Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Right. Good morning. We are here for an informational briefing. It is June 25, Wednesday, 9:30am in room 325. And we are here with the joint committees from the House side, Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, Chair Kila from Committee on Transportation. And we have Representatives Perruso and Grandinetti.

And then I'm joined on the Senate side by Chair Gabbard for the Committee on Agriculture and Environment, Chair Lee for Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts. And we have Senators DeCorte and Awa joining us as well.

And I think run of show today, we're going to go straight to presentations and then we'll do Q and A. And then if chairs and legislators want to give some comments, we'll leave that for the end. So I'll turn it over to you.

And we are looking forward to hearing more about the Navajine settlement and the plan that you have to meet those requirements.

Thank you. Chair Lewin, all our Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members. Ed Sniffin with Hawaii DOT. We're going to be doing a combined presentation to the combined committees to make sure that we can talk about this until from the Itquot I'm here. Laura Kakua and Jen Sullivan are here as well from the DOT.

Isaac Moriwake was nice enough to sue me. So he's here as part of the discussions on how we work together on all of these goals. We also have our youth Council Members, three of them that are here. One is Luke G. Raise your hand. Luke Kavika Pegram, who graduated from Waipahu, and Mia Nishigawa. Nishiguchi, sorry, from Kalani.

And we also have four of our interns here. Marvin. Marvin's here. He's from Manoa. He's going, uh, Manoa. Now, Nicholas. Where's Nicholas? From Waipahu. And he'll come up and talk a little bit about some of the issues here. And you'll see that he doesn't talk about talk like a sophomore in high school.

Mino AKA she's going to, uh, now. And Jordan also going to, uh. So they'll come up and do portions of presentations as well. Next slide, please. Overall, we're just going to go through the slides to just talk about where we were in the settlement, what we agreed to and where we are right now. Next slide.

So June of last year, and we're getting to the anniversary of when we celebrated this settlement to move forward. We all knew the Governor and the legislators supported this move forward for 2045 clean energy goals. Isaac from Earth Justice, our children's trust.

And the 13 plaintiffs felt that we weren't going fast enough to make sure that we hit our goals. So we made sure we worked on a settlement that gets us where we need to be for that 2030 and 2045 goals. Biggest part of the suit was making sure that it affirmed the rights of all of our youth.

And maybe, Isaac, you can speak to that.

Yeah, sure. We'll get into a little bit of the legal background in the next slides.

But, yeah, there's just a recognition that at the constitutional level, but then also in the laws that you legislators have also passed, that we need to hit some pretty ambitious goals in terms of decarbonizing the entire state, but starting with our transportation system, which is the. The largest greenhouse gas producer right now in our entire economy.

So recognition of that. And then, yeah, a big part of that settlement was the commitments and actions that HDOT is moving forward.

And part of discussions during our legal processes, Isaac found that there are things that HDOT was moving forward on that they didn't know about and partially because we weren't talking about it.

So we wanted to make sure that we had a process that formalized first, first, what we're working on and second, the milestones that we'd be hitting throughout.

We also wanted to make sure we threw out big goals that we could both get around to ensure that we looked at the benefit of Hawaii while we're looking at its 2045 clean energy goals. So we pushed forward on everything.

We wanted to make sure that we honored the movements that we already had and also took into account the communications that that the plaintiffs have put in place to ensure that we're showing that we're committed to the goals that Legislature, the Governor, and the existing Governor absolutely supports.

So we set the framework based on that for the settlement for several reasons. Part of it was to make sure that politics was pooled out of this. I mean, we see what happens with changes of Administration and changes of focus. Wanted to make sure that we could focus on the improvements for Hawaii for different areas.

When we talk about our commitments to these alternative fuels, making sure that we're working, we're taking care of Hawaii's natural beauty. We make sure that we talk about the security that it provides. Reducing GHG emissions comes out of alternative fuels that we can produce here. But producing the fuel is all the energy security that we're pushing for.

When we speak to dc, we talk to DOD and DOT to make sure that they understand why we move forward on these different initiatives. We Let them know that without energy we're not secure. If we cannot produce our own energy, we're not secure. Especially because we're not a non contiguous state.

We can't just run a cable across another state. So when we start talking about security it goes even further because we are the Pacific theater. If we cannot power our citizens here, we can't power the bases either.

We're going to make sure that we can power them, we can feed them, we can make sure that we can push everything forward. So the energy and food security has a big piece that we push forward with DOD and DOT and the AG to ensure that everybody understands what we're trying to get across.

Yeah, I just want to zoom out real quick but highlighting what a special agreement, what a special development and event this settlement was.

So as you may have seen sort of on the commentary and the coverage on this, this is one of its kind in the nation and really pathbreaking where the, the government came together with its own citizens, particularly the youth to make these commitments and recognize these obligations. It's the first time that's ever happened in the climate context.

It's the first time that we're addressing the transportation system in particular. And again that's our biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution right now. And really the commitment to partner and the realization that we have to do this altogether. And that includes every, every branch of government.

So as you'll see the courts have been involved in this declaring rights. Now the Administration is stepping out about executing this plan and then the Legislature has a role to play as well.

You set the foundation with the laws and then you know, we'll definitely cover in the later part of this presentation about okay, what are the next steps on the legislative front? And this is the one year anniversary last Friday of the announcement of the settlement. So very timely. Well, here we go, the laws.

So yeah, as I mentioned, this is rooted in our state constitution, our charter document for the state.

It includes the public trust doctrine, this notion that is rooted in Hawaiian custom here in this state that are all natural resources are public trust resource that the state must protect and conserve for the benefit of, of everyone, including future generations.

And that intergenerational equity, that intergenerational justice aspect is really at the heart of that public trust doctrine. And then another provision is the right to clean and healthful environment. Our Hawaii Supreme Court has made clear that that now includes, encompasses a right to a life sustaining climate system.

And that's their exact words 1978 Con Khan those pictures at the bottom okay, next slide please. And the Legislature again has stepped up from their side. There have been multiple findings for at least a decade, maybe more.

But all Those2014171822 those are just a sampling of every time the Legislature has called the climate emergency or the climate crisis overriding the paramount concern with already, you know, impacts already happening and over long term. And as you all know, the Legislature in 2021 declared a climate emergency. Next slide please.

And here's just some of the sampling. But I guess the highlights of the laws the Legislature, many of you here actually have put in place for the state and that includes the centerpiece of our climate initiative, that net or net negative target.

And the Hawaii Supreme Court has recognized that that is kind of like the pillar of that life sustaining constitutional right and requires us to take action now before damage is irreversible, before it's too late for future generations. Again, the court's words. And then Act 131, and that was groundbreaking as well.

And calling for that multimodal network to be established and also reporting on greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts of every single project and the overall DOT program. You'll see how the settlement sort of actualize that and how DOT is now pushing forward.

And then of course, like, you know, also specific provisions like the requirement to decarbonizing the state fleets by 2035, all vehicles, 2030 for passenger vehicles, and providing the electric charging infrastructure to support all of that.

So based on the discussions, based on the laws that were in place, we set up this settlement agreement that gives us a framework of how to move forward. This is kind of a listing of it, but you can use the QR code to look at the full settlement requirements that we have.

We're just giving the highest level pieces that we move forward on. Already we set up a new office, made sure that we set up our youth council. And the biggest piece was to make sure that we started setting up that plan, that emissions reduction plan.

That was a big lift in the first year to make sure we have a track forward on how we move this. That plan is a living document. It's going to be adjusting with industry and with technology to ensure that we can maximize improvements as we move forward the rest of it.

And we'll hit all of these pieces as we move. First, the group. I wanted to make sure that the two Members of the group can just can introduce themselves.

Aloha everyone. Laura Kaakua, now with Hawaii Department of Transportation's new Office of Energy Security and Community Outreach. And I'm Genevieve Sullivan. I'm the Resilience Coordinator and a Project. Manager with the New Office of Energy, Security and Community Outreach.

So setting up that office was a big piece for us to make sure that there is somebody responsible within the DOT for movements in this direction. Equally as important was setting up our Youth Council. It was something that we had already set as a goal to move forward on.

The settlement helped us expedite that and move it forward a lot faster. I'm going to turn it over to three of the Youth Council Members to talk about it.

Aloha, Kakou. We are going to reintroduce ourselves as a council. So my name is Luke Nohea G. I'm a rising junior at Kealakehe High School and I serve as the inaugural Vice Chairperson.

Aloha everyone. My name is Miya Nishiguchi. I'm a rising senior at Kalani High School here on Oahu and I am the Chairperson.

Aloha Committee Members and chairs. My name is Kavika Pegram. I am in like 17th grade by now, so I'm fully out of college. But I'm from Waipahua.

So we're first going to jump into a little bit of demographics. So this year we received 83 total applicants of which 20 were selected for the council, 10 selected to serve a one year term and the other 10 selected to serve a two year term. We currently have five out of 13 Navihine plaintiffs on the council.

The female to male ratio is about 11 to 9. And we have Members from across the state, including the west side of Kauai, the south side of Kauai, the north, west, south central and east side of Oahu, the central of Molokai, central of Lanai, West Central and east of Maui, north West Central and east of Hawaii Moku.

However, we are still struggling to find someone from Kahoolawe. Currently our age range is ranging from 11 to 24 years old, although most of our Members find themselves within the 16 to 19 years old range. Next slide please. Okay, so this is just a light timeline about the Youth Council. So In November of 2024 applications were submitted.

In December of 2024 Members were selected. In January 2025 we had our first meeting in person on Oahu, which included a bus and skyline ride for our Members to gain a perspective on public transport on Oahu. From March to June 2025 we had virtual meetings where we gave feedback on the Energy Security Plan, Council protocol and development.

We elected leadership. Hence me and Mia. We are currently in the process of forming committees to help our council Members take more action initiative in their respective communities. And we also gave a presentation at the Hawaii State Student Leadership Summit about a little over two weeks ago where we talked about walk audits and safe routes to school.

In August of 2025, we are going to have our next in person meeting followed by another in person meeting in November of 2025 which will coincide with the Climate Future Forum which MIA will discuss more about.

Yeah, so if you're not familiar with the Climate Future Forum, it's basically an event that we hold every year and it's prior to the legislative session to the next year.

And it's mainly youth led and we have a bunch of rooms such as these and then they host presentations and events and a bunch of organizations also do tabling downstairs in the Rotunda and typically a lot of legislators do attend and it's very youth centered and a space for youth to learn more about climate change and any sectors that they're really interested in.

So we're very happy to coincide with them.

And in November of this year, applications will also reopen for next year's cohort. Thank you.

Maybe you can talk a little bit about the discussions that you guys had so far, especially around the GHG emissions reduction report. What kind of stuff goes through the council when you guys talk about it?

So the council definitely has a lot of very engaging discussions within our virtual meetings and our in person meeting. I'd say a very significant thing was when the DOT gave a presentation about the energy security plan in which a lot of our Members gave very insightful and very useful feedback and asked a lot of very good questions.

A lot of we're still in the process of forming our council when it comes to creating a charter, creating bylaws, and something that I think is really significant to us is our formation of a Committee system.

This system is something that will be based on three separate committees, the first of which is policy and legislation, second of which is event and advocacy, and the third of which is ground transportation.

Each Council Member will form themselves into whichever Committee they find themselves suiting best and based on that, they will help create and form reasonable action and take initiative in their own communities.

Appreciate that. Wanted to make sure that we could highlight them because they're a big part of how we move forward. In all of these pieces we'll be asking them to reconnect with their legislators, specifically in their communities, to ensure that they can keep you updated on where we are as we do as a group to the bodies.

Thank you guys. So the plan now, this big lift that we had, this is a big first deliverable that we had and we're going to be posting this in two days. This plan is a draft based on where we are today and where we need to be by 2045.

We also included the 2030 goals as well to ensure that we understand what kind of improvements are necessary as we move forward. We tried to get everything done about May or so to make sure we had enough time to push everything out. It was just such a big lift.

We had to make sure that we pushed it back a bit just to ensure that we put out a plan that was helpful as we move.

Biggest piece of this was to make sure that we could highlight the big opportunities that we have in different areas to reduce GHG emissions sooner rather than later and over the long term. And this is kind of the, the outcomes. When we started looking at this, we of course we looked at all three of our modes.

And when we started looking at these modes, the biggest impact that we could have is coming out to clean fuels, clean fuel standards, adjusting it to ensure that we can adopt faster. When we talk to each of the different modes, there's definitely concern in industry about how we hit these goals. We took a linear approach.

We just said we're starting here today, by 2045, we gotta be here. So we're taking a Linear approach and we're going to tell you based on that Linear approach, here's the percentages that you got to hit during these timeframes for us to hit our goals. And of course it's difficult for industry to swallow.

There's going to be additional costs that come to them, additional costs that come to all of us as users. So they're trying to make sure they can see how they balance out that cost per the benefit that we're trying to hit here. So in different areas, we had different conversations.

Definitely the ground transportation side, electrification is the big push. On the aviation side, conversion to SAF is a big push. As you all know, the airline industry set prior to us a 2050 goal. They said the adjustment from the 2050 to 2045 is like $1.0 billion discussion from the airline industry perspective.

They're just throwing out numbers right now because first they're saying that it's the cost to convert, but second, it's also to ensure that that the stock's actually going to be available for them. They've been having a hard time getting SAF available to just hit their 10% goal that they're trying to hit.

By 2030, let alone the 25% milestone that we're setting based on the linear approach. So those are discussions that we're going to have, we're going to keep having.

When we drop this report on the 27th, I'm sure they're going to come back in with different discussions and we're going to have to adjust in our ways to see how we get to this approach while making sure that people can actually still afford to live in Hawaii. Same thing.

When we start talking about the marine side, there's already conversions that are occurring to LNG and they're looking at how they convert to longer term fuels, cleaner fuels. As we move. We're looking at different options for cold ironing, for ship to shore power to make sure that they don't have to burn while they're in port.

When we look at Matson's upgrade to their container terminal, we're looking at about $1.0 billion for that specific piece. If we look at cold ironing, we want to increase from 1 megawatt power that HICO already has a plant for to about 8 to 10 megawatts.

And that cost is going to have to be absorbed by our ports. That's roughly 400 to 500 million. So 50% of the cost is going to be added to that.

So we got to see how we first afford that to make sure that we minimize the impact or cost impacts to our residents and make sure that we can advertise this over time. So those are the discussions that we're having continuously with the industries.

But I will say none of the industries are pushing back and saying this is not important. They're just saying we got to see how we do this so we can afford it. So this graph kind of shows where the impacts are. That green portion is the impacts we would have with clean fuel standards.

You'll see the other segments in there, the electrification, conversions to other fuels and reductions in GHG emissions throughout. But the biggest wedge right now based on our analysis is that clean fuel standard. Next is our tool, PE tool. This tool is what we're using for every project that comes through the DOT.

This measures our GHG impacts for every project. No other state's doing this. Minnesota is the only one that had a tool that measured the GHG emissions of their green projects. So bike paths, new, new projects that they knew would be beneficial to their environment, they would measure with this tool. We're measuring everything now.

This is going to be a consideration as we move forward for all the projects that we do to make sure that we can be, we can include being greener in all of the projects that we consider.

This gives a scoring tool for us to consider how this project will affect us now with our population densities, with our volume needs, our capacity needs, and how we make sure that we consider GHG emissions and everything. Yes, please.

So specifically on this piece, I wanted to highlight the work that got into this, that went to this. Thanks to Laura and her team and Jen to push this forward. This is specifically responding to that mandate the Legislature passed in 131 to analyze each project and document the progress toward those goals, including GHG and VMT reduction.

And as Ed noted, Hawaii is now leading the nation in terms of having this capability. I love the name PE is. It's an acronym, but I'm not sure if it was intentional that it was borrowed. Hawaiian. Yes. So pe, meaning to rise. So I guess in terms of upping our game, hopefully not increasing GHG emissions.

But yeah, Hawaii is, is now really a leader in this regard on this front. Thank. Appreciate that.

Yeah. And for the first bullet point, I know this was taken directly from the Navajina settlement to complete pedestrian bike transit networks in five years in partnership with the counties. And for the second one, there is a GSI GIS map in development to be ready later this summer. So that is something to look forward to.

And I'm aware that HDOT and the counties were doing research and using some layers within the GIS to fill in the gaps.

So for this specific requirement in the settlement, this is compressing 15 years of work into five. And the goal on this was to ensure that we set a goal, we set a requirement that would show our movement in different areas. It also helps that this is what we need anyway.

As for the state, alternative modes of transportation or recreation, definitely necessary in every, every community. Look at the fatality rates this year. A third of them are pedestrians and another third, a third of pedestrians and bicyclists together.

So these safety improvements going to help us as a society, this connectivity is going to help us reduce our emissions and get people out on the, on the road other than in their cars. So it's, it's beneficial overall. This, this is going to be a 40 to $50 million commitment over the next five years per year. Sorry.

Yeah, and wanted to also supplement on that too, how big this, this is. And when we talk to stakeholders, this is, you know, one line or one provision in the settlement. And everyone kind of highlights this and focuses on this because again, it directly responds to Act 131.

And that call for completing the networks for all modes and having them separated and protected. And five years. It's definitely an ambitious target and we really appreciate HDOT stepping up on that. And it was one of those things.

As we were working out the settlement, we what down payment can we make in terms of immediate pushes to really jumpstart this move forward on greenhouse gas reduction?

It helps us reset the process. As you all know. Many of you have been in the Legislature for a long time. We address multimodal in the projects that we have. So we have systems that have bike paths connecting to nothing, connecting to the bike paths connected to nothing because no projects were in between infilling.

So these are infills first making sure we can prioritize that reconnectivity in different areas, then starting to set up to make sure that we have areas that are not connected right now. The great thing is it opened up other opportunities. We're partnering with HECO in different areas to see what easements they may have.

And if we improve their easement and their areas, we can use that for a bike path while it gives them more access to their different equipment. So we're trying to see how we can maximize these partnerships.

I mean, so many co benefits as the Legislature found in Act 131, right? It's cleaner, it's cheaper, it's safer, all of the above. So this is a real key piece.

Another thing to add on the youth council side of this. The youth Council is also working with Justin Menina from the from the Hawaii Department of Health in focusing on Hawaii Public Schools area.

As as discussed earlier, when we did our presentation at the Hawaii State Student Leadership Summit, we had one of those students from Aiea High School reach out to us. And we are now investigating a, a situation at that school involving, involving sidewalks.

And so of course, of the transportation reduction strategies that are outlined in the plan that will be released on Friday, a big part of that is going to be clean field strategies. But in addition to that is also going to be carbon sequestration.

And so the DOT already has a minimum commitment to plant 1,000 native trees a year. In 2024, they tripled that and did 3,000. And just halfway through the 2025 year, DOT is already at 4,200 native trees planted. And so year over year, you're seeing that the DOT is surpassing their minimum expectations several times over.

Obviously, this comes with a number of benefits, not just with sequestration, but also you're reducing fire risk, you're mitigating soil erosion and you're creating kind of a healthier atmosphere for obviously youth to be able to grow up in.

Appreciate that and I appreciate the legislators legislative session this year the body gave us $15 million for fire mitigation that we're using for this as well. So as we remove fuel in different areas, in fallow fields, as we cut firebreaks, we're making sure that we replant them with natives because they don't burn.

They're better, they're better for the environment, they're better for fire mitigation, they work overall for our long term goals.

For EVs, we pushed forward on a NEVI program. The NEVI program, through the Biden Administration, or IGA, gave us 2.5 million per year. It costs about a million and a half to 2 million bucks per location.

We committed to 13 of these areas that have four port 150 kilowatt chargers to make sure we get fast charges throughout the system. We built two so far, one in Kaudui and one at Aloha Tower. Six more coming this year in Kauai, Maui and Big Island to make sure we can start rounding out the system.

But as we all know, it's not going to be enough. It's going to be the first pieces that we're looking at different areas at airports. We're also pushing 4.1 50s to ensure that those that park at the airport can charge up there.

We're trying to make sure that we can identify areas that we can put investments into, fast chargers for the community where they need them versus where the Federal Government said we should be putting them.

So in General, when we started looking at this settlement, we committed to a $40 million investment over the next five years to ensure that we jumpstart this process. We have a contract with Sustainability partners that allows us to purchase the service of these charges and have them maintain it for us.

So you won't see a station down for a long period of time because they're regularly maintaining these portions. When we charge rates on these, we are charging to recover electric costs, period. We're not trying to make money, we're not trying to repay for the infrastructure. We're just. We're just getting the. The cost. Electric cost paid.

Yeah, real quick.

As Director Sniffin noted, this was another piece in the Navajina settlement that was part of that initial down payment idea. And he mentioned $40 million in public EV charging infrastructure by 2030.

This is a big piece. And this is one of the main reasons that we could actually get to a settlement. In the past. And I had discussions with Isaac about other agreements that we had with groups in the past where we had shared goals.

We would push forward on those different initiatives and then our partners would bail on us. Because in General, when we get to areas where we push these different policies, there are going to be some people that are upset. There's going to be some really difficult conversations we're going to have with community Members in different areas.

Isaac made it very clear that when we have those conversations, he and his groups will be there making sure that first we educate the community in different areas.

So it's not the first time they hear it when we start pushing an initiative forward and second, when we come out, we can explain it together why it's important from different perspectives. So this is a big partnership as we move forward and it also extends to our youth council.

Yeah. As Director Sniffin was kind of touching on in order to do this kind of large scale energy and transportation transition successfully requires necessarily, especially in Hawaii, community buy in.

And so the youth Council we see kind of our primary role obviously to make sure that the plan that's getting put out this year and then revised for the next five years is one that is good and one that does take community input into account and that takes youth voices into account.

Second to that is also to make sure that the communities that we're in are understanding of what this plan is, how it's going to affect them and to be able to get them to kind of rally behind some of the choices that we're making, even if at first it might be a little uncomfortable.

So it kind of comes to what we're trying to push now. Now that we have our plan in place. Well, that will have our plan in place after we drop the draft, get comments and redraft to get to the final.

We'll be coming to the Legislature with a package next year that that follows the recommendations that are coming through in our report. And again, one of the biggest pieces that we have is that clean fuel standard. So making sure we can move forward on that. Next slide please.

So last session that cleanfuels Bill came through, it turned into a resol for DOT to do financial analysis, which is a good idea. We came in and supported the clean fuel standard with the caveat that we do a third party review of what the cost would be we borne by the community and we're supportive of that.

So move forward on that study. But as you had seen in that past graph, if we're looking at the biggest impacts you're going to have, it's going to be on that portion.

Good morning legislators. Thank you for this opportunity to present on an issue and a lot of movements that I'm very passionate about. My name is Nicholas Nishimura. I'm a rising junior at Waipahu High School.

I serve as the Hawaii FFA State President and I am a Member of the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition, currently interning at HDOT with the Office of Energy Security and Community Outreach. When we take a look at all of these strategies that we're looking to implement, including a clean Fuel standard.

One of the most important things that we need to do as a Department is also conduct things like feasibility studies to see how our initiatives are going to impact Hawaii residents. So when we talk about incorporating a clean fuel standard into our state, that means incentivizing economically the production and use of lower carbon fuels.

So moving away from imported gasoline, moving away from high carbon emissions that come from the burning of fossil fuels in cars and other internal combustion engine vehicles. And when we do that, it may raise the prices of gasoline for Hawaii consumers.

So ensuring that we're keeping our community in mind through outreach with operators like the Hawaii Youth Transportation Council and also through the University of Hawaii to conduct this feasibility study. It's something that's really important to us and it's outlined in our energy security plan.

So as I was saying, to invent to incentivize the production and use of these clean fields in Hawaii, the state needs to take some actions, similar to states such as California and Washington, to make these fuels competitive in the market.

So we're on this next slide here and we take a look at three modes of transportation when we talk about clean fuels, and those are aviation, marine and ground transportation.

When we take a look into aviation, we want to implement a Hawaii specific Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF tax credit to support the production, blending and importation of sustainable aviation fuel in the state.

We have operators such as the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition that take the perspectives of a lot of operators in industry such as Hawaiian Airlines, who are moving towards sustainability goals and support initiatives such as a tax credit which would help them transition in an economically viable way.

When we take a look at the marine sector, we're aiming to pass legislation to provide similar incentives for use of clean marine fuels and grant state agencies the authority to establish market based mechanisms such as those clean fuel standards to subsidize the use of these fuels very similar to aviation.

We're all trying to do the same thing for each industry. And that kind of changes when we take a look at ground transportation. Because even with the aggressive electrification that we're talking about and that we're supporting as a Department, there are some heavy duty vehicles that will still inevitably need liquid fuels.

So by investing in a clean fuel standard and supporting the use of these fuels, of these clean fuels economically, we can make sure that these heavy duty vehicles are still able to run in a clean, energy efficient manner. So when I was in 10th grade, I was not passionate about this.

Just real quick note, I wanted to drop. So clean fuel standards includes electrification right as A clean, clean fuel. So that will be getting credits and that's another way you can Fund EV charging infrastructure.

Perfect. And Nicholas, I really appreciate the perspective on this and he has a lot more information on the power generation side as well. When we get to questions, if you'd like to talk about it.

Overall, when we started looking at these types of initiatives and again I got a little concerned that we didn't have enough information on what the financial impact would be.

So doing that study up front is going to help us tremendously and recommending to you, but this should look like when we start drafting out this legislation or this package, we'll make sure that we work with our transportation and environment chairs so that we we're on the same page before we drop a Bill or we ask for a drop Bill to be dropped during the session.

Next slide please. The next one is, is looking at trying to see how we incentivize EVs making sure that we can get the demands in Hawaii, making sure that people who can't afford them are subsidized to afford them or incentivize to move forward on them.

As you know, there's some perks that are that have been removed in the past for EVs. When the EV perks kind of sunsetted, we went through our rulemaking to make sure that EVs could still be allowed in our HOV lanes. Federal government's not allowing that anymore. So that perk is going to go away very soon.

When that happens, we got to make sure that we understand how we can incentivize locally what EV uptake should look like to make sure we get to our clean energy goals. And we'll put those milestones in our plan. And we have to see how we can potentially push people to move in this direction.

Isaac, you want to add when we start looking at this, of course we get 1.4 million vehicles that we're concerned about on the light duty side. We're also trying to see how we can get more people to use other means of transportation as we go forward. Definitely. Supporting mass transit is big.

Getting people connected from their point of origin to their destinations better in different areas is huge. We went forward with a grant from our congressional delegation to make sure we could study a bike and ped path from Nanakuli to uh. And not because I expect somebody to ride a bike from Nanakuli to uh.

What that does is connect up Nanakuli to Kapolei, Kalelo and Kapolei to Ewa and Ewa to Waipahu to make sure that the interconnectedness in our land uses there.

We also put 240 million into access into Kapolei and Kalailoa to make sure we can get more commercial opportunities in those areas so that people don't have to drive into town for their job. They can choose a financially viable job on the west side.

So we want to make sure that we adjusted how land use looks to ensure that it could better incentivize people to use different means of transportation. I'm not into forcing people out of their cars. I meant to making sure that we can give them different options that are viable for them on the aviation side.

I mean, that's one of the biggest fuel burners that we have. We don't produce SAF here and that's one of the difficulties that the airlines are having. So many of the airlines have jumped into funding alternative fuel flights.

Regent I know has come to the Legislature quite a bit to talk about their electricity airplane to fly Inter Islands. They're still looking at spaces, they're still trying to see how their operations will move forward.

And we continue to work with them to see what kind of space and infrastructure needs they have to see how we what's necessary to support them. This is the movement that they're making for the Inter island pieces.

First test it out on the short runs to see how it can potentially be used for the long runs on the marine side. Again, adoption of clean fuels is a big thing. And one of the difficulties again is the industry is lagging. I'm sorry, the availability of fuels is lagging the industry.

So as a case in point, both of our major shippers in Hawaii had their ships lng ready seven to eight years ago. But they only got the fuel stock to be able to use it in the last two.

So if we don't have that availability of staff and other or other fuels, clean fuels, to move forward with things that's going to hamper some of our operations.

So part of the legislative actions is to make sure that we can show the industry the demand that we're going to have so that they can start gearing up for it. Big push for us is to make sure there's a bunch of sinks available to make sure we can hit our 2045 net negative goal.

We're already moving forward on replanting of natives. There's other opportunities that we have for sequestration in our construction, in our operations and our normal maintenance. So we're trying to see what we can push to require some of these actions. So that's the big pieces that we have so far.

Again, the report that we have is the biggest lift so far. We wanted to make sure we had that ready, to make sure that we could move forward with legislative packages that we could recommend to you. Apologize that we didn't have it ready for last session. There's no way we could get that report done that quickly.

But we'll have it ready for the next one. Open for any questions.

Okay, guys, don't mind. I'll ask a quick question first and then I think we'll go House, Senate, House, Senate. Does that work? Going back to the slide, that was the transportation emission reduction strategy of the chart. And there's the green area, that is the clean fuel strategies. And then you mentioned that electrification is included under clean fuel.

So is it included under clean fuels in this chart?

No, it's not. So electrification is separate. It's that light blue piece and then.

Is the green primarily. How much of that clean fuel strategy is addressing airline emissions versus marine versus.

On a percentage perspective, I think it's coming out 60. 40.

Yeah, 40.

Ground transportation, the primary strategy is electrification and we have that. Clean fuels to support the medium and light duty vehicles and equipment. The vast majority, I'll just say of that green that we need to replace is coming from aviation. So that's where the big push is.

And then it fills in with marine conversion to clean fuels and a small amount from ground transportation. Okay.

I guess I'm just a little curious. Like, you know, we've had the bills for the clean fuel standard and for tax credit and incentives, et cetera. But also we know that it's still kind of a drop in the bucket. So, so how, you know, this sounds good if it's achievable, but how achievable is it realistically?

Yeah, and that's the. I don't know. Right now for us, the biggest piece that we need is that study to ensure we understand what the cost of a clean fuel standard is. So going through this next year, having that cost perspective put out and ready for you guys for next session is going to be big for us.

Okay, I have a lot of other questions, but, but over to the Senate.

You mentioned partnerships and obviously Earth Justice is involved still. Our Children's Trust. Are they still actively involved? Yes, partners and how.

So every Friday, Laura meets with Earth Justice and our Children's Trust to ensure that we're all on the same page moving forward. Gotcha.

And how about the counties? Are you working with the counties?

Yes, Absolutely. So they're a big piece of our transportation system. I mean right now we, I think we have about 10,000 miles or so of roadway in the state. 3,000 is owned by the state, the rest is all county. So they're a big piece of that micro, micro. That multimodal approach that we have.

But they're actively involved with. Yes.

Or anyone else on the.

Go ahead. First off.

So it seems to me that a lot of your success kind of rides on the efficacy of the PE tool we. Which is remarkable just looking at it on the face of it. And I didn't really try. I don't know if it's accessible to the public to test out.

Okay, so then as you kind of develop it and finesse it over time, is that going to be. Are the changes going to be shared with the Legislature? So we can look at the past, for example, standards you were using and different kinds of coding you're using and how you've changed over time.

Because I just think that for a lot of us it's a black box. And I know that there are researchers at, uh, who would probably like to get behind the black box and really analyze, you know. Yeah, happy to, happy to.

So they've already provided it online and I think it's like pretty much open source or something. You can go in there, right? Yeah. And see how it works. Does it have to be refined over time? Absolutely. But I really appreciate the transparency and that was the whole key to this, that tool. Right.

Now I also want to point out that, okay, we have this analytical capability that the settlement called for and moved forward. Then the real question, the next question is what are you going to do with it? Right.

And so the whole intent was now that you're armed with that knowledge, then that whole sort of programming piece in terms of where we budget, right. What infrastructure projects we push forward, that's going to have to inform those decisions and make sure we're making the right decisions in line with, with these planning goals.

Yeah. So the first step was changing the AMPO process to make sure that GHG emissions reductions is a consideration. That was the first step and that's already been done since the time of the settlement.

Second step was to make sure that we could measure what they look like from the construction impacts all the way through the use long term. And this is what the tool does. So what we can do is send this body three use cases that you.

So you can see how we laid out Laniakea as one of the, as one of the use cases. You can see how it's scored in this P tool, I think.

Another tool that I'll try and send to you guys, we'll look at the Farrington highway widening through Eva when it was originally proposed as a six lane facility, then when it changed to a three lane facility with bike and PED connected to it.

So you can see what the General scoring would look like from one to the other.

Really appreciate that. Thank you.

Yeah, no thanks. Thanks for the presentations. All of you really just want to say this is really impressive. We want to give credit to DOT for all the different work and effort. Obviously these things take time and we're running out. So. Yeah, appreciate it. And thanks to the kids especially and Isaac and everybody on this stuff.

So obviously there's going to be like a whole lot of stuff moving across different sectors and all that.

One of the things I was looking at was, you know, maybe three years ago, I forget what the bill or actor, all that kind of stuff was, but we gave DOT additional admin rule authority to be able to achieve basically anything with respect to emissions reductions in the transportation space.

Have you guys at all looked at like what other things could be possible that you could use that through that process you can just kind of implement without having to wait for.

Yeah, so what we did was internally push all those things forward. So whatever we could internally do, we did made sure that we converted our fleets, made sure that we adjusted the ground ground equipment for airlines in different areas. So we're using that authority to push forward and expend our funds on that.

I don't see how we push it to other, other industries right now without going through a legislative process to say this has to happen. Definitely we use our buying power through that, especially with contractors, to ensure that we have greener construction. But beyond that, I don't know how to use it yet on pushing other industries.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think that's a key question. Right. Because Senator Lee, thanks for reminding that DOT has that wide ranging authority to make rules. So with respect to something like the clean fuel standard, I think that's a conversation with you and the agency that in the Legislature.

Would it help to have the Legislature set that umbrella statute, that authorization, putting some standards? Okay, what do we expect out of a clean fuel standard? Or is that something that even without something like that, the DOT can just take its rulemaking authority and run with. Maybe that's something that you all can talk about off session.

But yeah, thanks for reminding us about that rulemaking authority. And it's pretty wide ranging. It was in that climate Bill about pathways to decarbonization.

Chris gave us superpowers.

Right.

Thank you so much for the presentation and thanks to the young folks for all the work that you're putting into this. I was wondering. I'm really interested in, you know, this is like a lot for DOT to, to do and to lay out this like bigger vision.

I'm particularly interested in the fuel demand reduction strategies and you mentioned how this intersects with broader land use planning in terms of pursuing more compact transit oriented development. How does that look in terms of working across agencies and departments?

The good thing is there's a TLD council that gets everybody together for the discussions. I think we can go further.

If the state controlled the lands around the Tod stations, we could set the rules on how everything works and just throw out, for instance, if the state bought all that land and we could control the development, making sure that we could densify residential development in those areas, make sure that people cannot have a car in those areas because they can be connected by rail in different portions.

And then we set up car shares in different portions. So if they do need a vehicle, it's easy to get to, then we can really control what it looks like for transportation in that corridor that day to day transportation. So I think we can go beyond just what we're considering right now.

That mass transit piece is a big one to ensure that we densify where we should be and we don't have to worry about going out into the country and developing more housing in that area. That land use piece, from my perspective, is a big thing.

I think we guaranteed ourselves high VMT and high traffic in the way we're built. When 80% of the jobs all live in one area and everything else is bedroom communities, we guarantee it.

So making sure that we redistribute those commercial opportunities into different areas with real jobs, not just strip malls and the like, then making sure that we connect the communities through multimodal processes throughout, making it very easy for everybody to get to that 10 to 15 minute sweet spot.

And now with more E scooters and E bikes and more micromobility, it should be pretty easy for us to do. I think that's the biggest strategy we can push from a DOT perspective. And as Chris pointed out, we have that authority now to move forward like that in different areas.

Can I add on to that? Yeah. This is a real key issue in terms of land use and it's really a systems level thing. So we appreciate DOT stepping up to this settlement, recognizing that this is ultimately about systems change. Right. And there's a recognition that it goes beyond DOT too.

At the same time, DOT plays a key leadership role even on the land use piece. I mean, they have that review authority and one of, you know, key provisions in the settlement itself recognizes that authority.

They're going to use the PE tool, work with developers, you know, in terms of, okay, what projects we move forward, how are those built in terms of accessibility, you know, amenities to address those BMT and GHG impacts that this tool is now analyzing.

So, yeah, the DOT has a real influential role to play in that land use piece. And even now, though, it's still reactive. Right. I think they're commenting on these develop proposals. I think we really need to think bigger on that in terms of how we promote that system change on the land use piece.

I'll jump in. How does. How does the. Wait, is it. That was your question? Is it sent aside? Sorry.

Oh, I'll go. After you.

You guys got something? No questions. It'd be more. It'd be more easy to talk if we could all just converse. Stop. That'd be cool. But I. I appreciate that. I'll wait. I'll wait.

So you're four days out from the court date. Would you like to share any backstory on the settlement? Isaac's chuckling over there. And how did it. I mean, it's such a huge thing. How did. What was going on.

I'll give you the unabridged. Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Appreciate that. During the process, our attorneys started everything off right? And rightfully so. The state was holding its position that we're doing everything we need to. The plaintiffs was holding theirs, that we're not doing enough. So that was the crux of the conversation.

As we were moving forward and going through depositions, we started seeing that we're a lot closer in what we were trying to get to than we thought in the past.

And once key pieces were pulled off the table from our side and theirs, it was really easy for two local boys just to get together and get this thing done.

So I waved off my attorney and with the attorney support, to make sure that Isaac and I could meet up, talk story, and see how we can work out these details to get to a settlement that makes the best sense for everybody moving forward. And it took two meetings to start.

Off with.

But the first meeting was to make sure we. We. We were of like mind. So we had to meet up, sit down, talk story. I think we went through 10 Guinnesses each just to make sure that we could understand each other.

One of those stories, the number of years increasing every time you tell it, but. And it was just the two of you?

Yeah, yeah, just the two of us.

It was. I think it was 10 to 12, because I did lose count between the both of us.

Off the record. Yeah. That's not actually funny. I understand. You know, how we talk on the side, but then you coming to us, bringing policy recommendations after a Drunken talk, like think about what you're saying right now.

Yeah, so the drunken talk was just to make sure that we could get along. That was it. Before, there was no policy discussions. The discussion during that time was, yeah.

What are we talking about here?

Or whatever, who are you? Why should I work with you? Why should I trust you? And if we get together to move forward on this, are you going to be there? That was the crux of the first conversation. Then the meetings after that were the policy talks.

And that's why I'm saying there are two meetings just to figure out do we have common ground here. And that was just a start. And then you're talking about, okay, what are the terms? What does the language look like? And then of course, the circle spans, the attorneys get involved and what have you.

So it was a very extensive process, but the key was committing to partnership and getting it done here at home. Right. And realizing that, hey, we have this foundation of the law, we have to respect, we have the Legislature's direction on this. And then, then how do we bring the Executive together?

So now we have the courts, we have the Legislature, and we have the Executive firing on all those three cylinders. Right. And moving us forward.

Okay, I think Rep. Kila has a question.

I just want to clarify. I wasn't on my phone listening to a voicemail. I just was going back because I just needed to confirm that you folks just went on the record and told us that something like this to be adopted may have an impact on consumers cost for gas.

And I'm all for the decarbonization of Hawaii, but this has always been my main issue is that you asking folks to move towards a green infrastructure who don't have green. Right. Not everybody can afford an electric vehicle. The infrastructure for an electric vehicle.

I live in one of the most transportation impacted areas in the state where work is not where we live and everything is exacerbated based off a cost. And that's just rural Oahu. I don't even want to talk about neighbor island costs. So I'm trying to find a way to.

I understand what you folks are trying to accomplish, but you just. This briefing alone is now putting us on record that this may have an impact on Hawaii residents unbeknownst or unforeseen. So I'm not, I don't know how I feel right now.

I know what we're trying to accomplish, but that is something I need folks to like continually understand is that when you come from a position of asking for decarbonization, you're asking folks to almost bend to the capacity that they don't have. Right.

Because then you can argue that West Oahu is the most sun on the island, but do they have the infrastructure to even put solar? A lot of these folks don't own their homes. Right. I know we've made progress with our GEMS program to allow renters to go through these processes, but it's this constant moving forward.

You forget that there are people who are still trying to catch up. Does that make sense? Totally.

So let me be clear though, Cherkee. Look, we not asking the community to do that. So first I'll say I guarantee costs will go up when we move in this direction. Not just for gas, for other goods.

If we're looking at changing the way we do business for marine and for air, I guarantee that costs will go up. But I'm not asking for it. That's what our 2045 clean energy goal that's in law requires. So we're setting this path based on that law.

Now this, and this is something that you and I had talked about before and we talked about with other legislators as part of this report. What we can do is consider what that cost would look like to get to 2045100% or net zero or net negative by 2045.

Or what it would look like if we worked with the airlines to get to the 2050 goal that they've already set as a target. So adjusting that by five years could have significant cost impacts in the short term and longer term.

If we look at that from that perspective, if we adjusted the way we looked at the goals or the timeframes in it, it could have. It could have positive or negative impacts overall if we're considering both environmental and cost. But I think that's what we can study. That's what we can show in the report.

But I gotta say, I'm not asking anybody to do this. I'm following the law right now and I'm showing what it takes to follow to get to that 2045 goal.

Yeah, and I totally agree. And I want to add too that that's why these incentives matter in terms of enabling people and everyone to make that just transition and realize the system that we have now is super burdensome. It's super costly. It's the worst scenario right now. Not even factoring the greenhouse gas impacts. Right.

The climate disasters, Lahaina. That's not gonna be the first time and only time. Right. And so how do we do that system change, recognizing that it is going to have A price tag, but we save in the long term. Right. And so I think, you know, particularly where there's investment barriers. Okay, how do we move to electrification?

That's where I think, you know, the Legislature has a key play to role. To role to play. Sorry. To ease that transition.

I mean, I'm going to chime in out of turn. I just think. Well, it's also important, I think, for dealership to make the. To believe in if you're going to be successful. I think you have to have a better answer to that question also.

Right.

Because I mean, some of the things, what you're basically saying is, yeah, it's going to cost more, but we didn't ask for it, so we're just doing what we were asked to do. But I think that it depends on, I mean, some things will cost more, other things, there's a balance sheet that might work out differently.

And I think it's important to look at those individually. For example, electric vehicles, there's an upfront cost, but cheaper to own and operate over time. The, you know, energy transition. I mean, I think it's, it's hard to know against sort of a counterfactual, but you can look at Kauai as an example for cost staying lower.

We don't know what will happen as we go further along necessarily with costs towards 100%. But I wouldn't say that the evidence right now holds up that it has made the cost of electricity more expensive. I would say it's the opposite. And so I think just agreeing to that statement is not going to help with success. Right.

Moving policies. Some of the, some of it is true, right. The cost of gas, things like that, but not, I think there's. Every case is a little bit different and it's important to make that case 100% successfully advocate for policy.

So 100% agree. I don't. I cannot say that I advocate for 24,500% or net zero. I cannot say that because I don't have my report in front of me to show me what that costs are going to look like right now. So until I get that, that is my answer right now, I'm following the law.

Once I get to that opportunity to see what those costs will look like and what I could compare it to, to get it to 2050 or 2055, then I can recommend to you what I would recommend based on getting to that green future that we want, but also making sure that people can actually live here.

I mean, that's where I want to get to.

If you do the research and the data shows the goal will be unaffordable for many of the people that Darius and I'm glad you brought it up Rep. Keyla represents and others who make, you know, about that much a year.

Would the goal need to get pushed back with the, you know, where do you guys stand on that part of it?

And I'm speaking for me as the Department head, I'm going to do analysis to see what impacts we would have getting to 2045, net zero or net negative. We're going to try and see what it looks like to push it back 5 and maybe push it back 10 and see what that analysis looks like.

Based on that, if we can keep affordability where it is.

But if we push it back five years, that's the recommendation I would make to the, to the body to say let's, let's consider both cost, cost to our residents with the improvements that we're going to be having as we move to this green, this green future that we have. That would be my recommendation.

Now of course I'm going to have to pass it by my Governor to ensure that he's supportive of that, of that recommendation as well.

Okay, thank you.

You can go ahead. I was going to go ahead. I just wanted to share. We had three priorities we're trying to balance in our energy security plan. So of course emissions reduction, but also island energy security to fuel our lives and our transportation system. And then the third, equally as important as affordability to our local residents.

And we really appreciate Representative Keela's comments about making sure we're not leaving people behind right in this transition to a cleaner economy. And that's why this push to this five year multimodal network condensing 15 years of work into five. It costs the average car owner averaged out over $8,000 to own a car every year.

Yes, electric vehicles can be expensive, but for those who can't even afford a car, let alone an electric vehicle, that's where we really need to afford them. These alternative options with increasing our public transit system and providing, you know, walkable streets and bike lanes.

So that's that huge push in this first five years is to look out for those. And then, you know, we, we do plan to come back when we have results of that study and, and figure out what the right solution is so that, that we're not moving too fast and leaving people behind.

So we've been involved, Earth justice has been involved in the electric sector which really ramped up before now this transportation Push. And I see so many parallels. Right. There's a question about affordability and can we do 100? Well, let's just set the target. And we've been making all those goals already and saving money while doing it.

In fact, we would have been saving more money if we did it faster. Right. And that's still a struggle going forward. And I see so many parallels with the transportation system. As Laura already pointed out. Look at the cost of car ownership and fossil fuel use already. I mean, that's just crushing.

And if we give people choices, just like again in the electric sector, choices to save money. Right. You know, that's the key. And then as we move up this ladder, the whole concept that we've proven in the electric sector and it's proving out, I think in the, in the transportation sector is there's a scaling effect. Right.

And there's a virtuous cycle that begins. And so, yeah, it's a heavy lift. Right. Make no mistake, this is a huge task that the Legislature has mandated. But the principle is let's get going and the thing is going to start revving. Right. And it's already happening.

Yeah. So kind of with that, I think the biggest pieces are making sure that the alternative modes of transportation are highlighted, making sure that people can be connected to different areas and making sure that they have commercial opportunities in the areas where they live.

We get that there's a big, there's a big solution to a big problem immediately, not just from a green perspective, but from a practical one.

Thank you. Thanks. I really appreciate this conversation and I think that we all, we don't want just a transition. We want a just transition.

So I'm wondering if you can speak directly to how your plans moving forward consider equity and particularly economic equity, because all of those points around costs are important and I think they look different in different parts of our island as we can see by the concerns that Chair Kila brought up. So.

Yeah, I'm wondering if you have this great metric and quantitative tool in the PE tool, is there a similar matrix for considering holding these different truths at once that for example, Waianae is simultaneously more car dependent because of our past land use making decisions and less capable in some ways of transitioning to options like ev or for, for example, in my district in Kahala where we're getting a complete streets program, which is great, I advocate strongly for it.

But we already have in Kahala, you know, sidewalks and other resources that some communities are completely lacking. So how do those kinds of considerations play into the plan? Moving forward. And how does it change once we add infrastructure to some places, introduce viable alternatives in others, and kind of reevaluate constantly.

So the equity piece is always included in all of our project selections to make sure that we're taking care of those that need the most.

And the settlement specifically calls out equity. There's a provision in there that that's prioritized.

But there's a complex question that you ask because just consider one piece of it. Right. As I said, we're going to be putting 40 to 50 $1.0 million into multimodal paths in the connectivity throughout per year.

That means 30 million comes out of something else now, 30 million comes out of roadways we would have paved or bridge that we would have done.

So we've got to make sure that when we start addressing these connectivity portions, we prioritize those that require the connectivity first, but also make sure that we, when we drop projects out, the 30 million that drops out, they drop out of areas that least need the improvement.

So those are the, those are the considerations that we make just with one, with one program, for all of our programs as we move forward. When we start looking at the adjustments that are necessary to get to a 2045 clean energy goals, Cost of living in Hawaii is one of the biggest things we got to consider.

And the biggest piece of that is housing, where houses are going to be. So when we start looking at prioritizing infrastructure, it's going to be to prioritize in areas where we're going to be putting more people.

So that's the other equitable piece that we're considering, how we ensure we incentivize people to be in areas where the housing is going to be and how we connect them to their good services and opportunity easily. So you don't need a car if necessary?

Yeah, no, that's key. And I just wanted to lift up too, that when you were dreaming up envisioning out this five year priority multimodal network. Right. This ambitious down payment, I think you're talking through over a beer some ideas of, hey, how would you stage that? And I think right off top you said west side Oahu. Right.

Would be a priority. And it makes so much sense too. Right. To your point about how everyone's got to drive there and, you know, what are the choices and options? Yeah. And so equity is a really key piece and front of mind for, for everybody, including in this transportation space.

I think it's, I'm really happy to hear that. And I think I suspected that was the case, but I think it's really important to communicate that too.

Because when we talk about community buy in, it's not just about like whether this project looks nice or serv my neighborhood, but it's this broader question of is this fair, is it like, do folks in Waianae feel that their needs are being met the same way?

Folks, you know, who have a bike path along King street and all this, like great additional connectivity. That's where I think we. Because I want to see this succeed so badly.

And I know that some of that immediate, not just not opposition, but maybe skepticism to it can be addressed if we adequately talk about and recognize that those concerns are real and justified and that we're considering them throughout. Yeah, thank you.

I think for neighbor islands too, right? Not just west side versus town, but neighbor islands.

All rural. All rural. Let me jump into just go back to one thing. On the messaging piece and the communication I think that almost everybody had probably talked about at 1.0 at the table here today. And that is around that piece of cost. And I mentioned this at a totally separate hearing yesterday.

You know, the number one thing centering all these often technical, really kind of like wonky in the weeds conversations around is what we hear from constituents on a day to day basis, which is right.

How do we like afford food, how do we afford this and that and the trade offs that have to be made because cost of living is probably the most prominent thing I think on everybody's minds. So when we have these conversations, I think it's important to sort of center there.

And part of, I think the message that has to be out there is, you know, these things aren't being passed in a vacuum. This isn't a policy that's just focused on this thing, right?

Everything ties, touches, everything is interconnected as much as some of these broader various goals on food and energy and now transportation and all that other stuff are there. They're passed by the Legislature, not blind, but with the best analysis often studies, numbers, data, crunching, all the information, all the tools that are available at our disposal.

And so as we message this stuff, I think it's important to be able to articulate that, right? This isn't just something we're doing that's going to increase whatever the price of gas or whatever it might be because everything's going to have a cost that we do, every program, every expenditure, every whatever.

But what's important to remember is that is the cost, I think that someone had mentioned we're already paying, right? We're spending almost $10 billion a year to import all that fuel in the first place. That's not money that comes out of thin air.

So each family here is paying thousands and thousands of dollars right now to import that stuff, to pay for it, buy it and all of that.

And over the long run, obviously, given where things are at, the volatility of the unknown future and the rising cost of all of that, which we've all been feeling over the last pretty much our entire lifetimes, but especially like in the last 1015 years and now every time there's a Ukraine, Russia conflict or Iran, Israel or who knows what it's going to be, you know, next month, that's another spike that can increase cost like 2030% on people's real world checkbooks and affect the decisions you have to make between like, all right, am I spending on food this month or gonna, you know, pay my electric Bill or whatever it is.

And so as we think about these things, I think part of that analysis and that messaging that comes out of it going forward is, and a lot of this has been written into a lot of all the various laws that most of us have considered and passed and voted on and all that stuff along the way cites those very things.

I think that's an important part of the puzzle for the public to understand or really any of the stakeholders in any of these conversations. Because all ultimately if we do nothing, often it's penny wise but totally pound foolish.

Had we been more aggressive thinking about how we can be more economically self sufficient in years past, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today, or probably not nearly as bad anyway. And to go back to an example of that, Isaac talked about the electric side when we did our original 100% RPS, it wasn't blind.

We knew that there's going to have to be investment, there's going to be cost, there's going to be all that, but over the long term we're going to save money. And that's proven true. Electric rates would be far higher today had we not gone down that path.

And they would certainly be a lot lower today had we gone even faster and made the right better investments than ended up being the case. And here now I think the best analogy I can think of in the transportation space that we've been dealing with the last couple years is road usage charges. Right.

We know that has to happen for a lot of reasons. And the Legislature stepped up on the work DOT did, looking at that careful analysis and everything and said, yep, this is the right way to go. So we do it.

But to the average person out there, especially if you're in a rural area, a long commute, all that, right, it's like, zero, I'm gonna pay more. That's not right. So we hear about it, you guys hear about it in some of the studies. But in the end, the reality is they're already paying more.

Right, because they got less efficient vehicles. Driving more gas is expensive. And so I think in that same way, we gotta figure out how to message that appropriately because this stuff all has long term ramifications for cost savings for everybody if we do it right.

I think that gets back to the equity piece that Grandinetti brought up, which was all this stuff is going to cost, everybody's going to pay something to save money in the long run.

But making sure that folks have options and opportunities to be able to participate in that and so they're not left behind is probably the most important thing. So I just really wanted to jump back on that because that messaging and how we speak to that stuff is really important.

Totally agree, totally agree with you. And that'll all be vetted out and fleshed out to our report. And like I said, I apologize, I can't speak to that right now because I want to be able to tell everybody what the short term cost is going to be to get to the long term savings.

So totally agree with you.

But you can say you can speak to the stuff that was in the enabling legislation to do long term savings and all of that, which I think is important. And while we don't know what the future is going to look like, we have pretty good ideas, at least with the best information we have available.

I think, I think that's really what drives the decision making. Obviously here, 100% agree everywhere, but making sure people understand that.

And I think in the short term, while we're talking about it, nobody refutes that having local production for energy and food Trumps everything. So. And then that's all considered in the plan going forward as well.

Okay, Rep. Perruso has a question.

I have a question for Chair Nishiguchi.

So, it's my understanding that you are also the student representative for the Board of Education?

Yes.

So, those are two really hefty roles and my question is really about this role. So, do you feel like—it's my understanding that you have made arrangements through the settlement that the council will be outside the Department of Transportation and then the interns will be embedded within Department of Transportation. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. So, I am wondering, like, from your perspective, do you feel—because I heard a lot about partnership and I heard a lot about, like, how they would be helping to facilitate the process and be ombudsman, almost liaisons, to the Legislature and so on.

I'm also wondering if you see your role, the role of the council, as also holding the Department accountable and if so, what that looks like for you.

Yeah, for sure. I think our role as the Hawaii Youth Transportation Council is definitely to hold them accountable and to definitely look at the plan and perform all of our duties that we were noted to be, as of the settlement.

But I think definitely something that we're interested in doing in the Council is also trying to expand and really trying to perform events or to just get the word out within our respective communities, because the Council is made up of all, not all the islands, but a lot of the islands. I think six of the islands.

And I think it's definitely important that we have all of these youth voices and we have all these events and just really informing the community that youth now have a voice and we have a say in our future.

I really appreciate that. Real quick follow up. So, going back to the accountability piece. So, given that the settlement, I think has maybe a 20 year lifespan, what triggers might you be looking for to bring in more conversations around enforcement or have kind of maybe revisit the legal pathway?

If—I'm not saying that there would be failures, but should there be—if the current leadership of Department of Transportation is no longer, is it changed, it's change administration, change leadership, and we don't see the kinds of progress that we need to be seeing, are, is the council also talking about, like, what kinds of triggers you might be looking for or is that because you're so new you haven't really gotten to that piece of your work?

Yeah, the council is definitely very new. We kicked it off on January 3rd of this year. So, yeah, that hasn't really been in the talks yet, but maybe it's something that we definitely should be accounted for, but I think that will be addressed like as it comes on.

Okay, sounds great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

I just want to clarify real quick that the settlement was approved by the court and so it provides for court sort of oversight for 20 years until that 2045 deadline. Yeah, the way we envisioned it, I think Director Sniffin said, you know, traffic cop or whatever, just to make sure that we stay on target and—but the whole spirit of it, as we've emphasized, has been collaboration and partnership, right? Because we have to do it all together and that includes the Legislature as well.

Thank you. How much is this going to cost taxpayers to achieve this goal?

I don't have the number right now. That's what we're trying to get to.

Thank you. Would you be pursuing any kind of studies to show long term what this is going to look like and when do you believe we'll be able to get those numbers? When do you think we get the numbers?

Yeah, we're hoping to start that feasibility study on the low carbon fuel standard or alternative legal framework. We are hoping that we have at least initial findings of that study prior to the legislative session start, so that.

2026 legislative session?

Yes.

Oh, great. Thank you very much. Awesome. Thank you.

All right, I have a question. This is a little bit more specific question, but when—and of course when we talk about ground transportation, of course we want the top tier of addressing that to be multimodal transportation and public transit and getting people out of vehicles when it's possible.

And I think that that does prove to be a money saver for people as well over the long term. But a lot of the strategy is going to depend on electrification. And what I heard you talk about mainly in terms of charging infrastructure was the Nevi fast chargers.

And I guess, in my view, that's an important piece of it, but also sort of the most expensive, the one that requires the most kind of make ready work, the most strain on the electrical infrastructure, the most strain on the car vehicle battery.

What's really important is to provide opportunities for slow charging, which is comparatively inexpensive to install and also better for the battery life of the vehicle. And, and then have people understand sort of a changing pattern of how you fuel your car.

Instead of a stop at a gas station and do it all in five minutes, it's figuring out how you plug in when you're parked for a while. And the fact that that wasn't mentioned in your strategy at all, I guess it's a little concerning because that is fundamental, I think.

And also better for grid operations and balancing out our energy system.

Yep, included.

Sorry. If I may with a follow up to that. When you do folks—when you folks do, do your report, if you would be able to include how this is going to, I don't know, I guess reduce our risk against climate change, I mean, I'm trying to figure out how we are quantifying this to the overall goal, not only of the 2045 plan, but also just in general, how, how this is going to accomplish the goal to, to, I believe, prepare for climate change?

Okay, so if you, if you would just please include that in your report.

How, how we are going to be affecting the overall goal globally. Yes, if that makes sense. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm coming back to my question because I feel like I hear you saying you're going to include it, but is it part of the plan? I mean, it's being released on July 27th, so it ought to be in there if it's an item concerned.

No, yeah, we're highlighting the Nevi because that's something that's within our control, right, that HDOT's committed to doing. But that, you know, those 13 chargers, that's what we can do. That's not at all going to fill a really large gap in the electric charging needed, so, and it is the wide suite of electric charging.

So, it's the fast chargers, it is the slow charging, and that's, that makes our plan a little different from many other agency plans. It's the whole transportation sector, it's private industry partners that we need to come in and partner with us to build out the system.

I understand, but you're talking about how DOT can influence new modes of development in ways that is very much not necessarily under DOT's direct control, and that was broadly addressed. So, I guess I just saw that as a gap.

Yeah, sorry. We didn't highlight it in the presentation, but it is part of our plan.

Okay, sounds good.

How much time we got left? I got a couple questions. I don't know. But since we're on the electric cars, since we're on the electric cars and the, in the charging stations, I mean, we've had conversations. You've told me that electric cars are not the future.

The reason why we upgraded the fleet was because the previous administration gave us money to do that. We're going to spend a lot of money putting, potentially putting, EV charging stations in when we know that hydrogen would be the future. Correct?

So, what I said was that electric vehicles are not the only thing for the future. We got to be blended as we move forward. So, we at the DOT are preparing for both electric and hydrogen for the future. We want to make sure we take advantage of all the technologies that are available.

Right now, I cannot see us having 1.4 million electric vehicles goes in the next 10 years, so I want to make sure that we are preparing for all clean fuels as we move forward, and hydrogen is a big piece that we're considering.

Okay. I wanted to make clear because it was in the slide, we want to push sales of electric vehicles. That, that kind of sounds political.

Yeah, no, that's not political. That's what's available. I mean, that's the technology that's available.

That's the market. The hydrogen, sorry, but I...

But we do know that...

The hydrogen conversation is there. I mean, go look at the data about whether it's viable or not.

Basically dead.

With EV, on the industry side with EV, we know like there's talks about drilling the ocean, mining the ocean.

So, how good is that for our Earth at the end of the day, if we're pushing something so hard and then we might find, oh, we pushed ourselves into another problem like humans always have been doing in history, you know, doing it over and over. We shut down Kahe Power Plant. Oh, clean energy this.

And then HECO charges us more for electric bills. Right? We've seen this over and over again, so keep that in mind when you guys are looking at this.

That's real. Yeah. And so, I think there is a provision here, a suggestion for legislation on battery, EV, battery recycling. But yeah, the EVs are already proven here in Hawaii. We've crossed over in terms of sales.

The problem being that although we have some of the highest adoption rates in the nation, where I think last or next to last in terms of EV, public EV charging availability. So, there's a, there's a lot of catch up to do here on the EV front for sure.

The EV adoption has been very much market driven.

It's not—we haven't, there's been some federal incentives. We have had legislation for state incentives, but they've never passed. So, I feel it's very market driven.

Right.

Yeah. EV advocates, it's a little bit of heartbreak about how we could be doing more in terms of incentivizing and maybe what we're doing is like, you know, putting disincentives in there or whatever, whether it's that road tax or what have you. So, there's opportunities here for sure in terms of boosting that market.

Since we're on that, for this coming year, one of the things that we've been looking at, just want to put it out there, I guess, and take people's temperature, but, you know, you have had the $7,500 federal tax credit, which probably is going to change or reduce or go away.

But on the state side, I think to the Chair's point, there hasn't been anything, but you do have other states like California, like a whole bunch of them all around the country, that have put different kinds of incentives and resources in.

And to Tina's point, again, really focused on how do you help people who otherwise can't afford that upfront cost, because we know they're cheaper to operate, cheaper to maintain, and have a much longer life than your typical...car.

And I say that grudgingly because I was a car guy and I used to build cars, and now I'm sad because I can't.

But to that point of the things that a couple states are considering right now, rather than doing like just a broad, you know, here's an EV tax credit for $7,500, just using the federal number as a corollary.

Buying up basically used EVs that have had their range, their batteries diminished to like, you know, roughly 80%, where they level out and they're just kind of whatever that range is for the next million miles until the car falls apart, which they don't get a lot of moving parts. So, it's going to last probably that long, we're starting to find out.

Actually using that kind of incentive to go buy a used EV, like just outright buy one at that level, and for places like Hawaii, where your commutes are no longer than usually, like, you know, 30 miles is a long commute here. I mean, you could get around 100 on a daily basis.

But that's basically a car that's going to be, for the most part, maintenance free, that's going to have a life of 10, 15 years, or longer, that has minimal fuel cost compared to your typical gas, gas car, used or new, and everything else that goes along with it.

If we created an incentive that actually just did that and went bought up fleets of used EVs and basically made them available to people through whatever programs, whether the folks that can't afford, to Tina's point, and those communities that really need that help the most or others, that seems like almost to me a better use of incentive dollars than trying to create new, you know, $7,500 tax credits in a car that's going to cost you like, you know 30-40,000.

Is that something that you guys would be open to trying to, like, sort through and take a look at what other states are doing?

Yeah, makes sense. That makes sense. I mean it kind of dovetails into the strategy that we had when we started electrifying our fleets. Once we start changing ourselves, we wanted to put them into a secondary market to ensure that there's more people that can, that can purchase them. So, it works perfectly.

And the rent a car fleet too. I mean we're talking about the largest collective fleet, even bigger than the state fleet. And if we could encourage them and provide the infrastructure, you know, at those airport garages to electrify there, there's a secondary market for sure. My grandpa would only buy used rental cars.

Is there—just kind of piggybacking on that, we know we passed the Bill this year to create a working group for EV battery recycling, which also Senator Awa alluded to, you know, we have to make sure we're being more sustainable because there are materials in there that are extraction of natural resources.

So, what—do you know what the status is of that? Is it, has it started being pulled together? Has anything happened?

We actually met with all of the less as the formal like official meeting of the working group but to our strategy for planning for the EV batteries, right.

We met with all the counties, the folks that actually work on where these EV batteries get stored, how they get shipped off, all the logistics, and really, I guess that that work has started and we're going to continue that work. We can get involved in the more formalized working group.

But we did that and their—the—county feedback was really strong, especially from the neighbor islands that you know, as we shouldn't be pushing forward as strongly on new EV sales until we figured out the back end in the EV battery disposal or you know, creating our own programs locally so that we're not having to ship all of them off.

So, I guess we've started it informally and will be happy to participate formally in the working group.

But you haven't gotten any contact from HSEO about kicking that off yet or anything? Okay.

Yeah. We are working with two vendors who are looking at land specifically for EV batteries to make sure that they can start recycling. So, we're working with them on the Kale side ahead.

Two things. One for the council. Can I get the representative of the council? Yeah, all of you is cool. Just like Ed said, you guys are miles ahead of where I was when I was your age. So, congratulations for your accomplishments so far.

I see that you guys have 20 members elected on or however that appointed. On being that a lot of today's conversation was about equity, about affordability, and I don't know if you guys can even do it.

But if your members, if you can have a wide range of members, too, not just males, females from different areas, but from different brackets as far as rich to poor, and that's just my suggestion for you guys. And then, I'd love to you guys, Ed. Just kind of wrapping up from, you know, if I was a news reporter doing a story on this, the biggest thing that stood out was, other than Darius...,was what was it about not having enough green to go green?

For you folks, what I heard was because of the lawsuit and where we have to go, prices guaranteed will go up.

And so, on behalf of our side, you know, if it was in Washington, this would be a lot different conversation, how you'd have to, how you'd have to present it. But from our side, the minority side, our concern would be if it has to go up at all, it's not worth it, because we cannot afford it.

We can't afford to stay here. And that's—and you talk about housing, but we just kind of—I'm driving one of my family cars because I cannot afford to buy a car. I'm not even close to buying an EV. And so, that's a lot of the people that I represent.

So, I'd like you to take into consideration tha and also, there are things that we can do for the council. There are things that you can do. I love that you have the $15 million to plant native plants.

I was driving in today and sorry, it's taking up a little bit of time, but I was driving in today and I noticed there was complaints in our area, Kaneohe Kahalu, about certain areas of Kamehameha Highway—it's not in your jurisdiction, the cities, this area—but, but people are complaining the grass is so long.

So, what does the city end up doing? It sprayed it with chemicals, so the whole hillside was green, now it's brown. Right? Those are things we can attack on the ground level to stop those chemicals from now going into Heiakea up here's water.

There's so many things that we can do, maybe conversationally and doesn't cost money, that we can help our environment. We all have similar goals, but we don't want to get priced out. So, that's the last thing I want to say to you guys. Thank you.

And Senator, if I could comment real quick, you know, I wasn't expecting kind of the emphasis on affordability. Obviously, I should have, but I'm really glad to see it today. You know, just kind of from a personal perspective, kind of what you were talking about in terms of economic diversity for the council, you know, I was on free school meals the entire—almost the entire time I was in high school. I went to college for free because I had a zero FAFSA.

So, I was full financial aid the entire way through and some student loans and now I'm trying to pay back those student loans and I had to buy a whole new set of tires because our roads are—the city's roads are so bad.

Yeah, clarify, the city roads.

Yeah, especially Kamemeha, you know, the Waipio area, that stretch of road that actually might be DOT, but that stretch of road is rough and you know, it's hard on people's tires and maintenance gets, gets tougher.

But I can tell you as someone who right out of college I was a heavy duty fleet tech and so I was working on bucket trucks and F450s doing engine swaps and stuff like that. And so, I can tell you if I could choose between two realities.

One is the one that we're living in right now where we have heavy duty...vehicles, we have, you know, we have gas taxes that are extraordinarily high. We have, you know, just the cost of gas is difficult.

Or I could live in a future where when I was working this recent session, having to come in from Waipahu to here every single day, I would have rather taken the rail and then taken a bus to here, you know, but, you know, instead I had to take my, you know, as a local boy, I have a frontier.

I take my frontier every day, and the gas prices were extraordinary. So, of the realities that I could have lived in, I would have rather chosen to live in one that was more sustainable, where the governments of the past had invested in the very things we're talking about today 10, 15 years ago, maybe even 20.

And so, you know, that's kind of the way that I think about, especially as we're going to go into communities and start thinking about how we can address these kind of huge systemic issues together, thinking about what's the reality that we could be living in today if we made these choices back then and then, how can we do it for the next people in the future?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you so much for that extremely eloquent and forward thinking vision for our future. I really appreciate it. I would like to, sort of piggybacking off of that, just clarify because when you said that costs will go up, right, you are addressing specific concerns, certain costs will go up for certain people as we make this transition.

I would love to know if you think that adjust and equitable implementation of this plan will or will not ultimately save people money.

Yes, long term. This is looking at a long term, big savings for, for our communities.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

My statement was to the short term. We're definitely going to see something in the short term. We want to make sure we balance it out over long term.

But, but keep in mind, we know that every five, every 10 years, we lose 5% of Hawaiians. So, how long, you know, we wait what, I don't do the math here, but 20 years is how much percent of Hawaiians no longer here? So, how long are we willing to wait? Because then who are we helping?

So, this is the push and this is why DOT has 120 interns in our organization.

We're trying to make sure that everybody sees first, there is a place that they can be to work in Hawaii, to be in the industry, to be comfortable there and second, to be able to make decisions that affect them as they go forward in the future. We're not trying to wait.

That's why we're working with housing producers now to incentivize more affordable housing now. So, we're trying to make sure that we've never come to this body for an increase in any of our fees or any of our rates or revenues because we try to live within our means but deliver more for the public.

So, we try to put more jobs out there now with more housing, with more food sustainability, to ensure that people can stay here.

And when we do this report as we go forward, we're going to be balancing out what it's going to cost us to get to these different goals so we can give information to this body to say this is what we recommend to ensure the affordability of Hawaii while we get to our long term goals.

No, I really appreciate this conversation and it's important to keep these important values in mind. And you know, the lawsuit was mentioned so just on a offer sort of from where we're coming from, the lawsuit ultimately was 13 appeal from across the Paaina.

Most of them were native Hawaiian including the name plaintiff, the lead, who stepped forward and gave her name to this case, Navahine, constituent of Youth Center. And yeah, it was very powerful because they were the leaders really.

And now, we're seeing the next round of present and future leaders and talking about how as Kanaka Maori, they see that existential threat to their identity, their way of life, their Kuleana lands, probably underwater within their lifetime, their fisheries, gone. They're seeing it already.

And then the Kuleana, right, for them to step up and call on the government to fulfill what they've already promised to do. Right? And what we, as a sort of society, at our very most fundamental level, our constitution, again rooted in Hawaiian values and custom, already requires. And so, they were the catalyst.

Hopefully we're not blaming them or whatever—oh, they brought this lawsuit and now we got to deal with this. But really, you know, I just wanted to bring us back to that and thank them for, you know, meeting that Kuleana.

Hey, just to clear it up, since that was kind of, this, this way, I think—real quick, real quick. Sorry, Mike, because that was from this comment. It is not a blame or anything. It's good that people step up.

We just want to make people aware that, hey, when you, when you step up and try to do something, like for instance, when I was driving in Kamehameha highway, people was grumbling about the weeds and then the city sprayed it. Right? We can step up, but sometimes the outcome is not what we expect.

No, and I didn't want to say you're the one that's blaming, because I'm thinking like, yeah, they caught heat, you know, for what they were doing. People sort of question their motivations. And anyway, they did, and we all sort of move forward and I think we just got continue on that positive momentum.

I just want to say, in wrapping things up, I've got a meeting out in Kapolei, but I wanted to thank you guys and I wanted to thank our youth. Just as a former high school English teacher and also 16 years as Chair of the Environment Committee, this accomplishment is just—it's amazing what has happened here.

To see the youth get involved, to see government get involved, to have that interaction, to set an example not just for the rest of the mainland, but for the rest of the world to follow. This is huge. I just wanted to thank you for that.

I firmly believe that a documentary needs to be made to tell the whole story so that people from all over the world can say, wow, look what they did in Hawaii. I mean, they're already doing that.

You can go on Google and look at YouTube and see, get bits and pieces, but to have someone put together the whole story. But again, mahalo to you all.

Appreciate that, Senator.

Yeah, I think we're going to move towards wrapping up. So, if our chairs want to give some final remarks, I.

I just want to thank Chair Lowen for facilitating this and for DOT just being able to have the conversation. And to our youth folks, like, please don't take any of our comments out of context where it feels like—I know sometimes these places are uncomfortable, but I do applaud the work you folks are doing.

And if I can just give a comment. I was 26 when I got elected, so I'm 29 now, right. And I'm living with the policies and decisions that were made to folks prior to my existence to vote and even my birthright born into this world that we're living in.

And I feel the same frustration when I look at Farrington Highway and Nanakule and Maili and that how was there no forefront thinking that if we know shorelines are disappearing and you put the road right on the, right on the ocean, right? So, now, we're playing this catch up.

So, to that, I applaud you folks, as we're in this, we're in the same boat. So, I don't ever want to conflate those comments. I do have—I just want to clarify, it was our intent to pass clean seal standards this session.

We went all the way to conference with a conference draft that me and Senator Lee were so supportive of, and I'm hoping to bring that same conference draft back this next session because I think it is important, especially moving towards advancing the conversation. And I probably could speak for all four of the chairs here today.

We would very much welcome you folks to hold a listening session for feedback from the public here at the Legislature and maybe throughout the state that you folks can go and talk to people so they can hear your passion, hear what you folks are trying to accomplish, but also get that real feedback.

So, I don't want to speak for all the chairs, but I would assume, yes, that if that's something you folks want to hold, we'd be more than willing to work with you folks here at the Legislature. So, thank you folks again for today and mahalo.

Thank you. Senator Lee.

Yeah, no, I'd echo, I think everything that's been said today and thank everybody for all the work that's been done and stepping up to the plate and all the work that you're going to keep doing, which we really appreciate more than anything else.

And hopefully, there won't be folks sitting at this table 15, 20, years from now saying, why didn't they do these things 15 or 20 years ago when they had the chance? So, thank you all for your time and effort.

And I'll just echo both comments of my co-chairs and some very impressive young people here today. Thank you for your dedication and your passion. And yeah, I think we look forward to seeing the plan when it's actually released.

Maybe we'll have a follow up briefing to have more back and forth about that. You know, certainly it's optimistic, it's exciting. There's a lot of positive things to say. But realistically, also, this is a huge challenge and we're going to have to work together to tackle it. And things may need to get adjusted along the way.

I think, yeah, it's not going to be an easy road to meet these goals, but appreciate the hard work everyone's put into it. And I think that does it. We're adjourned.

Thank you.