPs due to the company's current credit rating, ensuring that payments from the IPPs will be made will be made. But I want to be clear that it does not involve the use of any state funds whatsoever.

And our amendments that we propose to the bill in our written testimony provide further assurances that state funds will not be used, as well as assurances that the IPPs will be paid. We are proposing the establishment of a reserve account.

The reason for this is because without the use of any state funds or the full faith and credit of the state backing this, we need to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay the IPPs if there's any under recovery.

But I want to be clear that that reserve fund from inception is held in trust by the state. It can only be used by the utility to pay the IPPs. It it'll be held in a segregated account and if not used, it will be returned to customers with any accumulated interest.

Thank you in advance or thank you for allowing us to testify today and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. That was the last of our testifiers in person or on Zoom. We also had testimony with comments from Department of Budget and Finance and in support from Plus Power, Hawaii Clean Power alliance, the AES Corporation and Clearway Energy Group Members. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this matter?

Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Rep. Lowen. Chair Lowen.

I guess for Hiko first just the Attorney General.

Well, a couple concerns expressed, but also specifically the concern about establishing the reserve account equating to an additional source of revenue for an electric utility at the cost of the customers by having a separate surcharge added to bills to help pay for the reserve account on this and then testimony also from consumer advocates saying they think the amount being asked to be set aside might be greater than necessary.

How would you respond to those concerns?

Sure. So just to clarify, the amount it's 15% of one month of the covered power purchase agreement. So not all of our public power purchase agreements.

The bill only proposes to cover our stage three, which is our most recent procurement and then our next procurement, the first round of IGP RFP that equates to 15% equates to approximately $3.5 billion which would be recovered over 29 months for the stage three projects, which is about 8 to 16 cents per month for our customers.

If you compared that to some of the developers have told us that without a bill like this or solution to our credit rating, they expect to see their cost increase 20 to 30%. So that'd be a 20 to 30% per month increase for the entire life of the project.

So if you're comparing those costs for our customers, this is a really nominal cost versus if the bill's not there, you would see it a much greater cost to customers to account for the higher cost of financing. And then as I noted, it's only being used in the event of under recovery.

Customers are responsible to pay 100% of the cost of IPPs. It's a pass through the utilities. Make no money off of our IPP contracts. If the developers charge us $5, we charge our customers $5 and then we pay the developers that $5 if we ever under recover in a month.

The mechanisms that exist today allow for a true up on a quarterly basis. So even though we may have to front money for a month or two to pay the IPPs, we are made whole at that true up process.

And so it's not really adding cost in the long run to customers because they would eventually pay the true up cost to cover any under recovery. But the Reserve account provides protection to the IPPs.

It allows their financing parties to be comfortable with the fact that there will be money on any given month to ensure that they're paid. And again, I think this bill would be much better for our customers than the consequence of paying a higher rate.

Thank you. And then DCCA, would you concur with that? I guess that the, the cost to customers would be lower than the alternative of not establishing this and having their rates increase, that the cost be baked in?

I think it depends on, you know, we're relying on what the representations are. We don't know exactly what the magnitude of those. We don't have any sources of support. I would imagine there's some IPPs that can come in that aren't impacted by Hawaiian Electric's credit rating.

And it's concerning then to tie this to credit rating on a going forward basis. That's sort of the source of our concern.

Would you suggest a different mechanism to kind of ensure that this comes to an end when it's appropriate for it to come to an end?

And I guess a follow up question to that would be, does, do you think the bill has adequate language to ensure that any additional cost collected that didn't get dispersed to pay these contracts was returned to customers in full? I think without any, you know, takeout for administrative cost?

I think strengthening that language would be beneficial, yes.

Okay, maybe you can help US some amendments.

Okay. I think that's all I have at this time. Members, any questions? Sorry. That's okay. Go ahead.

Certainly.

Members, any additional questions? Representative okay. You sure?

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Moving on to our next measure, HB338 relating to renewable energy clarifies that adjustments linked to premium interest rates for high yield credit are just and reasonable. Authorize the Public Utilities Commission to include these incremental adjustments to the tax to the rate for electricity generated from non fossil fuels.

First to testify on our list is DCCA in person.

Good morning. Mike Angelo, Executive Director, DCCA Stand on our testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Next to testify, we have the Hawaii State Energy Office in support, in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Maria Tome, testifying on behalf of Mark Glick. We will stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Public Utilities Commission in support in person.

Hi. Good morning. Daniel Park for the Public Utilities Commission. We'll stand on our written testimony and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Rebecca Dehav Matsushima from Hawaiian Electric in opposition, in person.

Good morning. My name is Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima, Vice President of Resource Procurement for Hawaii Electric. We're testifying in opposition of HB338 unless amended. Well, we understand that the PUC already has discretion to determine what is adjusted and reasonable rate.

We're not sure that this additional provision is necessary, but if it is, it can imply a preference for projects that have higher are proposing higher rates due to the utility's current credit rating. We think the bill that we just heard was a much better solution which would hopefully help to avoid higher rates.

But if that bill does not pass, or even if it doesn't and a certain level of higher rates are needed, we do think that adding language that would require IVPs to show the commission through clear and convincing evidence that the reason they're asking for the higher rates is in fact due to our credit rating and a higher cost of financing should be mandated by the law. So that it's there and there's no question when it comes to hearing these projects before the commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have. Oh, that's all we have to testify in person or on Zoom. We have Hawaii Clean Power alliance in support and we also have an individual in support. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members have any questions? Chair Lowen.

First for DCCA, can you just, I guess, walk us through the. How this would happen? Because your testimony said this could unintentionally adversely impact the competitive procurement process for renewable resources on an ongoing basis, resulting in higher electricity rates for utility customers.

The cons. Yes, certainly. The concern is that if there's supposed to be a blind competitive bidding process, if folks know that they can come in at a higher rate and they can charge, they're allowed to get recovery on a premium interest rate with. They would have to provide some sort of support for that, I would imagine.

But what's to say that they're going to go out and get the best financing that they possibly can? That's the concern and that's what the competitive procurement process is intended to. One of the things that competitive procurement process is intended to achieve.

Got it. So basically removing incentives to seek out the best interest rate. And there was a suggested amendment from Hawaiian Electric that I guess it would stipulate that adjustments required to compensate for unavoidable increases in financing costs from the utilities credit status if proven by the producer by clear and convincing evidence.

So that would be page four, line 12 to 13. Sorry, I should have had that pulled up in advance. I don't know if you had a chance to review that.

Have not had a chance to review it, but I do see it. I think that would be helpful as one mitigating mechanism.

Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. Is anyone here from Hawaii Clean Power Alliance?

It doesn't look like it.

Okay then. All right, thanks, Chair.

Any other questions? Real quick.

This could be for DCCA or HELCO, HECO?

Who are you asking? DCCA.

Well, let me ask a question and can both rush the stand duet. It's just regarding this. Do independent power producers have the option once they secure a contract through the PUC and HECO to refinance their debt?

So would there be some motivation to get a, you know, have this offset for a premium interest rate and then 18 months down the line refi into a lower debt load and avoid scrutiny of a premium interest rate? You know, just basically the arbitrage between those two interest rates.

So I think DCCA, can you come up please?

They do have that ability.

I think that would be beneficial to put some sort of limitation on it or time limitation if there was to be an allowance for premium interest rate where we go back and review the reasonableness of the pricing and whether that rate is still reasonable from a repairs perspective considering the risk of the IPP.

And we'd also like to generate IPPs who have the strongest financial strength and they're the ones who are going to be have. They're the ones who are going to get the projects into the ground and they're the ones that are most likely to stick around.

Thanks HELCO or HECO. I'm sorry from Hawaii Island. I saw you about to go up.

I would just like to reiterate that developers can refinance their projects at any time that they want.

So if they choose to finance at a higher rate and then sometime down the line, unless the contract provides mechanisms to ensure that when they refinance you can lower the rate or the commission were to make them come back in, they could take advantage of that ability.

Okay, thank you so much.

Any other questions? Seeing none, we're going to move on to the next measure, HB337 relating to renewable energy.

This measure would require and appropriate monies for the Public Utilities Commission to establish standards requiring each electric utility company to remove from their rate base a commensurate amount of costs related to fossil fuel resources when adding new or converted renewable electric energy and renewable energy resources. First to testify we have DHHL in person in support.

Aloha Kayak Chair Lohan, Vice Chair Peruso, Members of the Committee, Relations Program Specialist. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify we have Hawaiian Electric in opposition in person.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is James Abraham. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric in opposition to House Bill 337. We believe this Bill fundamentally misunderstands how regulated public utilities recovery cover their costs, in particular for large capital costs such as bills looking at power generators.

And we do think that the Public Utilities Commission's testimony summarizes these issues pretty well. We do want to reassure the Committee that we are making progress on retiring these aging fossil fuel units. We have a publicly available integrated grid plan that was accepted by the PUC which, which lays out our long term plan for retiring these units.

And that plan models, you know, how we can retire these units without sacrificing reliability and stability of the grid. The PUC also has us file a fossil fuel retirement report to track our progress.

Most recently we retired the Honolulu 8 and 9 units in the end of 2023 and at the end of 2024 we retired y our units 3 and 4. Sort of emphasize that we are making progress.

However, it is imperative that as we seek to retire these fossil Fuel units, we don't do so in a way that jeopardizes the reliability and stability of the grid because these larger baseload units, they serve other functions other than providing energy.

They're known as ancillary services where they help, you know, regulate the voltage and balance the entire grid.

So simply because a, for instance, a solar plant provides a certain amount of energy on the grid, we can't just take off that same amount of energy from a fossil fuel unit because the fossil fuel unit also serves these important other functions to help balance the grid.

With that, I ask that the Committee please defer this measure and allow the Public Utilities Commission to continue its oversight in our fossil fuel retirements. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. That's the last person we have to testify in person or on zoom for this measure. We also had comments from the PUC and testimony from Hawaii Clean Power alliance in support, as well as from an individual in support. Are there any other.

Are there any folks, Would you like to provide testimony in the measure?

Aloha, Chair. Vice Chairman of the Committee, Maria Tome, Hawaii State Energy Office. The Chief Energy officer wanted to comment on this Bill that there is validity to reduce costs when offsetting load with renewables. It backs out fossil fuels. A large portion of that savings is from not paying for fuel that is not burned.

And also cautions that there needs to be consideration for energy Reserve capacity. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional testimony seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Okay. No question. Representative Kush.

I'll make it fast. Since I never finished my electrical engineering degree, I just had a quick question. What role do. Do traditional fossil fuel generators play in the grid with the. I think it's a 60 MHz that you have to evenly provide. Do they have any role in that or is that just through other means?

So I am not an electrical engineer, but these plants do provide these services so that if that voltage level is dipping, the it can ramp up a little bit to help even it out at that 60 Hz level, or if it goes a little too high, it helps balance the load as the load fluctuates throughout the day.

Yeah.

So they serve that role because they're base load, so they're running all the time, whereas maybe a solar plant is only running when there's sun available.

Okay, so the solar or wind can't provide that correction as easily, or is it just technically is there technology that provides that pretty stably for those resources as well?

So historically, it's been the baseload plants that have provided those services. We've seen, you know, the more recent design of the solar plants is to pair them with the battery storage. So there are some limited services balancing services that those could provide. But again, it's not on the level that we need to balance the entire system.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional questions? Moving on to the next measure, which is House Bill 879 relating to cesspool conversions. This would increase the maximum grant amount for the cesspool compliance pilot grant project from $20,000 to $30,000. And established positions within the Department of Health for the cesspool compliance pilot grant project and also appropriates funds.

The first to testify is the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in support, in person.

Aloha hou. Oriana Leao of DHHL. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. As outlined in our testimony, There are approximately 2,500 cesspools on Hawaiian Home Lands. And we understand the urgency to address these this issue with before 2050.

Every dollar that is afforded to our beneficiaries helps, especially because the more time that we have or take for this, the more inflation and cost that is accrued for our beneficiaries. So we sound an earth and testimony in support and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you so much. Next to testify we have Department of Health in support on zoom, in person. Sorry.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, John Nagato, Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony and support with amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify we have Public Access to Sunscreens Coalition in support on zoom.

Hi, my name is Lynn Miyahira representing the Public Access to Sunscreens Coalition. I stand on our written that we submitted and I'm sure my colleagues will. Also go into a lot of detail. About how we all agree that this is a serious problem, but we have to figure out how we're going to pay for it.

So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Ted Bolen from Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support in person.

Thank you. Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Perruso, Ted Bohlen for the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Happy cesspool day to all. This is cesspools are the biggest wastewater pollution problem in Hawaii. 83,000 cesspools need to be upgraded by 2050. They put 50 million gallons of wastewater directly into our groundwater every single day.

And so we got everybody I think acknowledges we have a big problem. As the last speaker Said we have to figure out how to pay for it. This Bill 879 is one of the ways in which we can get some help in paying for it, at least for some people.

Some low and moderate income people will be able to get grants in this bill up to $30,000. That's important to raise the amount because the costs in many places are high enough that you need to go beyond the 20,000 that were in Act 153 of 2022.

So I hope that you will pass this bill and provide some relief to some homeowners who need to upgrade. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Next to testify, we have Lindsay Garcia from Hawaii Realtors in support, in person. Seeing. No one. We're going to move on to the next testifier. Stuart Coleman. WAI, Wastewater Alternatives and Innovations in support, in person.

Good morning. Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Perruso, Committee Members, Stuart Coleman for WAI, Wastewater Alternatives and Innovations. Mahalo for the opportunity to share testimony today. I'll stand on my written testimony, but wanted to kind of elaborate on what Ted Bohlen was saying that this is important because average range of prices can be anywhere.

And we've done some conversions ourselves from, you know, low 20s up to 40,000 and more. So raising the amount of the grant is good.

One point that I might make is that if the purpose is for low and moderate income folks, making it a rebate is sometimes very challenging for them because they don't have the money up front.

And so maybe if it could be done in installments, finding out some way that, you know, to pay contractors and engineers for the early work and then making sure that the work is done before it's finally paid out. That would be my only recommendation. But I'm available for questions. And mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. That's the only. That's the last testifier in person or on zoom. We did have testimony from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party in support and additional testimony, all in support from four individuals. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members are there any questions? Chair Lowen.

For Department of Health, as far as the positions in this bill, there's another bill that also has position three positions in it and creates the new section. Would you. I don't know what the odds are of getting five positions. So would the positions outlined in the other bill, like which would. Which would be priorities.

I mean, presumably if we add new staff members, there would be someone available to put some time toward. Towards managing the grants.

I think the, if I had to choose, I'd choose the three positions. That's what you're asking. When I looked at both of the bills for this one, I think we put in because we're thinking about the grant program.

So because of the experience from the last grant program we spent specified an engineer and then we specified a fiscal person, an accountant. Because we do need help working with ASO to get the money out.

Presumably those positions would do more. Each would do a little additional work besides just this grant program.

And they do. I mean even how we did the last time without even any staff, the current staff has to. You're not just administering. So like when we do our SRF, you also have to PM, you have to project manage them. And it's because the projects are so small but numerous. It's a lot more like you said.

But then the other one for the section or the possible section they would do probably something similar. But I think you're asking a little bit more. So I think we would probably move towards the three position rather and then hopefully this can be okay.

All right, thank you. Members any other? Rep. Kusch.

Thank you. Yeah, please. No. Department of Health.

Yes, Department of Health. Yes please.

Wanted you to get your steps in. So looking at this, there's a cap of $5 million and the difference between 20 and 30,000 is 166, 167 versus 250 applications processed. Does your office based on the recipients, the grantees needs step up?

Like you know, one applicant might be available for a $10,000 grant or these flat based grants to help fulfill their total cost even if it doesn't meet the entire cost or how. Yeah, I couldn't tease that out of the bill here.

Yeah it's a little. So I think what you're saying is from the past we would, the applicant would be eligible for the full 20 and I would say like 99% of them need the full 20. It usually costs usually go over that.

But there are projects that we didn't pay out the full 20 because of just the eligibility of the receipts. We did a lot of like fiscal checking and making sure that they were licensed and, and all that kind of good stuff. So sometimes they just weren't able to give us just how they paid for things.

We weren't able to reimburse them legally so. But we don't. We just give them the full amount is I think what you're asking.

Okay, so this, this would basically result in 167 conversions versus 250.

Yeah, the math comes out, like, odd. And then we'd have. So even when we did the 250 for 20,000, we actually stopped around, I think 200 at first, because we wanted to see how those move.

And if some people drop off, then we had people on a wait list because we had way, way more people than we would ever give out. So we had to prioritize them by time and then make only the ones that are eligible move forward and then have someone reserve.

But I think even our comments were kind of asking, would the people that already got 20, would they also get an extra 10? You know, because I don't want them to start to wait because they think, oh, I acted fast, I only got 20, they got 30, I might as well wait.

Maybe they're going to up it to 40, you know, and I didn't know how to resolve those kind of thoughts, so.

Okay. And you don't have any. You don't look at it. The grantee, the grant. The grantor. No, the grantee is not looked at like whether they're at 100% Ama or 140 or whatever level they might be. I mean, we look at just the. Grant you give them, it's just a flat.

Yeah. As long as they're below the AMI that was specified. How below? We don't have a priority for that. No copy.

Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to HB379 relating to the environment requires newly installed or modified individual wastewater systems that are near the shoreline or. Or likely to pollute groundwater to include denitrification capacity. First to testify, we have DNR in support, in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. David Sakota for DLNR will stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Department of Health with comments on Zoom or in person. All the. All the. Zoom notification is. You're all going to be in person. Okay. Is there someone on Zoom?

Okay.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, John Nagato, Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony providing comments and here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Next to testify, we have Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support, in person.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Thank you again. One of the reasons that cesspool pollution is a problem in Hawaii is that it fertilizes algae. The nutrients that run off from the land fertilize algae that smothers corals. And so it's very important to get the nitrogen out of the waste.

And this bill works in that direction, particularly with wastewater systems that are close to the coast have the most impact. And so the Bill would provide that wastewater systems that are close to the coast within 200ft, I think it is, have denitrification technology, which is certified to meet the guidelines.

And this is technical of the National Sanitation Foundation and American national standards Institute standard 245. I say that for the people who are focused on the details of this, we need to have some protection for wastewater runoff from cesspools and other individual wastewater systems that affecting the reef.

This Bill would do that, and I urge you to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next we have Lindsey Garcia from Hawaii Realtors with comments. In person, not here. Next, we have Stuart Coleman from VI in support. In person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, Stuart Coleman from VI. I'll stand under my written testimony. I think building on what Ted said is we have now pretty much indisputable kind of research and science about how the nutrients from wastewater is killing the reefs. And it's coupled with.

So you have increasing nutrients and then decreasing herbivore fish that would be able to eat the algae that's smothering the reefs. And so it's a compounded problem. And I think one of the most important things about this is that as we move forward, we've already seen the damage and it is substantial.

And so places like Puako and Maalaia, Maui and countless other places, we've seen reductions from 80% coral reef cover on the ocean floor to 8% or less. And so it's dramatic. And so in coral restoration efforts on the Big island, they can't even work in those areas because there's not enough infrastructure to build on.

And that just to remind people that our coral reefs are basically our resilience against storms, floods, tsunamis and such. So stand on support for this Bill and if you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Nahilani Parsons from the Hawaii State Association of Counties in support on Zoom.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the. Committee, Nahilani Parsons, on behalf of the Hawaii State Association for Counties, we stand on our testimony and strong support of this measure. And available if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also had testimony in support from the office of County Clerk, Council Services Division and Coral Reef alliance in support and two additional individuals in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Department of Health, I guess just asking you. Our intention is to move the bill forward, but if DOH can take some time because I know your testimony indicated concerns about how the decision was made about the criteria and if you can review and let us know what kind of language you might prefer.

Sure. I tried to read the report that you sent over. Thank you. I'll. Although we understand what the report is saying and we understand the intent of the bill, we support the intent of it as well.

We wanted to make sure that those criteria, because they're very specific and they're very large span of area, because again, we're also in support of aerobic treatment units and aerobic treatment units that have 24550% nitrogen removal, but they are more expensive. So we have to balance that with.

They're used appropriately at the appropriate locations and, and we're not over using it where it's not necessary.

I mean I guess with it being so specific there could also be a situation where you might want to require this and would be unable to because it's very specific. So I don't know if you would prefer kind of more open ended language but that might leave some people concerned that it would be applied too broadly. So.

Right. Yeah, I, I think we'd run into more instances because I mean we do, we do require a lot of them.

Like currently, you know, our 50 foot, we do require 245 when it's a 50 foot setback for many us, you know, water body and then when it's in groundwater we also on top of that require UV disinfection. So that's already something that people are already commenting back to us they don't like.

But you know, to protect our waters we do that. So yeah, we just want to make sure that we're.

So you're already requiring this kind of extra filtration for certain ones?

Yes, correct. We already require 245. NSF 245.

I think there was past discussions where you know, Department of Health had indicated to us they weren't, they would want something in statute to make sure they felt comfortable exercising their authority to do that. But it sounds like that's resolved.

So we do it through a variance process because people don't meet the setback requirements. So that's when we require them to use the ATU aerobic treatment unit with NSF 245. But we are and we've talked about this with other bills that we're already pushing to do rule amendments, revisions.

So that's something that we already understand that we have to be more clear and instead of going through a variance process we want to just put it in the, the rule like you guys are kind of requesting. We just, we're going to stick with the current distances from the shoreline but we didn't have any elevation distances.

The only elevation distance we have is when they can't maintain 3 foot from the bottom of the disposal system to the groundwater.

So your rules would say 50ft. Is that what you have proposed or you're still working on it?

We're still working but we're probably going to go with 50 because that's the setback already in, in Chapter 62 that has always been there. So when they're within that 50 foot setback that's when we require a 245 aerobic treatment unit.

So that additional 150ft or whatever, I mean, I just, I guess that would be a question for, you know, someone who's kind of done the science on it.

Yeah, that's what we're looking for. I mean, we don't have the research arm to look into that. So we want to know is that extra 400% distance wise, is that worth requiring people to pay more for the extra unit?

So that's all we're concerned with because we're the ones that are going to have to kind of show the people that the Data shows at 200ft or less. You need to have this. And then the other thing is the elevation thing is quite broad. 1500 above sea level is a lot of people. So we didn't.

And I think it said or so, you know, you might, I think it.

Was that elevation and had those soil characteristics.

Okay.

So it was both together. But I think in your testimony you were kind of indicating you wouldn't be able to know whether the soil characteristics.

Well, the, the elevations we could. But then the, the other part, the other component about the 5000 year old substrate, that's another thing that. I'm not a geotech or geophysicist. I wouldn't understand that. Yeah.

So I want to keep working on it. So think about, I think what would be appropriate.

Okay, we'll do.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Rep. Kusch.

So representing Hilo and considering lower Puna, there's only a few communities that would be above this 1500 foot level.

And not being a geotech but knowing somewhat about the substrate, this, the 5,000 year old criteria would impact larger most of Hilo and a lot of lower, if not all of lower Puna, what's your cost estimate that the denitrification process costs? I mean, what would that, how much does that bump up on a system?

I haven't been in the private side for about 67 years. I don't want to throw. I heard the numbers are getting kind of high. So I, I don't know what the, the, the difference between just an ATU with NSF 40, which is aerobic Treatment3030 milligrams per liter or going to 245.

There is a difference because it is a completely different process to denitrify, but I, I don't want to.

And that's an aerobic process which requires a power element.

Correct? Correct. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Thanks.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, HB798 relating to wastewater Management clarifies the exemptions to the prohibition on discharging any wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after December 312026 including an exemption for treatment plants having a treatment capacity of less than 10 million gallons per day.

First to testify, we have Department of Health with comments in person.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair and community Members. My name is Darrell Lum. I'm with the Department of Health. The Department stands on our written testimony with comments and offered amendments, and I'll be available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have testimony from Mayor Bisson, Coral Reef Alliance, Hawaii Viola, and an individual. I apologize. So the mayor, Hawaii Viola and the individual are in support, and the Coral Reef alliance is in opposition. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify in this measure, seeing the Members of any questions?

Chair Lohan, sorry, Department of Health again. zero, hi. The energy provision in there, if you can just clarify, I mean, is that basically like, what was the origin of that? It's just kind of a very arbitrary provision.

Yes. I'm not really sure how this all came about. What we had in the testimony is that we don't really, because we don't regulate clean energy. We don't support or oppose it. It's just that we thought that term clean energy is not defined anywhere or we couldn't find any definition.

So we thought that having something that maybe would clarify what would satisfy that condition would be a good idea. So, for example, if a sewage treatment plant utilizes photovoltaic panels, and if that is adequate, then maybe something like that in the statutes would be good.

So is it basically like if you're making clean power at the site of your wastewater treatment plant, it's then more okay to pollute?

I think the way the, the way the, the current statute is written, it says that you would have to utilize sewage to produce clean energy. So when talking to others about this, it sounds like you would probably have to either take the biosolids, the sludge. Sure.

But I think what the amended version that we're considering is asking, zero, to just produce, say, they can just make clean energy of any kind and then count that against their wastewater discharge. Is that. Am I reading it correctly?

So I think in the Bill, it says that the wastewater discharges are prohibited except if you produce clean energy. And in your compliance with these, with the statutes, I don't know the rationale or the justification for amending it.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Members. Any additional questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HB378 Sorry, my apologies. 376 relating to cesspools. Accelerates the dates for the required upgrades, conversions or connections of priority level one and priority level two cesspools to 2035 and 2040 respectively. Appropriates funds to implement the cesspool compliance Pilot Grant program.

Reestablishes a cesspool upgrade, conversion or connection tax credit. First to testify, we have the AG's office with comments on Zoom. Actually in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Joanna Ye. I'm from the Department of the Attorney General. We submitted testimony noting that there's a single subject issue with this Bill and also provided some recommendations on how to address this issue. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support, in person.

Good morning, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority. We stand on our written testimony in support. Thanks. Thank you.

Next to testify, we have DHHL in support in person.

Aloha, Mai Orianna Leal with DHHL. The Department stands on its recent testimony and support. As I mentioned, we have 2,500 cesspools on Hawaiian homelands and majority of which are priority 1 and 2. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Department of Health with comments on Zoom or in person.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, John Nagato, Department of Health Department, stands on its written testimony providing comments available questions. Thank you.

Next to testify, we have Council Member Heather Kimball from Hawaii island in support. Ted Bolin, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, in support, in person.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Boland for Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, the Department of Health. Excuse me. Under the statute, there are 83,000 cesspools that are supposed to be upgraded by 2050. We need to get going. You can't wait till 2049 and then do them all.

So this Bill is a reasonable accommodation where it moves up the priority one and priority two cesspools, which are the ones that have the most impact on the environment, to 2035 and 2040. That's less, that's more time granted than was in the recommendation of the Cesspool Conversion Working Group.

And the number one recommendation of the Conversion Working Group was to accelerate the deadlines because we need to get going. As I said, that was 20302035. This is 2035 and 2040 for priority 1 and 2.

So as I say, I think this is a reasonable way to get started working on the cesspools that have the greatest impact the Bill contains an appropriation for the cesspool grant program and also as a tax credit. But let's get going on the upgrade of cesspools priority 1 and 2. This is a reasonable way to go.

I urge the Committee to pass the Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We also have Hawaii Realtors with comments in person, not in attendance. Nahilani Parsons from Hawaii State Association of Counties in support on zoom.

Yeah, thank you. Aloha Chair and Vice Chair and Members. Of the Committee, Nahlani Parsons, on behalf. Of Hawaii State Association and counties in strong support of this measure. And we appreciate the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition's testimony available. If you have any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on zoom. Not present. And finally, we have Stuart Coleman from VI in support in person.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Member Stuart Coleman from vi. I will stand on my written testimony, but just add again the importance.

We've had scientists tell us that in certain areas of Hawaii, if we wait till 2050, that will be too long for the reefs is that with this amount of nutrients, increased development, decreasing over fish population, that the reefs might not be able to withstand that much kind of pressure from the overgrowth of the algae. So thank you.

We have testimony in support from the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and also from Hawaii Waiola, along with testimony from an. In support from an individual.

Is there anyone else who'd like to testify in this measure? Hi, my name is Lynn Miyahira.

If we could just pause for a second. There's someone who's going to the podium and then we'll come to you.

Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We did file comments on this, as. Are you folks in receipt of that? Yes. Okay, I'll stand on the written comments. Nothing further.

Thank you.

And then on Zoom. Hi, my name is Lynn Miyahira from the Public Access to Sunscreen. Sorry, I forgot to submit my written testimony in support of this, but wanted to voice our support for this Bill as well.

And if you could also submit written testimony so that we have you in the written record, that would be helpful. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify in this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any question? Okay, moving on to the next measure.

House Bill 734 relating to wastewater systems requires the Department of Health, in consultation with various agencies and professionals, to review rules and practices and propose changes that have the potential to make wastewater systems and accessible upgrades more affordable without compromising water quality. Appropriates funds.

First to testify, we have the Department of Health in support on Zoom or in person.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair of Members of the Committee, John Nagato, Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have DHHL in support in person.

Aloha. Oriana Leo of dhhl. The Department stands on its written testimony in support of this measure. We currently work in collaboration with the Department of and Other Necessary agencies, and we intend to continue to do that. Mahalo. Thank you.

Next to testify, we have, uh, in support in person from, uh, Sea Grant not present. We also have Lynn Miyahira, Public Access to Sunscreens Coalition, in support on Zoom. Yes, we stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you so much. Next we have Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, in support, in person.

Thank you. Chair. Vice Chair Ted Bolland, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Again, this is 734 we're dealing with.

This is 734.

Thank you. I get a little confused with this many bills. Thank you. This one deals with the rules and practices of the Department of Health. We are this year in our package of bills looking for ways to make cesspool upgrades more affordable. Because, as I said before, it's very expensive.

Homeowners need assistance, and one of the ways they could get assistance is if the rules of the Department and practices were amended. They were last proposed 10 years ago. I know this because I worked on them and it's been a while, so they need some upgrades.

There's things that have been done in other jurisdictions that might make it less expensive to upgrade your cesspool. We should look at that. The Department should look at that and its rulemaking and decide ways in which it could save people money. So this is all about affordability. I urge you to pass the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Erica Perez, Coral Reef alliance, in support on Zoom. Thank you. Next, we have Stuart Coleman from vi. In support, in person.

Good morning, chairs, Committee Members. Stuart Coleman from vye. Stand on my written testimony. But to echo what Ted Bolan said, all of our bills that we've part of our package are really aimed at reducing costs because they are some of the highest in the country.

And there are practical ways that we can do this, and we feel this Bill would be really instrumental in doing that.

Thank you.

That's the last of our testifiers. In person or on Zoom. We also had testimony and support from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, Hawaii Ola, and the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. In addition, we had four individuals providing testimony in support. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this measure? Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions? Excellent. We're moving on to the next bill. The next measure is HB 736. Sorry, I'm also so many cesspool bills relating to wastewater systems. Establishes and appropriates funds for a three year new wastewater system and individual wastewater system technology testing pilot program within the University of Hawaii Water Resources Research Center.

Requires interim and final reports to the Legislature. First to testify, we have Climate Change Mitigation and Adoption Commission in support on zoom. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Leah Laramie, with the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. We stand on our written testimony and support. Mahalo. Thank you so much.

Next to testify, we have the Department of Health in support on Zoom or in person.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, John Nagato, Department of Health. The Department stands on its written testimony support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have DHHL in support in person.

Aloha. No, Oriana Lel. The Department stands on its written testimony and support. As noted, we know that there is no one size fits all and every ahua, and we remain open to alternative technologies that may be available for our beneficiaries. I'm available for questions. Mahalo. Thank you.

Next we have, uh, Water Resources Research center in support, in person, not present. Moving on, we have Lynn Miyahira, Public Access to Sunscreens Coalition in support on zoom.

Zero, thank you, Chair. We stand on our written support for this Bill and echo the concerns or the wanting to have multiple ways for people to address their cesspools in different parts of the state. And maybe there's new technologies out there that could help them. So mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next we have Ted Bolen, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support, in person.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. This is one of our highest priorities this year. One of the ways that we, I referenced affordability in the previous Bill. One of the ways in which we think we can save money for people is by looking at new technologies for wastewater.

And there is a testing program. There has been a testing program at UH to evaluate different technologies to help the Department of Health certify the new ones. Um, and the, the testing pilot program at uh, Water Resources Research center has not been in, in play for the last few years.

We want to revive it and with help from, uh, studying these different technologies that will help DoH certify what people can use. That will help people save costs. So this is important. It's not very expensive. It's a little bit of money for uh. But I think it will save money for cesspool owners many times over.

I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Stuart Coleman VI and support in person.

Good morning chairs. I will add that just a little background info. Roger Babcock used to head this program up and it was very kind of successful and practical. When he went to become Director of Envelope, it stopped operating. And so we have been working with WRRC and they have the staff now and the interest and the time.

And the great thing about this program is that it will be self sustaining because we it's a to do National Sanitation Foundation standards. It's very expensive. And so what this does is they use the exact same protocol of testing and it's at a much reduced price and use graduate students to do the work.

And then it supplies DoH with the information they need that's researched for a fraction of that price. And we've already got a plant where we can do the testing that's been set up. So it's a good program that will help introduce these new technologies and give us the science and research we need to back them up.

Thank you. In addition, we have testimony from Coral Reef alliance in support and the Nature Conservancy in support, along with the testimony of five individuals in support on this measure. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this particular measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Chair Lohan for either Ted or Stuart. Just because this Bill has a blank appropriation and I think you mentioned it wouldn't cost much. So do you recall what was the amount from prior years? Because I thought it was. Because. So we can note that in the Committee report because we've seen this Bill multiple times.

Right. I'm sorry, The Wastewater Technology Center. The Wastewater Resources center wasn't here. Yeah, I would have asked. Yeah, they would be the better people. It's under $1.0 million. I don't remember the amount. Stuart, do you know more?

Because I thought it was 4 million in last year's Bill.

Yeah, that was a different Bill. And so what we decided that was a complete pilot project testing new things. We kind of realized this would be much more efficient because it's reviving a program that was already in existence.

And so basically they need a coordinator at WRRC to head it up because Roger Babcock's gone There's not someone that can really work with DOH and everybody to coordinate a new coordinate.

Do you know the dollar amount?

It would be definitely under a million. And so if we're looking at a three year program, we were thinking at least maybe 12 to two positions, someone to coordinate it and then someone to head up the research working with the graduate students. So it'll definitely be under $1.0 million per year.

But we can work with WRC to give, you know, more exact budget.

That would be helpful. And then I would include that in testimony when it goes to its next Committee the dollar amount because finance Committee will want to see those and it will help the Bill if it's, if it's fleshed out. Thank you.

Yeah. Holla. Any additional questions?

Actually I have a quick question question. Rep. Kush to Ted. Thank you. Or actually both of you. Has anybody ever done any research, especially with regards to ocean herbivores like keystone species, uhu, kolae like this. We're spending all this money on the land to address because our keystone herbivores have been overfished and can't like protect the reef.

So now we're making, trying to nullify our wastewater on the land. Has anybody ever looked at like if we had maybe more stricter fishing requirements, I mean rules around herbivore species. Has anybody ever looked at that?

Is it possible to take this conversation offline? Because I'm not sure how relevant it is to the Bill and do have like half of our agenda still with this.

I'll just say that they, they are bills. There are bills for making sure those are herbivore reef fish populations and I can try to get those to you. We'll take it offline. Thank you. And Dr.

Mark Pickson has done a lot of research on it. Perfect.

Thank you. Okay, so moving on to House Bill 735 relating to wastewater allows an individual wastewater system to serve up to five bedrooms regardless of the number of dwelling units or accessory UN, whether attached or detached permits until June 302030.

Certain new buildings constructed within a priority level 3 area as designated by the Hawaii Cesspool Prioritization Tool that contain up to five bedrooms to be served by an existing cesspool. First to testify we have the Department of Health with comments.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members John Nagata, Department of Health Department stands on its written testimony with comments.

Thank you. Thank you. Next to testify we have Joel Guy from the Hanalei Initiative on Zoom.

Hi. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to Testify. I actually planned to come over this morning, but we had a. The storm kept me in Hanalei today, which is interesting. I appreciate your office allowing me to kind of get into the zoom quickly. Like I said, I meant to be there in person.

What really excited us most about this bill was that we're building a rental affordable workforce housing project in Hanalei. That's for teachers and lifeguards, which are kind of our first responders. We're really vulnerable out here.

And so it's interesting that I was trying to go to testify and the storm kept me in Hanalei today and to testify in a Bill that would hopefully allow us to provide more of these units. We've got a really unique situation. We have this beautiful lot in downtown Hanalei and we can do it.

Has room for three septic systems. And I don't want to get in the weeds on it because I know time is. You got a lot going on here. But thank you so much for letting me just share quickly what we're trying to do. And we have. We can do three septic systems on the property.

We don't have sewer out here. And so you could do two buildings for each septic system, which would allow six units, but we have density. We could do 13 units on the property. And so, you know, those 35 bedroom septic systems get you to 15 bedrooms.

So if, I guess the problem is if we did it in the current situation, we'd have to add another septic system for every time over the two buildings. And there's just no room on the property. But there's density there and there's a need there. We've got no houses.

You know, I'm sure most of you've been to Hanalei, but there's not a lot of workforce living in Hanalei anymore, if any. And so to be able to provide that for our lifeguards and teachers is just an incredibly special opportunity. And we'll do it either way.

But we're really optimistic that we would have an opportunity to kind of, you know, create this model where we can do something a little outside of just that normal 2 perceptic because the capacity within the septic system is. Is there. And thank you. I also sent in written testimony.

Great. Thank you so much. Next we have Stuart Coleman as an individual testifying in support in person. Thank you. For this measure, we had Hawaii Viola testifying or providing testimony in opposition and then one additional individual testifying in support. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify in this measure? Seeing none Members Are there any questions?

Yes, sorry. Chair Lohan, Department of Health I guess I'm curious about what is the actual federal definition of large capacity cesspool? Like the actual wording?

I don't memorize the actual wording either. We just usually go to the website. But roughly for residential, it's when it's multiple dwellings.

And how is dwelling also defined in federal law? Or do you go by a state law definition of dwelling?

We always defer to Kate Rao at EPA who handles the large capacity.

Well, I guess what I'm trying to understand because if there's no way around federal law, there's not a lot we can do about it because we can't permit connection, you know, creating new large capacity cesspools that will be immediately illegal because anyone who's not aware these are illegal under federal law since I think 2005. So.

But is there. But it also seems a bit irrational because if, if it's not, if there is capacity and you know, it's a home with, you know, maybe two adults or, you know, and you're adding an ADU that's going to have one adult in it, is it still, is there, is it still considered a dwelling?

If there's a. Not a kitchen, for example, if it's an exterior bedroom, are there any ways to work around it or is it. If it's trying to follow federal law.

No matter what, I won't be able to like clarify that. If it's. If you're regarding large capacity cesspools, like, we always kind of stay out of, you know, defining it for them because they're very specific on what they classify as large capacity accessible.

Because even EPA has told us that in Hawaii, because of the amount of large capacity accessibles that we have in the state, they even have another classification that the mixed use when there's a dwelling, one dwelling, but they have business.

But there must be existing situations where there's a home and an ADU that are both connected to the same septic. So has, have those been classified as large capacity cesspool?

If it's a septic tank, then no. But if it's accessible, yes. So yeah, that is correct. How they've from 2005 till now gone after these single, these, these residential properties. We again, we, we defer to them.

We just stay within our realm that if it's a cesspool, an existing cesspool and they haven't done anything and it was built before.

Okay, sorry, I'm, I realized I'm asking the wrong questions. Too. But so what about the question of connecting two dwellings to a septic?

You mean more than two?

Is it more than two? That's the issue. Yes.

Our current rules allow for two, and then this Bill is asking for more than two. This question comes up all the time.

Comes up for my constituents as well.

Yeah. And honestly, like in the, in the short period that I've been in this position, we're already considering, like we know, rules, rule changes, and this is something that we don't want to just make change the rule. I know what the intent is. I'm trying to find the data to support why this was.

Because when I look backwards, it's not, you know, crystal clear what the quantifiable amount for each dwelling. It's a, it's a dwelling and density thing. So some people believe that the more dwellings that you have, there is some incremental increase in the amount of flow. But we didn't quantify that.

So we just do that in a General sense. So we're trying to quantify that or if not, then do what you're asking.

But that's all under. There's nothing in federal law that talks about the septic. How many dwellings can be connected to a septic. So that's all under state.

Yes. And so my understanding from way back when, when they created HR, before 1991, when they were writing the first set of rules, there were, there was a lot of things that were referencing. There's a lot of wastewater manuals. One of them, I believe was a septic tank, you know, practices manual.

And it does have a lot of this, the stuff that we use as still today, setbacks and flow rates and everything. And in there, it doesn't explicitly say that. It's just kind of leaning towards the larger and larger you go, that treatment plants are a better option. So I don't know if they rationalize that.

Obviously you go from one dwelling with five bedrooms to multiple dwellings with five bedrooms total. There is a difference. But didn't again quantify that. So we're just trying to seek clarification. And we've already initiated like a, an environmental finance center to start doing some research for us even ahead of, you know, anybody forcing us to do it.

The rules, because we want to know. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anybody?

Thank you. Members, any additional questions?

Okay, moving on to the next measure. House Bill 1421 relating to financing, establishes and appropriates funds for assess pool conversion on Bill financing program to be administered by the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority to provide Low interest loans to eligible homeowners for the upgrade, conversion or connection of cesspools.

First to testify we have the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support on zoom. Aloha Leah Laramie with the Climate Change Commission we sent our testimony and support and available question. Thank you. Next we have the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support in person.

Good morning. Gwenyama Morolao, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority we stand on our written testimony in support with comments. Just wanted to mention that the comments. Are to be inclusive and collaborative with our banking partners, local banks and also we will work and collaborate with the Department of Health with some complexity these about this Bill. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Next we have Department of Health with comments in person.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Committee Manors John the Gotha Department House the Department stands on its written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Ted Bolan, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition support in person.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Ted Bolland Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition this is another important Bill. I've been emphasizing the importance of making cesspool upgrades more affordable and this Bill would provide a way to do that. I want to thank the speaker for sponsoring it.

The Green Infrastructure Authority Min just spoke about creating a non traditional cesspool conversion on Bill financing of Low interest loans to those who are unable to access financing on reasonable rates and terms including Low and moderate income homeowners.

So for those who are Low income, Low or moderate income who are trying to upgrade and need financial help, this this may provide it in terms of Low interest loans. I think it's a great idea and I think you should pass the Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Next to testify we have Lynn Miyahira, Public Access to Sunscreens Coalition on zoom in support.

Hi Chair, thank you for the opportunity. We stand on our written testimony and support and believe that this is an important Bill to bring together government, business and you know, a bunch of other people to help solve this problem, especially around affordability. So happy to see that there's multiple different avenues for people to get financing. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next we have Stuart Coleman in support in person.

zero from Virginia.

Thank you so much.

In addition we have testimony with comments from State Procurement Office and the Department of Budget and Finance along with testimony in support from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party and the Coral Reef alliance, the Nature Conservancy of Hawaii with comments Hawaii Viola in support and then the testimony of five additional individuals in support.

Is there anyone else who'd like to submit testimony on this measure. Seeing none.

Members, are there any questions?

Moving on to the next measure, House Bill 749, relating to cesspools, creates within the Department of Health's wastewater branch cesspool conversion section, which shall be responsible for facilitating the conversion of cesspools within the state establishes and appropriates funds for positions within the cesspool conversion section. First to testify, we have the Department of Health with comments.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, John Nagato, Department of Health Department stands on its written testimony to provide comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Lynn Miyahira, Public Access to Sensuous Coalition in support on Zoom. Same here we stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Mahalo, Chair. Thank you. Next to testify, Ted Bohlen, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Ted Bohlen testifying in support of this Bill for the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. The Department of Health has a huge task facing it when it's responsible for the upgrade of 83,000 cesspools over the next 25 years. They're going to need help.

And the existing wastewater branch is already fully subscribed with its tasks, so they need additional personnel. They're going to have to look for grants, managing other financing, develop and manage comprehensive public information and outreach, form partnership with the counties, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector relating to their responsibilities. So they're going to need people.

This Bill supplies a few FTEs for the Department of Health to get started. It needs to be a separate section of the Department of Health wastewater branch. So it's dedicated and focused on cesspool upgrades. And so this is a really good idea, really high priority, I think, to get started on the cesspool conversion program.

So I urge you to pass the bill. Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for listening to me on so many bills today.

It's all connected. Thank you. Next we have Erica Perez from the Coral Reef alliance in support on Zoom. Not present. And Stuart Coleman, Virginia, in support, in person.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Stuart Coleman from VI. I thought Ted was joking when he talked about National Cesspool Day, but today seems like it fits. This was since Chair Lohan was in our Cesspool Conversion working group for four years. This was our top priority.

I think everyone agrees that we really cannot tackle this issue without more staffing at duh. In a separate section that's really focused on this issue, and I'm available for questions. Mahalo.

So many top priorities, it's hard to navigate. So that's all the testimony we have for in person or on Zoom. We also had additional testimony from the Office of the Mayor, County of Hawaii in support. The Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party in support. Malama Pupukea, Waimea in support. Nature Conservancy of Hawaii in support.

Hawaii Waiola in support. Resources Legacy Fund in support. Pacific Whale foundation in support. And the additional testimony of six individuals in support. Are there any Members of our audience who would like to provide testimony on this measure? Seeing none. Members of any questions?

Chair Lowen, Department of Health. We just need to get and this is a double referral, so I might defer decision making to give you time to get back to me before we pass it out.

We need to get the dollar amounts that you need for these positions and if possible, if you know the position titles you would prefer. But if, yeah, if you don't have that, I think the dollar amount we need to send on to finance.

Okay, thank you. Any additional questions? Seeing none, we're going to move on to our final measure, which is House Bill969 relating to waste or disposal facilities prohibits the construction, modification or expansion of any waste or disposal facility on land that is near or above a significant aquifer as determined by the Department of Health.

First to testify, we have the Department of Health with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Lynae H. Natsubo, representing Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony for providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Can everyone make sure they're speaking into the MIC when you do come up? Because if not, people who are watching on stream won't be able to hear.

Thank you. Next we have Solid Waste Division Chief, County of Kauai in opposition. Then we have Ernest Lau, Board of Water Supply, in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair Members Ernie Lau, manager for. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply and strong support of this measure. I just want to mahalo you for helping to protect our water resources. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Department of Environmental Services, City and County of Honolulu with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mike O'Keefe, Deputy Director with the city's Department of Environmental Services. Our testimony was a little late, so I just want to come up here and reiterate some of the key points that were made, just so I'm certain it's considered.

It's important to note that if this Bill were to pass and become law and locating a landfill above an aquifer would be prohibited, given the restrictions already imposed by Act 73 and other federal and state laws, the city would be left with no legally permissible and feasible options to site a landfill on Oahu.

If this Bill were to become law, the state could amend Act 73 to reduce or eliminate several of the restrictions in order to make potential landfill sites on Oahu available.

Alternatively, if this Bill were to become Law and Act 73 was not amended, the city would have no choice but to pursue a currently legally prohibited expansion at the Waimanalo Gulch landfill. And lastly, we just want to say this. For now, Oahu needs a landfill.

That landfill doesn't need to be in Wahiawa or over an aquifer, but the only legally available and feasible options right now are over aquifers. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one additional testifier. Sierra Club of Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair Perruso, Members of the Committee waiting to Knocko the Sierra Club. I was going to just stand on a test and our, you know, written testimony, strong support. But I did want to note, based on the previous testifier, that Even without Act 73 being amended, there are pathways for it. Right.

So the city could continue prevailing upon the Navy to, you know, think about letting us use, you know, some of their lands given that they have contributed to our current water crisis and water insecurity.

There's also processes to redistrict, for example, conservation district lands that might include golf courses or other places that were excluded from the landfill Advisory Committee's consideration because of, you know, Act 73. So even without Accident 3 being amended, there are pathways for it. It's not like, you know, it's odd or nothing. Yeah.

And I just want to reiterate, you know, also our strong position that, you know, the West Oahu should no longer have to burden, you know, bear the burden of hosting the waste of the rest of the island. Happy to answer your questions. Thank you so much for hearing this measure.

Thank you. I apologize. There is additional Testimony present, hopefully. Dr. Betty Ikis in support on Zoom. Not present. And then Alana Borsa in support on Zoom. Thank you. And Mariko Quinn in support, in person.

Aloha Mai Kakou. I'll try to make this quick for you guys. My name is Mariko Quinn and I'm testifying in strong support as an individual on HB969.

The Red Hill water crisis, as Wayne Tanaka just brought up, forced us to recognize the fragility of our water systems as we grappled with the realization that contamination of our aquifer would forever change the of people in Hawaii for hundreds of years as we recognize that our water systems are still under threat from the Red Hill crisis.

Further endangering the clean water would be incredibly ill advised and disregards the years of education, advocacy and struggle of our people here since the Red Hill water spill.

While I understand that this is not remotely the same issue and deeply recognize that we must select a location for a landfill, it is also imperative that we avoid the mistakes and learn the lessons that Red Hill presented us with.

The lack of oversight during Red Hill's construction led to a hazardous situation that we cannot afford to repeat. Landfills are a forever commitment and reliably leak over time, which is worsened by rainwater. Given their lasting impact, any risk of contamination to Hawaii's aquifer from a landfill is simply too great to take.

Working proactively, as this Bill seeks to do to protect the aquifer from any potential contamination that may arise is critical to the health of our AINA and our people. I strongly urge you to pass this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. So in addition, we have testimony in support from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, the North Shore Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Sierra Club of Hawaii, Yahtzee665 Democratic Party Health Committee, Hawaii Farmers Union, Kupuna for the Mopuna Green Party of Hawaii, Kalahui, Hawaii, and 65 other individuals in support.

Is there anyone who would like to testify? Please approach the podium.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Kiko Bukowski on behalf of IBEW 1260. We didn't have a chance to submit testimony, but we did want to give our support to this measure. We did testify at the City Council in favor of Resolution 253 which supports the intent of this measure.

You know, as a union organization, we have an obligation not just to our industry, but to our Members in General and we feel the community at large. So we strongly feel that this measure is very critical to protecting our natural resources. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Please approach the podium. And then if you wouldn't mind submitting written testimony so we'd have that on the record, we'd appreciate it.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Deborah King and I would like to express from a health standpoint how this works. I was exposed four years I lived in Naples, Italy, outside of Naples, Italy. And there was water contamination.

And basically the pipes, the water pipes and the sewage pipes were too close together and they leached. And so I've been years trying to find out what is wrong with me, even though I went to the military base because the symptoms that are presented by contamination look like so many other things.

And I wondered why I had energy one day and the next day I was drained. So I can technically not work because I can't do a 40 hour job yet. No Doctor will give me a diagnosis so that I can get any type of financial support.

So here I am stuck without being able to work and without being able to provide myself for myself. So I want you to take that into consideration because so many people have these symptoms that can be confused for other diagnoses like allergies or whatever, and they're told that they're fine.

In fact, on one of my health tests, my MRI came, came back that I have hypertension. But the Doctor says those little two dots look normal to me, but they sure don't feel normal to me. So anyway, thank you so much for listening to my testimony.

Thank you. Seeing no other testifiers. Members, are there any questions? Seeing none. We're going to recess for decision making.

All right, we are back. Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection Thursday, January 309:00am Agenda for Decision making first up, we have House Bill 974 relating to energy. For this we had a lot of suggested amendments on it and it's a double referral. So we're going to defer this until Thursday, February 6th.

End of the 9am agenda for decision making. House Bill 338 relating to renewable energy. For this one, we're going to take HECO's suggested amendment, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style, defect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward for further consideration. With that. Members, any discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair on House Bill 338, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Representative Kahaloa Aye. Representative Kush Aye. Representative Quinlan Aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 337 noting there's also a Senate version of this Bill and we have a lot of bills on our agenda today and there are many concerns raised about it. I think we're going to defer this at this time. House Bill 879 relating to cesspool conversion. So a few amendments here.

We're going to adopt Department of Health's amendments outlined in their testimony. We will blank out the 30,000amount just to consider what amount, whether we should increase it to 30,000, leave it at 20, or find some other number for the maximum grant amount.

We will take out the positions added in this Bill and use the other Bill as a vehicle for adding positions along with the more robust language about creating a new cesspool section and blank out the dollar amount. I think, actually, I think it's the 5 million, but blank out the dollar amount.

But note that in the Committee report and defect the date to 7-1-3000 with that. Members, any discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair House Bill 879. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. For House Bill 379, we're going to move this forward for further discussion with a defective date.

And we will make a note in the Committee report that we're requesting DoH to review the criteria in this Bill and report back if there may be too broad and need to be narrowed down and pass that forward to the next Committee Members. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

House Bill 379. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none.

Chair recommendation has been adopted. Thank you. House Bill 798 relating to wastewater management. For this we're going to delete the provision relating to energy entirely. So that's page one, lines nine to 10. And we will blank out the 10 million gallon number to consider what might be the right volume per day to consider this.

And then we will defect the date to 7-1-3000 with that. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

House Bill 798. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted. Thank you.

And we have House Bill 376 relating to cesspools. So for this Bill we will remove the tax credit and grants and make this a vehicle just to consider the date accelerations with the exemptions that are outlined in this Bill. So we will remove all of parts 3 and parts 4. Adjust the purpose clause accordingly.

We also have some technical amendments and we will defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members. Any discussion?

Seeing none.

Vice Chair.

House Bill 376. Chairs recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Cherry recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 734 relating to wastewater systems. For this we will blank out the appropriation amount of 150,000. But note that amount in the Committee report. I've removed SEA Grant as a consulting entity per their testimony. Some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and affect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion?

Seeing None.

Vice Chair, HB734. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Right. House Bill 736 relating to wastewater systems. We have some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And we will defect the date to 7-1-3000 to move this forward. And we will. We are waiting to hear the amounts for this Bill, so we'll hope that gets presented to the next Committee Members. Any discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair. House Bill 736, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no vote? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 735 relating to wastewater. So for this we're going to remove the parts of this referring to the priority level three cesspool.

So that is all of the language from page three, line 10, through to page four, line four, and then in the part right before that, so page three, lines six through nine, we're going to add language to that.

So it will clarify that a wastewater system can serve up to five bedrooms regardless of the number of dwelling units or accessory units as defined by counties, whether attached or detached.

Provided that this does not apply to any new request to connect additional dwelling units with cesspools based on the concern that this would then make them under federal law, large capacity cesspool, which are illegal. So we're allowing. We're clarifying that for septic or another type of system, it can serve more bedrooms.

And we will defect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

HB735, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Noting that absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Cherry recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And then House Bill 1421 relating to financing. Again, we want to keep this moving as a another possible option for how to help individual homeowners finance these conversions. So we will defect the date on this, move it forward to continue discussion. And I think we'll also need to get dollar.

We don't have dollar amounts for that right now, so we'll need to do some work on thinking about that. But we'll move this forward for now. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

On House Bill 1421, Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Chair, seeing none, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you and House Bill 749 relating to cesspools. We're waiting for some more information from Department of Health about these positions. So we're going to defer decision making on this until we're going to do Tuesday, January 30th end of the 9am agenda. And then last on this agenda we we have today is January 30th. zero sorry.

Tuesday, February 4th. Yes, sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you guys. Tuesday, February 4th, end of the 9:00am agenda. Okay, glad we didn't vote already and defect the date to July 13,000 Members. Any discussion? zero wait, we're not defecting the date or voting, we're deferring that. Okay, next Bill, House Bill969 relating to waste or disposal facilities.

We're going to move this forward to effect the date to July 1st, 3000 Members. Discussion Comments Nope. Seeing none. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

House Bill969 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Okay, we are done with this agenda but we are gaveling back in decision making agenda. Thursday, January 30th Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection 901am decision making on House Bill 786 relating to deposit beverage container recycling. So we're making some amendments to this Bill.

We're going to on page one line 13, subsection three change that to read, evaluate and promote recyclable market development activities including but not limited to deploying reverse vending machines in the state. And then we'll remove subsection 6 on page 2 relating to vending machines.

On page 2 lines 14 to 15 we'll remove the words of the kind and size and brand sold by the dealer. On page three lines four to seven we'll leave this in so we'll remove that strike through of the existing language but we're going to change that distance from 2 miles to 1/2 mile.

And then on page 13, page 3 line 15 we will reinsert that 5,000 square foot stipulation for the size of the retailers that are exempt and affect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward for further consideration.

And I think yeah, essentially what the law does right now regarding this is says that large stores should be redemption centers and then goes and exempts every last one of them.

So we need to do something to increase convenience for you know, being able for people to be able to get their 5 cents back so we're hopefully we can keep having this discussion. So Members, any other discussion besides mine? Seeing none.

Vice Chair on House Bill 786 chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting. I noting the absence of Representative Ward. Are there any reservations or no votes? Chair Seeing none. Your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And this hearing is adjourned.

We have one more.

To say. What committees are meeting since it's a Joint Hearing. Zero, my apologies. Just we're not still and just eat.

My apology. So a Joint Committee hearing of Agriculture and the Energy Environmental Protection Committee. We are going to make some amendments to this measure. First no tax clarified that is written. This Bill permits use of the carbon emissions Tax and Dividend Special Fund to administer the tax and credits pursuant to Section three.

And this Fund should be used to pay the carbon cash back tax credit rather than being issued from the General Fund in section four. DOTEX recommends that the carbon cash back income tax credit should be made non refundable. And we are not going to make it non refundable. We're going to keep that refundable aspect of the credit.

We're also going to take dotax's recommendation that we define gross annual income as Hawaii resident gross annual income. We're also going to adopt Section 4 of House Bill 1375 to replace House Bill 760, Section 4. So we're making the following changes. This is the way in which they're summarized.

The qualifications for this credit will be any Hawaii taxpayer who files an individual income tax return except dependents claimed by others. The tax credit amount for residents will depend on your filing status and number of dependents.

So single filers and heads of households start at $40 in 2025, rising to a peak of 473 in 2034, then gradually decreasing. Married couples filing jointly start at $83 in 2025, rising to a peak Of $946 in 2034, then gradually decreasing. Dependents receive an additional amount per dependent starting at $20 in 2025 and increasing over time.

Next, with respect to the bill's changes to the fuel tax in Section 7, we're also going to take DO tax's recommendation and amend hrs section 243.5, B8 and B9 to allocate a percentage of the total amount of fuel re fuel tax revenue collected so that it can be more easily calculated.

And we're defecting the date to July 1st, 3000. Are there any questions or concerns?

I'll make a few comments.

I just think we've heard this Bill year over year and my, my feeling on it is that it's well intended, but it that we're better off sticking with our RPS mandates and other laws we have in place to facilitate the renewable energy transition, that this won't have significant effect on those accomplishments and it just creates a large bureaucracy to redistribute income that I have concerns about.

But I'm voting yes to continue the discussion and maybe this will be the last year that we have to do this. I'm hoping.

Rep. Kusch, do you have comments or concerns?

No.

Rev K okay. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

All right. We are voting for the EEP Committee on House Bill 760. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Rep. Kahaloa, Aye. Rep. Kush, Aye. Rep. Quinlan? Yes. Me Aye. And Rep. Ward is excused. Recommendation is adopted and over to for the Committee. Yes. Sorry, go ahead.

For the Committee on Agriculture and Food Systems, same recommendation as recommended by the Chair of Eep. Any questions or concerns, Committee Members see none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair. Voting on HB760. Chair and Vice Chair Vote I. Representative Lohan.

Aye.

Representative Peruso Aye. Representative Quinlan Aye. Chair. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Representative Ward Excused.

Thank you.

Okay, Hearing is adjourned.