House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

Good morning. Convening the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection on today, Thursday, March 13, 2025, 9:45am we're in Conference room 325 to my right. We have Chair lowen. I'm Representative Prusso, I'm vice chairing. And then we also have Member Kusch and will be joined shortly by other members, I'm sure.

Before we get started, I want to go over a little bit of protocol. So because the morning hearings need to adjourn prior to floor session, not all testifiers may have an opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony has been read and is being considered by the Committee.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while you're waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function allows you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use that chat for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connection on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure or an alarm system debacle, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making.

In that case, appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images on Zoom, and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. And with that, we're going to go ahead and get started on our 9:45 agenda.

The first measure before us is SB984 relating to water pollution. First to testify on this measure will be Ian Hirokawa from DLNR in opposition in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of. The Committee, Ian Hirokawa with DLNR. We'll just stand on our written testimony in opposition and be available for any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Nicole Galasse, Hawaiian Cattlemen's Council, in opposition on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, this is Nicole Galassi on behalf of the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council. HCC opposes this bill. We're proponents for managing the land and reducing runoff, as everything is connected and the aim is to keep both the land and the ocean healthy.

And ranchers do put in the work to manage grazing, to improve soil, increase ground coverage. These are all things that reduce runoff. But when a large storm occurs, it's unreasonable to blame one landowner. In a recent Case and an example, a rancher who has spent thousands of dollars and decades improving pasture on a slope.

He took drone footage after a huge rain. He saw runoff in the water, but he also saw that this was coming from an adjacent gully. Maybe. Like. Like a, yeah, I think that's what we'll call it, a gully, which is still part of his purview.

But that gully would produce runoff whether or not the pasture that he's managing was improved or not. This is not the type of terrain that gully. It's not the type of terrain that could be planted to reduce runoff. It would reduce. It would continue to run off in large storm events.

So these are the types of things we need to consider when looking at this bill, and there are many other instances like this where it would not be reasonable to implement this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. Next to testify, we have Lawrence on Zoom. In opposition, not present. That's all we have testifying with us today. In addition to that testimony, we have five individuals testifying in opposition, five in support and one providing comments. We also have the Department of Health offering comments.

Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition submitting testimony and support. The Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii submitting testimony and support. Purple Maya foundation submitting testimony in support. BBCP Kauai Operating. Submitting testimony in opposition, as did Hawaii Farm Bureau and Haleakala Ranch Company, along with the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Not this Member.

Okay, then we will move on to the next measure, which is Senate Bill 639 relating to underground storage tanks. So this essentially clarifies the level of environmental restoration that owners and operators of underground storage tanks or tank systems must satisfy in the event of a confirmed release of jet fuel from an underground storage tank or tank system.

First, to testify on this measure, we have the Department of Health with comments on zoom.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Lowen and Members of the Committee. My name is Roxanne Kwon. I am with the Department of Health Solid Hazard Branch. I am testifying on behalf of the Department of Health. The Department of Health stands on its testimony with comments and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Ernest Lau, BWS manager and Chief Engineer, in support, in person.

Aloha Chair, Members, Ernie Lau, Board of Water Supply. We stand in strong support of this bill, and all I can say is Olai Kawai. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Heilani Sonora Pale from Kalahui, Hawaii, in support, in person, not present. Next we have Wayne Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii, in support on Zoom.

Good morning. Chair Lohan, Vice Chair Peruso, Members of the Committee, Wayne Tanaka with the Sierra Club, Hawaii. We thank you for hearing this measure and I'll just stand on my written testimony and strong support of this bill and happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. In addition to that testimony, we have testimony and support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, 350 Hawaii, the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, and 47 additional individuals in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, any questions? Thank you.

Moving right along. Next measure on our agenda is Senate Bill 946, relating to wastewater management. So, it clarifies that the prohibition against discharging wastewater or raw sewage into state waters after 12-31-26 applies to treatment plans.

First to testify on this measure—the only person—to submit testimony on this measure, who also planned to testify is Mayor Bisson from the County of Maui, in support, on Zoom.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair. This is Eric Nakagawa. I'm with the Wastewater—County of Maui Wastewater Division. We stand on our support and I'm here for any answers—to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Additionally, we had testimony in support from the Department of Health and testimony in support from the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Is there anyone else who would wish to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Moving on to our next measure. Senate Bill 438 relating to waste disposal facilities prohibits the construction, modification or expansion of any waste or disposal facility for hazardous waste or solid waste on land that is near or above a significant aquifer. And it also does a number of other work around the siting of waste or disposal facilities.

The first to testify on this measure, my apologies, is Department of Health on comments on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair Lowen, Vice Chairperson. Committee Members Glenn Haae, on behalf of the Department of Health, Department, stands on its written testimony providing comments. We apologize for the lateness of our submittal and we do appreciate the opportunity to testify in this measure. I'm available to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Ciara Kahahane from DLNR with comments in person.

Aloha Kakahiaka, Chair Puruso, Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Perruso and Members of this Committee, Kira Kahohane, Deputy Director, Commission on Water Resource Management. We'll stand on our written testimony. Actually, our comments may have been a little opaque, perhaps to better explain.

Every aquifer ultimately is significant to us at the Water Commission, but we do appreciate the definition of a significant aquifer that was included in this bill focused on drinking water. Ultimately, we're happy to provide any information. To the Department of Health that they.

Need to make a call on which aquifers are considered the most significant in terms of drinking water for the State of Hawaii. So with that, I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Roger Babcock, Department of Environmental Services, in opposition, in person.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Roger Babcock, Department of Environmental Services for City and County of Honolulu. As you know, we take care of refuse for the. For the island. So we submitted testimony in opposition to the bill.

And I want to just focus primarily on something that was added and that has to do with the recycling of ash. And so we stand in strong opposition to this addition. We believe it is ill advised and it's antithetical to everything that we do in terms of recycling.

So it's reduce, reuse, recycle, and a fourth R is repeat. That's very important. That's everything that we do in terms of our program. This addition would preclude the recycling of. Of ash, which means all ash would have to go to the landfill.

Whereas if we do an ash recycling project, we can potentially divert 60% or more of ash and not have to have as much landfill. Getting a landfill is very difficult. Siting a landfill is very challenging. So anything that makes that more difficult or requires more landfill space, it doesn't make any sense to us.

So I'd be happy to. We put some other information in there, some numbers, what it means to us, and if you have any questions, I'm available. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next to testify, we have Ernest Lau, Border Water Supply Manager and Chief Engineer, in support, in person.

Aloha. Ernie Lau, Border Water Supply. Thank you. Chair, Members Board. We stand in strong support of this measure. You know, our testimony has been submitted, the issue of the ash that, you know, Dr.

Babcock talked about from ENV for the board of Water Supply's perspective is what are the contaminants in the ash and will that be now distributed over the environment? Potentially over in areas where there are high value water resources. So we stand in strong support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Anthony Makala Paris, Makakilo Kapale Neighborhood Board in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, my name is Anthony Makala Paris. On behalf of the Neighborhood Board Number 34, we regretfully stand in opposition to SB438 SD2, particularly concerning its provisions to use disposal of fly ash and bottom ash.

While we the intent of the bill to protect the water from pollution and restrictions of hazardous waste and solid waste facilities near significant aquifers or we are concerned with the failure to address the safe recycling of fly ash and bottom ash from waste to energy facilities such as H Power and may we note for the record that our community is the community that is impacted or hosts H Power and the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill on the island of Oahu.

By prohibiting the use of the ash in construction, road building or other alternative daily use covers and mandating it being double lined landfills, the bill misses an opportunity to explore safe and sustainable ways to recycle these materials which could help reduce the incentive landfills.

Our community is already in conversation with the city and colony of Honolulu for the safer recycling of this we're in conversation with them with actually detecting the off gassing of pollutants into the air.

What we are against is continuing to put materials into landfills that already have data backed analysis that says it impacts people's life including those that suffer from the environmental justice in Nanakuli with 10 years less life expectancy than the state average.

And we urge the lawmakers to reconsider this protections in here and consider what we have already taken the stance on that making a host compensation for residents within the half mile of active landfills because from the data that we have the negative impacts are up to four miles away.

So reducing the buffer zone from half mile to a quarter or not allowing us to healthily recycle the materials doesn't help our communities that are already impacted by landfills. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, just to clarify, this bill does not contain any reduction of the buffer zone it maintains the existing.

Our community is recognizes that but there are a number of vehicles moving forward in the Legislature that reduces the buffer zone and this is a vehicle that it could be put into because it opens up the act by which actually the buffer zone is reduced.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Next to testify we have Owain Tanaka, Sierra Club of Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Good morning again Chair Vice Chairman's Committee. We are in strong support of this measure. I'll mostly just stand on a written testimony.

I do want to emphasize, though, that we will also be, I think, the first to stand with the communities of West Oahu to ensure that the environmental injustices that they have borne for generations are not perpetuated by the continued operation and expansion of landfills on that part of the island.

And happy to answer any questions that you folks may have otherwise. Thank you so much again for hearing this measure and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Frasier Blaylock or Ryan Toyomura or Mihoko Ito from Reworld with comments in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members Ryan Toyomura on behalf of Reworld, the operator of the HBAR facility here in Honolulu.

Reworld does not have any comments related to the underlying landfill language of this bill, but we do request that the ash reuse or the ash prohibition language that was used or amended, that amended this bill be removed from the SD2. We note that the project uses bottom ash, not fly ash, which contains.

Contains significantly lesser amounts of constituents of concern has been found to be non hazardous by the EPA and would help to reduce up to 60% of the ash diverted to the landfills if this particular material could be used in various construction activities. So we respectfully ask again that the amendment be removed from the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. In addition to that testimony, we have testimony in opposition from the Department of Transportation, testimony and support from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Testimony in opposition from County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management. Testimony in with comments from the County of Hawaii. I mean, County of Kauai. My apologies.

Testimony in support from Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and from the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, the Hawaii Farm Bureau, Huimalamapono, Hawaii. The Prince Kuhio Hawaiian Civic Club provided testimony in opposition and the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs provided testimony with comments. Additionally, we have 59 individuals submitting testimony in support.

Is there anyone else who would like to submit testimony on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions?

Mike Ewall. I'm signed up.

Zero, my apologies. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your name.

Mike Ewal with Energy Justice Network. I'm in the list to sign up to speak.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Ewal with Energy Justice Network. There's a lot of concern about the new landfill proposed in Wahiawa. We support the border water supply is justified concern about putting an ash landfill over an aquifer as well as putting ash into roads over the aquifer.

Why is this dangerous because a double line landfill full of H. Power's trash incinerator ash can still eventually leak toxic chemicals into the aquifer.

If that is a concern, you'd think that we should be even more concerned about putting it in the form of roads all over the island, including mostly over the aquifer with no liners under these roads and then driving all over it with no protection for the aquifer. The city has been trying to do that.

Roger Babcock, in a Jan. 7 presentation to the Legislature and to your Committee, I believe held up a jar of ash from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, saying that this just likes sand and that's what the city is aiming to do and put into roads. Yet that project has apparently failed.

They have not put that ash into roads or into Asphalt since September 2022, intending to start back up in early 2023, and they never did. And the question still remains why that project has failed, as have many others around the country. And it's not aggregate that is being removed from ash.

It is the ash being used in roads. It is not like there's some non toxic portion of the ash that can be separated that doesn't have the dioxins, furans, mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic and other toxic chemicals. There's no technology to remove them.

They will end up going into roads or other construction materials if allowed to be so called recycled in that way. And when they call it non hazardous, that's based on a short term ph controlled lab test that is not representative of real life conditions.

And EPA just back in December released a statement saying that when ash is used in other ways outside of a landfill, like if it can blow into the community, workers touch it. If it's ingested or inhaled, the test is not saying that that is not dangerous or is not toxic.

It's only saying it's not legally hitting the level of hazardous, only for the sake of what leeches out of it in a landfill over time. Can you please support this with the ash amendment intact? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Members, are there any questions? Chair Lowen.

Yes, Department of Health. Just to clarify for us regarding the use of recycled ash for asphalt creating asphalt product, I assume Department of Health has oversight of reviewing the potential impacts of that and deciding whether to permit it or not?

Yes, yes. So we through our permitting process, we review the procedures, we review, you know, the, the sampling that was done for that and then we require a lot of sampling. We ask a lot of questions about how Is it going to be used in the asphalt? We also look at even asphalt itself gets recycled.

So when asphalt gets, when they, when they co plane the road to remove the asphalt, they take some of that and they put it back into the new hot mix asphalt to recycle the accumulation of that over time for this ash to. We look at that and question that. So we're reviewing the current application.

It's not guaranteed yet. We're still asking a bunch of questions.

Okay.

So it seems like the due diligence, I mean it would be somewhat preemptive for the Legislature to make a decision preceding the science being done to actually study it by the professionals. Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none. We are going to move on to our next measure, House Bill 1395, relating to—SD 2—relating to state funds, so allocates interest on balances within the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund to the General Fund in years in which the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund's balance exceeds the State Fund Balance Objective.

First to testify on this measure we have Will Kane from the Office of the Governor, in support, in person.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Will Kane, Office of the Governor. So, we'll stand our written testimony in support. I'm here to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Luke Meyers, Hawaii Office of the Governor Recovery and Resilience Unit, with comments, on Zoom.

Yes, ma'am. I'm not sure if you can see me. Chair, Vice Chair, Luke Meyers, Office of Residency. We stand on our testimony offering comments and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify we have James Barros, DOD, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, in support, in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. I'm Ethan Oki from Hawaii Emergency Management, instead of James Barros. We stand on our testimony in strong support. Available for any questions or concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii State Energy Office, in support, in person.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Representatives. Cameron Black, on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony in support, supporting the intent of dedicating funds for climate resilience and mitigation projects. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next to testify we have Gwen Yamamoto Lau from Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, in support, in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee. We support the intent of the Bill and stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next,we have Jeff Mikulina, Hawaii Climate Advisory Team, in support, in person. Not present. Next, we have Elizabeth Benechek, the Nature Conservancy, in support, in person. Thank you. We also have Jeff Michalina, representing the Hawaii Executive Collaborative, Climate Hawaii, in support, in person. Also, still not here.

Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii, offering comments on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. This is Jane McMillan from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We've submitted some comments on the measure, noting in our comments that we're impressed that the Bill is trying to solve the problem without the use of a Special Fund.

And we'll stand on our written comments. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have an additional testifier on Zoom, Kekoa McClellen.

Aloha, Chair. Thank you very much. Kekoa McClellen, on behalf of the American Hotel and Lodging Association, Hawaii Hotel Alliance, in support of our late written testimony for SB 1395, SD 2. Happy to answer any questions, but the industry absolutely supports the idea of investing in climate mitigation efforts and applauds the Governor for introducing this measure.

Thank you. In addition to those testifiers, we also have Emma Yuen from DLNR, offering testimony in support. Oh, sorry, but you didn't want to testify. Is that correct or you didn't want to offer additional testimony?

Okay.

We also have testimony from the office in—with comments from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, with comments from the Climate Change and Mitigation Adaptation Commission, testimony in support from Care for Ina Now Coalition, testimony in support from the Purple Maya Foundation, testimony in support from Catholic Charities, Hawaiian Reef and Ocean Coalition, Climate Protectors Hawaii, in support from Hawaii Land Trust, Coalition Earth, Vibrant Hawaii, Wildfire Safety Advocates of Waikoloa, and an additional three members, three individuals, in support and two individuals in opposition.

Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony on this measure? Seeing none. Members, are there any questions? Chair Lowen.

Well, just to clarify, so everyone here is clear. I mean, the Bill, as it stands right now, basically is just a revenue generator that goes into the General Fund with some nice language in the preamble about climate change and resilience and a suggestion that the Governor come and request the funds back from the Legislature for those purposes.

Right, so as the Bill stands, that's exactly right. And so, what we would like to see is what we proposed in these bills and similar bills that came over, you know, from the house—the 1076, 77—is a dedicated fund.

So, taking this interest rate from the EBRF and putting it into a dedicated fund or some sort of mechanism that would demonstrate that these are set aside or designated for climate mitigation, you know, and at some point, maybe environmental stewardship and some, you know, sustainable tourism, but.

I think that there was also a lot of concerns with the open endedness of that proposal because there was not a lot of specificity about how the funds would actually be spent and on what. And there are many, many kinds of things and activities that can fall under the umbrella of climate mitigation.

Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry, excuse me. That's a very good, valid point, and we've been working to create a project list that would cover these different areas.

And we highlighted a few projects in our testimony to kind of give an example of, you know, a climate or hazard mitigation does cover a broad range of things from, you know, from, you know, clearing brush and wildfire and all these enforce protection to hardening, you know, infrastructure, and everything in between.

So, you know, so that's why we'd want to work with the Legislature in the appropriation process to thoroughly vet these projects and push them out.

I mean, we could, I think, probably move this forward and just have you ask you guys to continue working on it because we have a lot of other things that we're trying to work on. And this Bill needs, I think, needs more work on the front end. But I guess I could.

I mean, what would you think about a special fund, but instead of giving it to this, you know, the Governor's Office or some Commission to decide how to spend it, that it would be expended by legislative appropriation, but it would still be set aside as a special fund?

And then, you would come in with those specific requests, then the Legislature would still have discretion to expend it for that or not, or, you know, use it for other purposes potentially, but at least there would be more visibility over how those, if any, funds got appropriated out of there, how they were spent.

No, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I mean, I think we were just trying to establish a process to begin with to have these discussions. But obviously, the role of the Legislature is to do the appropriations and, you know, with a special fund, I think that still demonstrates a couple things.

One, that our commitment to these, you know, climate and hazard mitigation projects and also, maybe there's an ability to, you know, expand that money by allowing some securitization or some bonding off of those funds that can turn, you know, this amount, you know, x amount of cash money into bonds and we can do more projects.

And, you know, then the Legislature could take that up as well. So, I think that's a great idea.

Maybe we should give it to Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, expand their scope. Okay.

Our Director is very eager to do a lot of work.

Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none, we're going to move on to our final measure on this agenda, Senate Bill 1396 SD3 relating to economic development.

So this measure would increase the tat by an unspecified amount and then use those monies to expend those monies to advance specific projects that address climate change and support tourism marketing, marketing and Destin Destination management. First to testify on this measure is Will Kane, Office of the Governor in support, in person.

Chair, Vice Chair, Will Kane, Officer. The Governor will stand our written testimonies report and hear from questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify by Luke. Luke Myers, Hawaii Office of the Governor Recovery and Resilience Unit with comments on Zoom.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Luke Myers, Government Resiliency Unit. We stand in our testimony offering comments. And we open for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Daniel Nahoopi, Hawaii Tourism Authority, in support, in person.

Aloha, Daniel Nahoopi', Interim CEO and President of the Hawaii Tourism Authority. We stand on our written testimony in support of the intent, noting comments that there should be a strong nexus to tourism marketing as well as tourism development projects and green infrastructure related to areas resorts as well as areas used by visitors. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Emma Yuen testifying in support in person.

From DLNR. My apologies. Next we have Department of Taxation with comments in person.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristen Sakamoto, Deputy Director of Taxation. We stand on our comments and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Next we have James Barros, DOD Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, in support, in person. Thank you. Now we have Hawaii State Energy Office in support, in person.

Thanks again. Vice Chair, Chair, Representatives, Cameron Black, on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office. We again stand in our support of the intent of creating funding for climate mitigation and resilience projects. Welcome the discussion on the mechanism. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Glenn Yamamoto, lao, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, in support, in person. Thank you. Then we have Jeff Mikulina, Hawaii Climate Advisory Team and support in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeff Michalina, on behalf of the Climate Advisory Team. The Climate Advisory Team. What's the intent of this measure? Prefer the original draft.

This is a top recommendation of the Climate Advisory Team, a dedicated source of funding, particularly from tourism, to really focus on our resilience and environmental needs in Hawaii.

At the last page of our testimony, you can see some of those items that we would seek to Fund with that money, particularly a Strength in Hawaii homes program, something akin to what Alabama has to protect homes against hurricanes.

Wildfire protection, a whole litany of things that could use funding in the nexus with tourism and impacts from climate is very clear. So we hope we can move this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Elizabeth Benyshek Nature Conservancy in support in person.

Thank you. Chair Lohan, Vice Chair Perruso and Members of the Committee. I'm Elizabeth Benyshek from the Nature Conservancy Hawaii and Palmyra, and I'm actually joined today by multiple conservation and science staff. If you'll raise your hands so that. They can see you. Thank you. You have our written testimony and I just want to highlight the recent polling.

That showed that 76% of visitors supported. A fee that would help protect our environment. And with repeat visitors, it was even higher. It's 85% and 25% said that made. Them more likely to want to come visit our state. In years before.

In 24 and 23, we actually polled voters and what was found was about 63% support for a visitor fee. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Care for in AO coalition in support, in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Maka Gibson. Mahalo for hearing SB 1396 SD3. I'm a program officer at Resources Legacy Fund where I develop to implement strategies for our Hawaii environmental equity and justice programs.

And I'm also a Member of The Care for Ina now coalition, which is a group of more than 75 organizations and leaders across the state advocating for environmental stewardship. We are in strong support of this bill and I think what's most important is that it creates dedicated funding for natural resource stewardship and restoration.

I grew up in Ewa Beach and oftentimes I think about all the dry grasslands on the leeward side and how important it is to prevent the next Lahaina wildfire if we don't take important steps to mitigate climate disasters.

I now live in beautiful Kaneohe, and every time we have large storms that come through like the one in January, I think about the possible flooding and and what could happen as it did in Hanalei a couple years ago, and how landslides on the Pali and the could really affect our Woodward communities.

The only way we can take proactive measures to address these concerns is if we create dedicated funding to address climate resiliency projects. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Jocelyn Herbert, Care for [unintelligible] Coalition leadership committee in support. In person.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jocelyn Herbert. Happy to be here today from Hawaii island for Pilina Konaloa. Thank you for hearing this bill.

First of all, on behalf of the Care for Ainau Leadership Committee, we're a group of conservation, community and native Hawaiian serving organizations that are unified in our concern about the real and growing threats of wildfire, flood and loss of coral reefs that protect our coastal homes and businesses.

We support the bill and the opportunity that it would provide to visitors to help fund natural resource stewardship for the places they enjoy and to restore and care for the community's safety of our communities here.

But we do urge your community to strengthen the bill and ensure Hawaii has a durable and dedicated funding source for natural resource stewardship and restoration before the next natural disaster strikes so that both agencies and community groups can have the funding they need to do to care for Ina now.

Mahala, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Hannah Leziak, Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, in support, in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Hannah Leziak and I'm here on behalf of the Ocean Legislative Task Force. Our task force is comprised of over 120 individuals from numerous organizations, all of which who care deeply about the protection of our Ina and our oceans.

And we actually all here for Pilina Kanaloa Ocean day at the Capitol today. But we just wanted to stand on our written testimony in support. And we believe that this bill will provide a vital safety net for our environment. So please support this measure.

Thank you, thank you for your testimony. We also have Devin Thomas, White Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, in support in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Members really encouraged to speak in support of this bill on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed. My name is Devin Thomas and we want to acknowledge just how massive the federal spending cuts on the horizon are.

And you all are well aware of this and you're talking about this in your own committees. But we want to just underscore how important it is to have the dedicated funding that others have discussed before for me and to ensure that we are raising taxes on fundamentally what can often be an extractive industry in terms of tourism.

A lot of this money is leaving the state. So it should be incumbent on the state to take advantage of the means that it has available and to tax the tourism industry for what it should be paying. And really this is a small increase in terms of, you know, affecting their overall profits.

So we believe that this is one of the best ways that you can raise taxes without disproportionately affecting low to middle income families in Hawaii.

Thank you, thank you for your testimony. Next we have Kekoa McClellan from Hawaii Hotel Alliance in opposition on Zoom.

Thank you. Chair Lowen. First and foremost, mahalo to the Committee for hearing this bill. We do stand in opposition to the increase in the transit accommodation tax. Full stop.

While every other component of this bill comports with the philosophy and the values of Hawaii's hotel and lodging industry, for many years we have been working to, in conjunction with the state, with our communities, with our counties, to support, protect and defend our environments from the impacts of over tourism.

Since 2019, if we just look at the three major platforms of short term rentals, we know that there are at least 7,906 new listings, whole homes that are being operated on those platforms, largely illegally.

We urge the Legislature to move forward with allocating funding for the mitigation of climate change and for the protection of our Wahipana and for our shorelines, but not to do it on the backs of the more than 200,000 Kamaina visitor stays who will pay the tat when they check into a hotel for a staycation, not to do it on the backs of the more than 216,000 Member employees of our hotel and visitor industries and not to do it on an industry that has yet to recover from the impacts of COVID and the wildfires that devastated our communities and our Members.

We understand that there is a need to fund this and we applaud the Governor for his efforts to look for funding sources.

We strongly suggest that you look towards the more than $200 million in uncollected transit accommodation tax annually from non payers of the TAT in short term rentals or from our cruise line industry which has eclipsed 2019 level but does not pay into a transit accommodation style fund because of the impacts of their presence here.

So we respectfully appreciate your time. We thank you for advancing these critical measures related to environmental changes and mitigating the impacts of climate change on our islands. And we urge you to consider deleting the increase to the transit accommodation tax which is effectively a tax on our people and is already the highest tourism tax in the world.

Mahalo for your time. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Yes, good morning, this is Jade McMillan on behalf of the Tax foundation of Hawaii. We've submitted our comments on the measure. A few notes from our comments. The FIL in its current form needs to specified tax rate and otherwise for important information, so the bill cannot be scored for revenue gains or losses in its current form.

We assume that is going to be a increase in the tat. We also recognize that Hawaii already has the largest or the highest accommodation tax in the country and further increasing our taxes will likely result in a decline in tourism here rather than an increase in tax revenue.

We are impressed that bill is trying to solve the problem without the use of a special fund. But we were concerned that the mandatory budget request violates the separation of the powers.

We would prefer that a requirement the Executive Branch report to the legislators the amount it needs and then those committees and Executive Department can work out a way to send those funds. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We also have skipped Activities and Attractions Association of Hawaii 8 in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha Lowen and and Vice Chair Perruso. Thank you for this opportunity. We oppose the bill. We represent the activities and attractions. These are small resident owned businesses. It's been shown when the TAT from 2003 to 2004 has gone up and has already been stated it's the highest not in the nation in the world. That it impacts how much people people spend in destination.

Granted, it's going to. We are already pricing a lot of customers out with our current cost of a Hawaii vacation. It's going to make that worse. But the part that I'm addressing is someone mentioned about the money leaving here. You know, hotels will just pass it on to the customer.

The activities and attractions, the restaurants, many of the retail stores, those are owned by people that live here. They rely on the visitors having additional discretionary money. And it's been proven when the tat goes up and when hotel rates go up, which have gone up tremendously since COVID we get less business. Maui's still reeling.

They're anywhere from 30 to 40 over 40% for some businesses down from pre Covid. Big island, not so much, little bit of increase. Kauai hasn't been affected that much. But Oahu's down activities and attractions is what I'm speaking to. I really, I urge you. We are fully in support of planning and addressing climate concerns. We would have.

I wish the Governor would have introduced a fee that was by resource. What we have always pushed for is definitely tourists will pay and they do want to pay as was shared with you. But it makes a lot more sense to have those fees by resource. So those funds are allocated to the place that is impacted.

We put this into something big in General or Special Fund and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't get managed well. If we can make it direct and spent on the thing that it impacts, it's much, much smarter and wise. This has bigger ramifications. We strongly oppose it. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

I'm sorry to take up your time and not just stand on my testimony, but I can't.

Thank you for your testimony. The last testifier we have is Dr. Keone Dudley on Zoom in support.

Aloha. Let me get the video going here. Okay. Madam Chair and Vice Chair, Committee Members, I strongly support this bill. At the end of this bill there are appropriations assigned to various entities for specific projects. I do ask the Committee to add an additional project.

I ask that $100 million be put into this bill and assigned to the Department of Defense for the fortifying of hurricane shelters and creating new hurricane shelters. As we all know, with warming seas, the spawning area for hurricanes near Mexico has moved northward.

And now hurricanes crossing the Pacific that used to pass below us are headed directly at us. We will be hit many times in the future. 200,000 people are expected to seek shelter in a category one. But we only have space for 100,000 hurricanes are getting stronger and stronger. Categories 34 and 5 are coming.

We have no shelters whatsoever that will withstand category 34 or five hurricanes. There's absolutely no place for you to go. There's no place for tourists to go. There's no place for any of our people to go. We. We have 187,000 wooden houses that will be badly damaged or destroyed. Even in a category one hurricane.

Many thousands will die.

Dr. Dudley, would you mind summarizing, please?

We need to fortify new hurricane shelter so that our people have someplace to go. Again, I ask that we have $100 million put into this bill and assigned to the Department of Defense for the fortifying of hurricane shelters and creating new hurricane shelters. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. In addition to those testifiers, we have 13 organizations in support, eight organizations in opposition, 16 individuals in support, and seven individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Please come up to the podium.

Aloha, Committee Members. My name is Kevin Chang. I'm here on behalf of Kua Ulu Oamo. We didn't register to be in person. Just wanted to bring your attention to our comments about whatever mechanism we create, we believe it needs to share that form funding and resources with communities doing malama' Ina across our state.

Otherwise, stand on our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. And did you submit written testimony? Okay, let me check with you after to make sure that it gets in. Thank you. Members, are there any questions? First, is there anyone else who would like to submit test? Please come forward to the podium.

Hi, Chairs, Vice Chair, Member of the Committees. My name is Carissa Cabrera. I'm part of the Care for In and Out Coalition. But today I'm testifying as an individual in support of this measure. I've spent the last 10 years working with community groups and nonprofits on environmental solutions from coral reef restoration to endangered species.

We've interfaced with tourists with many of these programs, and the limiting factor is always funding. It's the reason why I ended up in this coalition.

I feel like this is the year that we need to take seriously the federal funding cuts that have been talked about previously and resource nonprofits with the funding they need to take care of our Ina. And I also want to share that this can't be done only by state agencies.

What Kevin emphasized about community groups leading the way, they're already doing it. They're already on the front lines doing this. And so the revenue sharing mechanism is critical and it's not currently in the language right now. So thank you for hearing my testimony today.

Thank you so much. Did you also wish to testify? Please.

Good morning. My name is Hannah Min and I'm sharing my strong support for this bill. This is my first time ever testifying today. I am not resident of Hawaii and I am here for Pina Kanaloa Ocean Day at the Capitol. I wanted to share my support for a visitor fee.

I believe in giving back to the land and the sea and I would be more than willing to pay to do so. Thank you so much for hearing my testimony. Thank you.

Any other folks wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none Members, are there any questions? Rep. Kusch.

Thank you Mr. Kane, sir, representing the Governor recognizing the give and take of this bill, both sides economic factors and the importance of climate resiliency and helping mitigate impacts of the 10 million people who visit a year plus minus. Just doing some quick math. It looks like every quarter percent is just call it 20 million.

Did you have a number? I know the HB Measure had like 1.75 lift on it, but did the Governor have a number in mind for these projects on an annualized basis?

Yes. So originally, you know, so the cat team, the climate advisory team and identified over 500 million or so. Governor was looking at if we could get to some level of 200 million a year in needed funding.

And so if you the original proposal called for a 1.75% increase along with the previous bill that was discussed and then those would add up to Approximately, you know, 200 million. So, you know, we tried to work with the industries to address their concerns about, you know, escalating tat and the impact that may have.

So you know, we may get to a number that is less than that and if then again back to the Special Fund, if we can bond, that can turn into more.

But I would like to offer though that, you know, along with that the escalating TT and the 10 million visitors that we had in 2019, we have a little bit less now, but they spend more. Right. D bed came out 17% more. So I'm not sure if I agree.

And one of the testifiers brought up the escalating room rates.

Our room rates have skyrocketed over the past how many years and so I would ask the industry if we're going to raise those room rates if that's the concern that we're going to affect our tourism industry and our locals that are doing staycations or coming over for trips or, you know, Athletic events or whatever that looks like.

Maybe there's some give on those room rates, if that concern is really there. But we're trying to get to a point where locals, you know, our local residents don't have to come up with this money that is desperately needed for this project.

And I think the previous bill and this bill is a mechanism that allows us to accomplish that the best way possible.

Great. Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing. zero, seeing then we're going to go straight into decision making.

All right. So straight to decision-making. Everybody good? Okay. First up on the agenda we have Senate Bill 984, relating to water pollution. We hear the concerns about this but want to continue the discussion. We do have a deadline tonight to move out triple referral bills, so for now, we're going to adopt Department of Health's suggested amendments.

We will also clarify the limitation that the applicability of the bill to landowners who possess at least 10,000 acres, that we're referring to 10,000 acres in the state, and we will redefect the date to July 1, 3000 and move this forward for further discussion. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair.

Chair's recommendation on Senate Bill 984 SD 2 is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Next we have Senate Bill 639, relating to underground storage tanks. We are also moving this forward. We will adopt Sierra Club's suggested amendments and some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Again, redefect the date to July 1, 3000 for just consistency and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair.

On SB 639 SD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye, noting the excused absence of Representative Ward, which will hold for the remainder of this hearing. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you, and Senate Bill 946, relating to wastewater management, on this we will strike lines nine and ten on page one. So this is the provision relating to renewable energy, kind of a cleanup from old legislation and then technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and redefect the date to July 1, 3000. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair.

On SB 946 SD 2, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. S Bill 438, relating to waste disposal facilities. So for this one we're going to adopt Department of Health's suggested amendments, which kind of conforms it a little more with the language in the other landfill bill that is not moving forward, so it's clarifying the definition of landfill unit and then using that throughout.

And we're also going to, in that, make this, these provisions applicable to counties with populations over 500,000. So we're--I think DOH's testimony had a blank amount. We're going to add 500,000, clarifies that there will be no landfill units inland of the Underground Injection Control Line, and we'll add a definition of injection control line, so again, using that clearer language that's in the other version of the bill.

And then for the provisions relating to Ag land, we'll also refer those to that same definition of landfill unit instead of the definition that is currently in there because the current definitions that is referenced in there could inadvertently prohibit composting facilities on Ag land and that's not the intention.

And then we are going to remove the provisions regarding landfill ash. DOH is doing due diligence on this. We'll let them do their work and keep this bill limited to its original intent and some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and then we will redefect the date to July 1, 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair.

On Senate Bill 438 SD 2, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 1395, relating to state funds. We will let this live another day and continue to be worked on. We will just basically redefect the date on this so that we're making a change, so changing that defective date to July 1, 3000 and move this forward for further discussion. Members, any concerns, comments? Seeing none. Vice chair.

Senate Bill 1395 SD 2: chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Any reservations or no votes? Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And on Senate Bill 1396, we're going to make some changes here, so basically that the underlying mechanism in this bill, the TAT, and the purpose is to use it for things that are efforts towards climate mitigation and adaptation are also consistent with the language in House Bill 504, and that is a version that has been worked on for many years with the Care for Aina Now Coalition.

So we're going to replace the contents of this with the contents of HB 504 House Draft One and then we will change the purpose clause to conform to that and address the nexus between economic development and environmental stewardship and then we will just redefect that date to July 1, 3000, and if it's not already--I'm actually not sure--or we'll leave it at July 1, 3000 if it's already that. With that, members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair.

On SB 1396 SD 3, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

All right, and we're adjourned.

All right, we are convening our Joint Committee Hearings: Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Committee on Economic Development. I'm joined by my co-chair, Rep. Ilagan, and we have one measure on the agenda today: Senate Bill 1269, relating to geothermal resources. Oh, first some housekeeping, very quickly.

For people on Zoom, please keep yourself muted, video off, and chat function is only to chat with technical staff. If you're unexpectedly disconnected, you can rejoin. You can try to rejoin if you're disconnected while present. Presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if we have time. The House is not responsible for bad connections on a testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, we could reschedule the hearing. In that case, we will post appropriate notice. And moving on to testimony. So first up to testify this morning we have DBEDT.

Good morning, Chairs Lowen, Ilagan, Vice Chairs Hussey, Perruso, and members of the committee. Dane Wicker, Deputy Director of DBEDT. We stand on our testimony in support of this measure and available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. And next we have Ulupono Initiative.

Thank you, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Mariah Yoshizu, on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. We stand in support of this measure. We did just wanted to highlight the consideration if all islands would be to be included in this measure, we think that there's geothermal potential across all the islands, so being able to tap into that would be a great resource. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Life of the Land, in support. Not present. And then we have testimony in support from Hawaiian Electric, testimony in opposition from Hulu Mamo Hawaiian Civic Club, testimony from Sustainable Energy Hawaii, offering comments, Coalition Earth, in support, Waika Consulting, in support.

Good morning, chair. My name is Ryan Matsumoto, president of Waika Consulting, and I stand by our written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And then we have Innovations Development Group, in support. We have, additionally, five individuals in support, 11 in opposition, and three offering comments. Was there anyone else here in person to testify on this measure? Is there anyone on Zoom wishing to testify? No one on Zoom. Okay. All right. With that, members, questions? Of course.

Would you be able to take questions from my members as well?

Yes, I can.

I do have a question.

Thank you. DBEDT director, could you please come up? In your testimony, you mentioned the MOA. Would you be so kind to give us a copy of that?

Go ahead.

Yes, we can share a copy with the committee. That's the MOA agreement between the High Technology Development Corp and the University of Hawaii Office of Innovation and Research, yes.

Thank you. The other part is with HGGRC, the Hawaii Groundwater and Geothermal Resource Center under UH Manoa, this MOA does include them in partnership with you?

That I--no. That I'm not aware of, no. University of Hawaii, they have initiatives working with HTDC as well as Hawaii State Energy Office on geothermal.

You also mentioned in your testimony that this appropriation will help with streamlining permits. How does that streamline permits?

So this appropriation specifically goes to DBEDT, which we are able to coordinate not just with HTDC; HSCO has attached agencies, but also NELHA, which is attached. Prior appropriations have gone agency-specific, so we've had questions come up during the committee's process this session with DBEDT help in streamlining as well as being the point on the geothermal, the geothermal projects.

Will any of that be--will you be using your statute with, regarding the facilitated application process with the streamlining permits?

It could be. It could be utilized that way.

Because it's a commercial development?

Yes. And that's specifically what we're aiming to do is get to commercial viability.

Under, under the Sustainable Energy Hawaii's testimony, they mentioned that a viable development site requires 20 to 50 exploratory wells and $1 million per well. I think the funding for this appropriation is around six million. I'm not sure exactly because we're still having to figure that out. I wanted to ask, is there new technology to be able to make it a viable development site that doesn't require over 20 to 50 exploratory wells?

That I don't have an answer for right now. The appropriation we're asking for would help us take us through community engagement as well as looking at four to eight sites. DBEDT has a four-phase roadmap we're following to get to commercial viability. As far as the cost, that would probably be determined at a later date. Our approach is to reduce the risk and time on the state side to welcome the private sector to come forward.

So you're telling me that it really won't get to the drilling of any sort of wells?

Not in this--not with this funding, no. If we were--our total estimate to go through four phases to get to the drilling or exploration would be about 14 million, and we would have two more phases after this.

I definitely want to encourage you with community engagement, particularly that my district of Puna has one of the only utility-scaled geothermal plant in operation, and there are some feelings that needs to be resolved and I'm glad that you're looking at different sites. Are you particularly going to be looking at sites in Puna or are you looking at sites elsewhere?

It's elsewhere, in addition to Puna. So regionally there's some concept of where the resource is. This phase, if we get this appropriation, will help us narrow down those specific sites and the community engagement.

So why are you looking at sites in Puna when there's already allocated 60 megabytes worth of--megawatts--megabytes--megawatts worth of geothermal and PGV has yet to fully use that capacity? Why can't we focus with this funding away from Puna instead of having to compete with the existing facility there?

Don't have a response for that. In looking for additional sites, prior reports have been done. This allows us to further revisit the possibly other sites outside of Puna, but they have, to my knowledge, no discussion to take anything off the table yet.

Well, I highly encourage you to look for resources outside of Puna. In HGGRC's testimony, they said they have a map of some sort of understanding where the other resources are on the Big Island.

From your comments, you said that they don't have MOA with you, but in their testimony, they're saying we should allocate the funding to them because they can build upon their work. Is there a way to, instead of giving the funding to them and give it to you where you can partner with them, since they're a government agency and we should all work collaboratively, could you work on MOA to make sure they're included in the process so we can use their resources of existing maps or existing wells or existing, existing geothermal resource that way we're not having to recreate those data?

Chair, if I could get back to you on that, let me take a look at their testimony and then get a response back to the Joint Committee.

Of course.

Thank you.

Do you--is there any--thank you--and is there anyone here who can share if there's any sort of new technology to be able to locate the geothermal resource? Does anyone have that info?

Thank you, chair.

Yes, chair. I could maybe attempt to respond a little bit. Technologically there are advancements since, you know, the exploratory process went on in Puna for the Puna Geothermal--the current power plant there. Specifically what technology, we don't know yet. There's not enough data to dictate what specific technology will be used, but I can confidently say it won't be in the nature of 20 to 50 wells in order to figure out the information needed to confidently and commercially responsibly move forward with the development.

Great, thank you.

Okay, quick question, I guess, for DBEDT. I mean, I think there was the three million given to through to DBEDT through HTDC and that was contracted out already or is there still funds remaining to be dispersed on that?

It's--there's a contract in place. Funds are being--

For the full three million?

For the full three million through UH. Yes.

And now this is an additional six million?

Correct.

So it's nine million total prior to any drilling, so I guess--

Yes, that is correct.

I'd just be curious to have more detail on exactly what the expenses are for each step and how that gets expended since it's a big price tag for no exploratory wells.

We can, we can provide details for the current phase of the three million and what the six million would be RFP. going towards.

Okay, that would be great.

You're welcome.

Thank you. All right. Any further--Oh, go ahead. Yeah.

Can I have Ulupono, please?

Mariah Yoshizu, Ulupono Initiative.

Thanks very much. In your testimony you alluded to other geothermal resources throughout the state. Can you speak a little bit more to that, please?

Sure. Yeah. So I believe it was two years ago that UH had presented some research that they had in highlighting particular areas of interest across all islands, so there is the potential, and I think that we would just like to see those explored instead of--because it's hard to, you know, if we, if we tap into the resources on the Big Island and how are we going to transmit that energy also to the other islands? So I think not limiting ourselves to one island and making sure that we keep all in favor.

Yeah, yeah. In your professional opinion, on which island do we need geothermal the most?

That would probably be more of an opinion rather than a professional opinion, but yeah, I would leave that to some of the other experts that are dealing straight with geothermal in the room.

Artfully dodged. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

All right, if no further questions, are you okay to go straight to decision making? Okay, we'll recess for decision making.

All right, reconvening our Joint Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Economic Development and Technology for decision making on Senate Bill 1269 Senate Draft 1, relating to geothermal resources. We're going to make a few changes here, first, some non-substantive changes to the purpose clause just to clean up the language there.

We will add a provision at the request of the chair of Economic Development and Technology that to clarify--which has already been the stated intent--but to clarify in the language of the bill that the funds shall not be used for any drilling purposes, including exploratory test or production wells or within a 15-mile radius of an existing geothermal power plant that is currently providing electricity to the grid.

We will blank out the appropriation amounts as is our convention and note that the amount of the requested appropriation was $6 million in the committee report, and we will redefect the date to July, 1, 3000. With that, members, any discussion for EEP members? Seeing none. Vice chair, please take the vote.

On Senate Bill 1269 SD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

ECD members, same recommendation, but any members wishing to make any comments?

I'd like to make a comment, please.

Go ahead.

With respect to my family on the Big Island, I'm going to vote with reservations on this measure. I believe strongly that geothermal is really needed on this island of Oahu where we have constrained land area for solar and wind, etcetera, so I'll be voting with reservations.

Any other members? With no comments, vice chair, please take the vote.

Okay, with--let's see. We're passing with amendments. [Roll Call]. Okay. Chair, recommendation's adopted.

All right, and we are adjourned.

Thank you, chair.

All right, we are back again with the Joint Committee's Energy on Energy and Environmental Protection and Committee on Human Services and Homelessness. I'm here with my co chair, Rep. Lisa Martin and her committee members. We have one bill on the agenda today. Senate Bill 191 SD1 relating to energy assistance.

This establishes the Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program within DHS. And first up to testify, we have the Consumer Advocate.

Vice chairs, members. We stand on our written testimony in support and are available for questions.

Thank you, and Department of Human Services on zoom. Okay. We'll come back if we hear from them. Public Utilities Commission.

Thank you. In support. And Hawaiian Electric.

Good morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. On behalf of the PUC, we stand on our written testimony.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Noelle Kakimoto. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric.

We are in strong support of SB 191, which would create the state run Home Energy Assistance Program to complement the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Both of which would and currently do provide critical utility assistance to families in need.

Hawaii households on all islands would benefit from any type of ancillary or additional funding to help them potentially decrease their energy burden, which is the percentage of household income going toward their energy costs. Again, we're in strong support of this bill. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Workers Center, in support.

Thank you. And Catholic Charities of Hawaii in support. Not present. Let's see. Hawaii Energy in support.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees, Chester Carson on behalf of Hawaii Energy. We stand on our written support

Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs. My name is Sergio Alcubilla, I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. We are a nonprofit organization that organizes low wage workers to advocate for their political, economic, and social well being. And we stand in strong support of this measure.

Just reading the testimony, I'm just really hardened to see all the organizations and businesses and individuals that are in support of this measure. I just wanted to share a short story. Just a few months ago, I was helping one of the members of our COFA Workers Association with an issue regarding their utility bill.

We have a workers association that meets regularly and this person, this individual, had five minor children and she was living in public housing. And because she was unable to pay about $250 in her utility bill, her five minor children were living in her unit with no electricity for the past year.

And you know, we tried calling the different social services agencies if they had funding to support, and unfortunately they didn't at the time. So we were able to at least pay that bill off for her. And then for her, it made such a world of difference for her children and just for her family just to have electricity.

And what this program would do, it would finally address that issue that sometimes people do fall behind on their bills and the ones that are the most vulnerable are the ones that will really benefit from this program. And it's just heartening just to see so many people in support of this. And thank you again for the opportunity to testify and support.

Thank you. Next we have Ohana Unity Party on Zoom. Not present. And Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee, this is Jade McMillen. On behalf of the Tax foundation of Hawaii, our comments have been submitted on the measure.

We note some concerns about the eligibility concerns for the program because as the bill is currently written, it appears to give the Department of Human Services unlimited discretion to set the income eligibility limit and other eligibility standards. We feel these are not purely technical choices, so policy makers should set some standards and guide roles. Thank you.

Thank you. And then just checking back in, is Human Services is responding yet? Okay.

Aloha. Good morning. Apologies, I had multiple screens on. The Department stands on its submitted testimony in support of the measure. Thank you.

All right, thank you. That's everyone. We had signed up to submit testimony in person. We had additional four individuals submitting testimony in support. Was there anyone else here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, questions? Seeing none. If it's okay with you, we can go straight into decision making.

Okay, so we are going into decision making on House, Senate Bill 191 SD1 relating to energy assistance. We are going to move this forward with some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Non substantive.

We will blank out the dollar amounts and the FTE numbers, but note those suggested amounts that are in the bill currently in the committee report. And we will redefect the date to July 1st, 3000 and move this forward. With that, members for EP, any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you.

For the Committee on Human Services and Homelessness, same recommendation. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

[ROLL CALL]

All right. And we are adjourned.

All right, we are back again. Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. Thursday, March 13th, 11:16AM in Room 325. We are here for decision making on Senate Bill 897 SD3, relating to energy. All right, I'm going to say a number of things on this. We want to.

The Committee wants to move forward with a somewhat different proposal for consideration.

I think that there remains really significant concerns and questions about the use of ratepayer funds for the recovery Fund with no clarity or guarantee, that this will achieve its stated purpose of improving interest rates or that if interest rates did improve, that we would be able to attribute it to this or to have any clarity or certainty that customer rates will increase less in the scenario of passing the measure as it stands now versus not passing it.

And I think locking ratepayers into 30 years of paying for this Fund for an issue that may resolve itself in a much Shorter amount of time is a lot to ask of the Legislature.

On the other hand, I do think that the question of limiting liability is valid and it's a tough thing to talk about, but I think that in the, you know, in a world of Climate change, where we have increasing natural disasters.

The idea of unlimited liability for these kind of wildfire events is a huge issue facing utilities across the nation and is the, the kind of what remains true is that we need to have a viable electric utility that is providing power to the people of Hawaii.

And for that I think we're willing to consider still including some liability limitation. Even if we remove the fund. All of this is really up for discussion. So this is a starting point for a discussion of taking a new approach on addressing the issues that we've been talking about.

And I think that I'd rather make the changes now and enable there to be a process that includes some kind of public inclusion of the public in looking at the new proposals versus doing this all somehow at the end of session and conference behind closed doors with the inclusion of. So I guess I'll say this first.

What we're looking at with the liability limitation is limiting that again to economic damages, as has already been discussed this session, and having a limit on aggregate liability that would not exceed $1 billion or the average assessed value of commercial, and residential structures designed for habitation in the county in which the wildfire occurred, multiplied by the number of structures that were destroyed plus the value of personal property or the aggregate assessed replacement value.

So this is similar to what was considered last year. So it would be the lesser of those, those three options.

And then in addition, we want to include in this Bill because we think there's still really a benefit to allowing securitization in order to ensure that work needed work moves forward on implementing wildfire mitigation plans and other infrastructure improvements to improve resilience and reduce risk.

And there's a direct nexus and benefit to both the system and to ratepayers of ensuring that the cost of those funds needed to do that is kept low. And we can achieve that through securitization.

So in this Bill we're going to also move forward, including an authorization for securitization for implementation of wildfire mitigation plans and other investments in infrastructure improvements, modernization and replacements needed to reduce risk and increase reliability and resilience to natural disasters and weather related events.

And I think we're going to authorize at this time securitization up to amount of 500 million. And this would show up on customer bills as an infrastructure resilience charge. Again, we have a 7:00PM deadline tonight to file our drafts on these bills and we're asking our Bill drafters to do a lot of work.

So what comes out of this Committee this time around might still need a lot of work and be a little bit messy, but we think it's important to keep this conversation moving forward.

In addition, I guess I want to say that I feel like following up on the conversation last session, it was the first time this body had considered securitization as a tool for financing. And that was linked to a Bill that included applying those rate fair, ratepayer funded capital to pass liabilities.

And that I think, gave the public and Members of this body an impression of securitization, a negative impression of the word securitization. But I would just like to say, you know, for these Members and for anyone who else who's watching, that securitization is a valuable tool.

And how it's used is very much something that can be determined by us in. In statute and with the oversight of the PUC and how they would authorize a financing order.

And I think that we should recognize securitization as an important kind of tool in the toolbox for moving forward, for getting these infrastructure improvements done or other, you know, possible uses, and not equate securitization in any way with, you know, bailout or however it was sort of being perceived last session. I don't think that's accurate or fair.

And then, you know, in addition, this current version of the Bill contains sections relating to the Hawaii Electricity Reliability Administrator and the rps. We're going to remove those and then also, of course, defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and I'm sure a multitude of technical amendments included in there.

And we will do our best to come up with something that we'll continue working on with the other, you know, other chairs as this Bill moves forward. So thank you all so much for your support of us continuing to work on this. And with that, I guess, Members any discussion, seeing none.

Vice Chair, did you wait? Did I miss you? No. Okay, go ahead. Thank you.

On Senate Bill 897 SD3. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Representative Kahaloa, aye. Representative Kusch, aye. Representative Quinlan is excused, as is Representative Ward. Chair, Your recommendation has been adopted.

All right, thank you. And we're adjourned.