House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

All right, Good morning everyone and welcome to our first hearing of the session. House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. And a lot of Members. Because we're starting so early, a lot of Members are not here today. But I am Chair Lohan. I represent House District 6 and Matthias.

Kusch, District 1, Hilo Hamakua.

And then my Vice Chair, Rep. Perruso will probably be joining later. And also on the Committee we have Rep. Chun, Rep. Kahaloa, Rep. Quinlan and Rep. Matsumoto. So we are here. It's 9:30am Thursday, January 29th, room 325. A few housekeeping notes before we start the agenda.

First of all, because morning hearings normally have to adjourn prior to floor session, not today, because today is a recess day. But we should not go late anyway. But if not all testifiers have the opportunity to testify, please know your written testimony will be considered by the Committee.

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

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. And this goes for everyone. Zoom and in person, please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. So with that we'll jump right in.

And first up on the agenda we have House Bill 644 relating to single use plastics. And first up to testify we have Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Aloha Chair Lohan, Representative Kush, Charlie Taylor on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand on our comments but also just want to generally say we are generally in support of any effort that reduces the flow of plastics into our marine environment. Be available for any additional questions.

Good morning Chair Representative Kush, Renee Ichubo with the Department of Health Solid and Swiss Branch. The Department stands on everything. Testimony offering comment available for questions.

Thank you. And Chamber of Commerce Hawaii with comments not present. Hika Solid Waste Reduction Task Force.

Thank you. And then Department of Health.

Lindsay Sebek Kozuma in support not Present and Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted Bullen.

Thank you, Chair Lowen, Members of the Committee, Ted Bolan, on behalf of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and the Climate Protectors Coalition, thank you for hearing this Bill. Obviously an important matter. We are uniquely or somewhat almost uniquely maybe impacted by plastic in our oceans, on our beaches. It's a big problem for the state.

It's a big problem for our marine life, and we need to do more to take care of it. I would just add to what I've got in my written testimony. I think the Committee is well aware of the harms of plastic waste and other food waste containers.

But what I think needs to be emphasized here is we've already got a couple of ordinances around the state and we don't want to interfere with what the counties have already done. So I think the Bill should make clear that it's not diminishing the ordinances in other jurisdictions.

And also as a matter of delay, I've seen some comments from parties about the need for delay to use up inventory. Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and Climate Protectors would not object to delay. The Bill says 2026. Obviously that needs to be changed, but we would not object to delaying it until January 12028. Important matter.

Thank you for hearing it and hope that you can pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Hawaii Restaurant association with comments not present Dr. Club National Marine Team Joy she on zoom.

Aloha. Good morning, Chair Lowen and Vice Chair Baruso. Thank you so much for hearing HB644 today. I stand on my comments. I just wanted to clarify a couple of of things. This Bill builds on Act 150.

I wanted to say mahalo to you for, for introducing this Bill a few years ago and that has been really important for Hawaii. And this just builds on that particular act by including all foodware that contains pfas and not just the ones that were identified in the original act.

And then also in light of weakening PFAS health regulations by the National Administration, I think it's important that we maintain our own PFAS standards in Hawaii, which is the spirit of this Bill.

And finally, with this Bill, we would also reduce the solid waste burden on the West Oahu community, which continues to have to host the Waimanalo Gulch landfill.

And if, if we have more home compostable items versus these bioplastics, which act exactly like traditional plastics, we'll reduce solid waste burden on the West Oahu community as well as reduce PFAS leakage into the land. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And then we have American Chemistry Council. President, upstream on zoom.

Aloha, Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Peruso President and the rest of the Committee. Thank you very much for your time today and for your work on this Bill in General. My name is Karis Dupanik and I'm here today on behalf of Upstream in support of HB644 with two suggested amendments.

Our position you can obviously read in the written testimony. So I just wanted to clarify our stance even further. As a leading change agency for reuse in the US and Canada, we do advocate for reusables over all types of single use materials, not only single use plastics.

And that's why we want to express our appreciation for including reusable packaging in the exemption section of chapter 342H. However, we do suggest that compostable plastics should not be included within these exemptions. These materials often do more harm than good for people and the planet.

Not only because they are more resource resource intensive in terms of energy and water consumption, but they also have high levels of ecotoxicity and cause problems even in their end of life. Especially because of the lack of composting infrastructure available in places like Hawaii.

So if this exemption stays in place even as more composting infrastructure is built, businesses like restaurants likely won't move to reuse as an option even though they have even though it has the most environmental and economic benefits, they'll just shift to compostables or other alternative single use products, paying more while still creating waste.

And for these same reasons, we also recommend passing this Bill in a timely fashion with only minor modification to the effective date. Although it is currently backdated to January 12026. The suggestion to postpone this Bill for several years as composting infrastructure is built would undermine actions that can be taken now to reduce waste in Hawaii's communities.

And still businesses would then default to single use options instead of reusables. Like I said, reuse has been proven time and time again to reduce waste. Every reasonable item means one less thing thrown away, trashed in our landfill or littered in our oceans. We urge you to pass this Bill promptly without composable plastic exemptions.

And thank you for all your work on this Bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have Fair Winds Cruises, Mendy Dance Court Present, Hawaii Food Industry association on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Chapman for hfia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I stand on our Testimony providing comments and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then BPI Kimberly Davis in opposition and not present. And then it looks like we have seven individuals in support and one person, Angela Young, signed up to testify on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Chair and Vice Chair Angela Melody Young cares in strong support. And so in the county of Honolulu. In 2019. A Bill was already enacted to reduce single use plastics. And so what the state can do to support the county's policies is to help to enact something to clean up the environment.

Especially with the debate ongoing about the West Oahu landfill. So.

With environmental and climate related topics such as trash pollution, landfills, incineration facilities, recycling marine debris and protecting ecosystems and marine life, to enact this measure will help to reduce single use plastics and also to implement sustainability in the state and counties practices to assist each other in reaching sustainable business practices and reaching sustainable environmental goals.

And so this was actually in a filmmaking documentary movie, I think it's called Reunite Us and the premiere was incredible. It was about Bill 40 and the enactment of it. So I think for Hawaii to. Work.

On this law can really help communities with ethical responsibility and to reduce carbon footprint and to raise awareness about recycling and to consume less energy. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, that's everyone. We have signed up to submit testimony in advance. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure, if not Members? Questions? I have a quick question, I think for Upstream, if they're still on Zoom.

Hi, I'm just wondering if we add reusable and refillable foodwear to the section of the Bill that, you know, says none of these items can contain pfas, is that acceptable to. I mean, I would sort of assume they wouldn't already, but yeah, I think.

It would depend obviously on the context in which people would want, like what kind of materials they would want for their reusables in General.

Upstream takes the position that in order to catalyze a bigger scale for reusable systems that might need some, that might need to proceed with plastic reusable containers at first and then transition to materials like stainless steel materials. So I think this would be up for some consideration, definitely.

But obviously the goal would be to have containers that didn't include PFAs.

Do they, do they currently like a reusable like a Tupperware or, you know, a plastic container?

No, most, most don't to my understanding. However, I think there are some plastics that have, you know, chemical concern, definitely.

But I think intending to add that in I Think. I think, you know, it would be a little bit of a double standard to not.

Yeah, absolutely.

Okay, Any other questions? Member? If not, we'll move on to the next Bill on the agenda. House Bill 1802 relating to conservation mitigation banks. And first up to testify we have DLNR.

Good morning. Chair Member of the Committee, Catherine Stanaway, DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and are available for questions.

Thank you. And then Earth Justice David Henkin with comments not present. And then Earth Justice Mahesh Cleveland, also in opposition. Let's see. Center for Biological Diversity, Max Phillips, opposition not present. And then Sierra Club of Hawaii with comments not present. Okay, is there anyone else here who would like to testify on this measure?

If not Members questions for DLNR. Okay, I guess DLNR, if you want to come up quickly, Just to clarify, I think some of the testimony that we had in opposition would be addressed by adopting amendments that were also suggested in testimony between DLNR and Earthjustice. So you guys are in agreement with that testimony? Okay. Okay, thank you.

All right, we'll move on to the next bill on the agenda. House Bill 1569 relating to the environment. This is the requirement for newly manufactured washing machines to have microfiber filters. First up to testify we have Department of Health with comments. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Jacob Cassidy on Zoom not present in opposition.

Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted Bolen in support. Okay. OSHA Conservancy. Anya Brandon on Zoom, not present. And then one individual in support. Was there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not Members questions. Alright, then we will move along to the next Bill on the agenda. House Bill 1619 relating to electric vehicle infrastructure.

And first up to testify we have the Public Utilities Commission.

Good morning, Chair Lohan, Representative Kush, my name is Ashley Norman. On behalf of the Public Utilities Commission, we stand in our written testimony and support and available.

Thank you. Thank you. And then Department of Transportation on zoom. Not present. In support. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development in support. Not present. We have Hawaiian Electric also in support. Climate protectors, Hawaii. Ted Bolen not coming up. Okay. And Hawaii association in support. And then one individual in support.

Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? All right, seeing none. Members, questions? All right, seeing none. We'll move on to House Bill 1620 relating to energy. This increases the barrel tax to add additional funding to the EV charging rebate program. First up, to justify, we have Hawaii Department of Taxation, not here. Hawaii state energy office.

Chair, Members of the Committee, Chris Shanker from the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony providing. Comments and are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission.

Hello again, Chair Lowen. Representative Kusch. We standard written testimony and thank you.

Thank you. In support. Department of Transportation on Zoom. Still not present. In support. Oh, hello. Come on.

Chair and Representative Kusch, Laura Kaku for Hawaii Department of Transportation. The Department stands on our written support, testimony and support and our questions. And I did want to mention we also submitted late testimony, apologize for our lateness for HB 1619 in support and are also available for questions.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Tax foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax foundation of Hawaii. We have comments. One is that the measure proposes to raise just one part of the barrel tax, and there's also a second part on non petroleum fossil fuels that should be in parity with it. Secondly, we are generally wary of special funding.

Because it minimizes the ability of. This Committee and the legislative bodies in. General to exercise oversight and be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And next up, we have Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in opposition, Chris Caulfield in support. Climate protectors, Hawaii. Ted Bolin also in support. Hawaii EV association in support. Earth justice on Zoom presence, Isaac Moriwake.

Aloha, Chair. Representative Isaac Moriwake from Earth Justice. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We stand on our written testimony and just some quick supplemental remarks. First of all, mahalo for prioritizing this measure for an early hearing this session. It's really important to keep up with our decarbonization mandates as well as the Navajine settlement.

As Hawaii State Energy offices is also documented sort of year after year. There's a really stark shortfall. In this necessary infrastructure of EV charging. And it's only widening. I understand, you know, the concerns about additional taxes as well as a potential budget hit.

Really want to clarify it for the record here though, that when we're talking about a dime increase to this tax or alternatively just increasing the allocation of the barrel tax to this particular critical program, it really amounts to about 2 million per year. It's a rounding error in the. In the grand scheme of things.

And so just wanted to keep that in context. This is a real necessary investment for our people for the future of Hawaii that will unlock savings at the gas pump as well as pollution reductions that we desperately need. Mahalo. Thank you.

And next up, we have Hawaii Youth Transportation Council in court.

Aloha. Aloha. Chair Lowen, Vice Chair Perruso and Committee Members. We stand on our written testimony. And mahalo for the chance to testify today on behalf of our out. On behalf of our policy and legislation Chair Luca Kuniberti. I'd like to thank Rep. Quinlan today. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we also had another. If there's any other testifier from the Hawaii Youth Transportation Council on zoom. They like to go. Okay, so we also had a testimony from Moss Kuon in support, and then Our Children's Trust Duration in support. Then we have one individual in opposition and three individuals in support.

And that's everyone we have signed up to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, if not Members, Any questions? Okay. We will move on to House Bill 1730 relating to wastewater systems. This establishes a Wastewater Technical Advisory group to assist DOH and appropriates funds for positions. So first up, we have DLNR and support.

Hey, good morning.

Aloha Chair Lowen, Members of the Committee, Charlie Taylor on behalf of DLNR's Division of Aquatic Resources. And we stand in support of this bill and are available for any questions.

Thank you. And next we have Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support. Not present. Department of Health with comments.

Good morning, Chair Lowen, Members of the Committee. John Nagato, Department of Health, Wastewater Branch. The Department stands on its first and are here to answer any questions.

Thank you. And Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Aloha Lowen. Members of the Committee, Diana Setnes from the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, OPSD stands on its written testimony in support of HB 1730. I would like to add that reevaluating IWS limitations was one of the recommendations that emerged from the IWS Permitted Interaction Group from the SPEED Task Force. And we are available for questioning.

Okay, thank you. And then we have University of Hawaii. In support, Surf Reiter Foundation. In support, American Council of Engineering Companies. In support, Public access to sunscreens. In support, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition. Ted.

Thank you Chair Lowen, Members of the Committee, Ted Bohlen on behalf of the Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition I think this is the highest priority bill I have this year. The Department of Health needs to help with cesspool problem. Cesspools are the biggest wastewater pollution problem in the state.

I served as the Department's Council for 15 years representing the wastewater branch and became aware of this issue. Still working on it now because Hawaii really needs to get on this. We have a mandate of updating all assess pools by 2050. We need to get started on that or we're not going to make it.

And we ought to upgrade the highest priority priority ones and twos Sooner rather than 2050 and certainly not delay. The bill would provide technical assistance to the Department of Health and that's really important because new technologies could help reduce the cost.

We have an affordability problem for homeowners with the cost of upgrading cesspools and we need to find the best technologies that would reduce the cost. Also the rules and practices of the Department should be updated.

We passed them 10 years ago and there are ways other states are doing that are less expensive and I think that would be another way that we could reduce the cost for homeowners. Finally, we need some staffing. The Department needs people, they need significant help. I want to thank the Department for recognizing this in their testimony.

They need to have more people, they need to have more management and planning and I think that's a very important part of this bill. I would disagree slightly with the Department about who should be on the advisory group.

I think it's very important that we have a technology advisory group outside people, not just engineers in the state because we already have engineering expertise in the Department, but people from other states who work on the national issue, work on the issue nationally and can help give advice about how to implement technological solutions.

Also, I think putting shifty on the group would only delay things and I think we need more than one individual from a non profit because that's been where a lot of the impetus for change has come and we need some advice there. There is a proposal to have Bill amended to have a cesspool implementation working group.

I don't oppose that, but I think it's important to have a technology group that meets that is not necessarily as big and then an implementation group. I would also support. I support this bill very strongly urged Some amendments. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in support. Nature Conservancy in support. VI in support. Stuart Coleman.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to share a few comments. I'll stand on our strong support of this bill.

But I want to just add and clarify something that my friend Ted said in that in the bill it's written that the technical advisory group and we definitely need that and the good news is that we're working very closely with Department of Health on this. So they're kind of two separate things.

I think the biggest recommendation I would have as an amendment is to create and we're already in the process of doing this with UH. Accessible Conversion Implementation Group to follow up on the work that we did in the, in the working group.

And we submitted that report in 2022 that Rep. Lowen was part of and Ted Bohlen as well. So this is just implementing a lot of those recommendations and moving forward. And then separate and as part of that there will be a technical advisory group again to address the issue of affordability and really try to bring down prices.

Yeah, a lot available.

And then we have Kingdom Pathways, Carmen Guzman, Cimpiciano in support. VI Home LLC in support. And then we have five individuals all in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not Members? Questions? Maybe. Ted, are you really quickly.

So looking at Department of Health's testimony, the suggested list of Members, maybe if Department of Health can come up at the same time we can do that. It doesn't seem to even include one member of a non profit or it has one individual from a nonprofit. Okay, hang on. I just didn't see it.

So you're just suggesting we add that to. We amend that to two, but otherwise you're okay with the suggestion two or three? Yes.

No. I had some other comments. I think it's kind of a large group and I think while engineering expertise is needed, I think the Department already has that and having eight engineers, licensed engineers is more than you need for this.

So I would not add those and I also would not add shifting to the list for what's in the bill. You know, the bigger the group, the harder it is to get people together, the harder it is to move things forward. I think with those amendments it would be a good group.

From DOH.

Sure. So to clarify the. I think Ted is referring to the members from the outer islands or the islands four of them are engineers, and four of them are the contractors. I think just from our experience and communication with the industry, there needs to be representation from the people that are actually doing the physical work.

And although the Department, the wastewater branch, is mostly staffed with engineers, we need the consulting engineers on their specific islands, dealing with the specific issues of each island to have a representation.

Okay. And for ship. For the suggestion to not include SHPD.

I mean, we. We do interface with SHPD. We try our best to work with them. I can't speak on their initiatives concerning IWSs, but I know in particular islands it is important, especially where IWSs usually go. So we just thought having them at the table would be okay.

And then. Thanks, Ted. And then last question for DOH. Just do you have a dollar amount for the position?

You can get that specific dollar amount? Yes, for the two positions. Okay.

You don't have it. Do you have a ballpark or like we normally try to put in the Committee report, the actual request.

I can get it really quickly after this. I have to look at the pay scale. I don't memorize the. Because it's an SR for the program specialist and planner, but the engineering table is actually. Yeah. So I don't. I don't know the exact number, but I can.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Oh, go ahead.

I have a question. Quick.

You know, on the SHPD position, since this is like a task force working group and SHPD is more of a filter when the actual application comes to the particular land, and there's obviously a great deal of variation in that.

Sorry.

Is that something that's really necessary on the task force for decision making, to the point of Ted and others? Since we're kind of just looking at technologies and fast tracking and making engineering choices and not land use choices, would you be amenable to.

Yes.

Hi. Kathy Ho, Deputy Director for Environmental Health. I understand the concern. I think you're right in that SHPD is involved when there is a discovery of EV and so they are immediately notified, you know, if they want it.

We could invite them as an invitee if they want to join and not be an actual member, but so that they know what we're doing, that would also be fine. They don't have to be part of the task force, but we could invite them so that they're aware of what we're doing.

Okay. Yeah. I guess my personal. I just see this a lot in the state because we try to be overly inclusive, and then all we end up with is no decision. And in three Years. We'll be back for task force that has five people on it to like actually get work done.

So that's just my concern and I was looking for your feedback.

A follow up question. And you guys are actually have already been considering sort of moving forward with a group like this and.

Correct. We prior to this legislation, I think I spoke to some of you, we had already decided to do this implementation work group and are working towards that. So hopefully, you know, we'll demonstrate that there is not a need for this because it's already going forward. Thank you. Thanks Jon. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, I'm going to use my prerogative as chair to backtrack for one second before we get to the last Bill because I had a question I forgot I wanted to ask for House Bill 1620. So actually for Ashley from PC. Do. You have any information for us on what is happening?

I know with the barrel tax funding we had set aside some years ago, we set aside $0.03 for the EV charging system rebate program and then the year after that, I think or two years after. So something like that, we created a hydrogen fueling system sub account with an additional 3 cents set aside.

Do you know if any of that has been pulled down, if that has been used to lead to the installation of any hydrogen fueling systems and if not, what is the balance of that sub account?

Well, it's my understanding that no, there's not been funds deployed in, in service of the hydrogen program. I don't know what the current balance is, but we can certainly provide that for you.

Okay, what would you guess that it is? I can't remember how many years it's been or. Chris, if you know, wave your arms around.

I know that it's on par with what was collected for the EV charging station program. So that's been roughly 750,000 year which is why that's the appropriation. How many years has it been being collected now? I think three or four. Okay, so it's a significant kind of probably closer to 2 million currently. Yeah.

But we can provide the exact number. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will move on to the last Bill on the agenda. This is House Bill 1749 relating to cesspools. And this is the some language about prioritization and then real estate disclosure. And first step to testify. We have. Department of Health.

Good morning Chair Lohan for Members of the Committee. John Nagato, Department of Health Wastewater Branch. The Department stands on its routine testimony and support and we're here available to answer any questions.

Thank you. And Department of Land and Natural Resources.

BA Chair Lohan, Members of the Committee. Charlie Taylor on behalf of the department's Division of Land, sorry, Division of Aquatic Resources. We stand in support of this Bill and are available for any questions.

Thank you. And then Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Hello. Pasture alone. Members of the Committee, Diana Sentis from OPSD. We stand on a written testimony in support of HB 1749. I would like to add that requiring a disclosure of cesspools for real estate transactions was one of the recommendations that emerged from the IWS Permitted Interaction Group Task Force. And we are available for questions.

And then we have University of Hawaii, Darren Lerner, not present. Surfrider foundation. Not present. Public access to sunscreens, I think not present. And Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition.

Thank you again. Chair Lowen and Members of the Committee working the prior Reef and Ocean Coalition supports this Bill as well. It is important to recognize the priority one and two cesspools.

The Cesspool Conversion Working Group that I served on with the Department and others which issued a report, final report in 2022 called for the upgrade of priority ones by 2030 and priority 2s by 2035. No action has been taken on that and I'm not suggesting suggesting action today.

But I do think this Bill is good because it would prioritize the priority one and two. It would Fund it up update to the prioritization tool for guidance to homeowners and it will provide a standardized cesspool disclosure form before home sale.

There's already some disclosure but it gets lost in the closing, I think and have a separate disclosure form that people, people were aware because buyers are buying houses and then finding out, whoops, I need a new cesspool. I need to upgrade my cesspool by law.

And and it should be everybody should be aware of what they're getting into when they buy a property. So I think the disclosure requirement is a very good one. So this Bill does some good things and I would support it. And for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force and support Nature Conservancy and support Hawaii Realtors with comments.

Good morning chair and Committee Members. Mihoko Ito here on behalf of the Hawaii association of Realtors. Today we wanted to we submitted some comments on this measure regarding the successful disclosure form. And as other testifiers have alluded to, realtors do have a seller disclosure form that's used in real estate transactions.

And the law currently requires that all material facts in a transaction be disclosed. So there is a form that already asks about the wastewater treatment system and, and requires details to be provided to the seller. But we are aware, you know, that there's been focus on this and, and the disclosure issue specifically.

So Realtors standard forms Committee is actually currently meeting to discuss whether there's any other information that they can add to their forms. And it may be in the form of a separate disclosure, but they are currently meeting. And so for that reason we're just not sure if law is needed to require it at this time.

But we're happy to have further discussions and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then by.

Chair, vice chair, Committee Members Stuart Coleman. I will stand on our written testimony for vi, but I just wanted to add a couple of comments. The support for updating the cesspool prioritization tool is very important because right now they're due to limiting factors.

There wasn't enough water quality data available at the time to include is one of the kind of criteria in establishing that that is since increased. And so I think we do need some water quality data in there.

And that's very important because there are a lot of cesspools that are marked as priority area three we know are higher like either priority area one or two. And the reason that's important is because it's doing damage to the coral reefs that's kind of. You can't undo that damage.

And then as far as the funding for that, do you know if I could be permitted to ask a question?

Sure.

Okay, yeah, we'll talk about that. But it's currently done in the WRRC and we're just wondering if maybe it can be done with, you know, internally at DoH or just more communication in the input for that tool.

Thank you. And then we have three individuals with testimony all in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? oh, please go ahead.

Thank you. Chair and Vice chair Angela Melloby Young in strong support. So this Bill enacts legislation for cesspool conversion and to update the mandate and so, you know, implementing sewer improvement districts to connect households to the main sewer lines. This is something the county's purview is responsible for.

So the Department of Environmental Services manages alongside with the Department of Health to oversee these systems. And so it's interesting, in this legislation the real estate agent shall provide a disclosure form for the escrow transaction. I think, yeah, this is looks good.

And when the execution of the real estate purchase contract goes through, then this helps to just like educate the homeowners of what they're purchasing. So to accommodate homeowners and to think ahead and to think about the affordable housing projects being built and to lessen the burden on statewide responsibilities.

Because the county's affordable housing projects also have upgraded gray water systems. For example, Kui Lake Base, which processes 30,000 gallons of gray water from shower sink, laundry, toilet flush and irrigation. And so it reduces sewage flow and helps mitigate the strain on Hawaii's aging cesspool infrastructure.

And it helps to create sustainability within these affordable housing projects and in the sewer pipelines. So if much of this has to deal with the CAHPS purview, can you.

Please summarize and keep it to keep to the contents of the Bill?

oh, yes, I just would like to mention that. Yeah, this is a very fun topic for discussion. And if it's a lot to manage, then perhaps the counties can help with the responsibility. Yeah. And in support of the funds appropriate created to help enact this law to reach sustainability goals statewide. Thank you.

Okay, great. Any. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not Members questions? Go ahead.

Department of Health. Scott. Sorry, quick one. Are you able to maybe outline the Department of Health's position on the cesspool prioritization tool? I was just kind of reviewing it during testimony and it. Yeah, just wondering if when it says here it'll be updated by the Department. What are your plans in that?

So one of our comments was to clarify that to change to the University of Hawaii Research Center. They developed it during the cesspool working group. So the Department Health had input in the, in the cesspool working group, but we didn't develop.

Yeah, I see. It's a SEA grant product.

Yeah. From, uh. Yes. So that, that's how we wanted to clarify. Any updates go through wrc, Chris Shooter at this moment. Okay.

Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Okay. You can stay there, I think. Well, I had a couple questions. One, the language in the Bill that talks about making rules to clarify that the Department will prioritize priority one. And two, I'm curious if there would be ever. I'm curious how you would approach that because I think we, we want that. Right.

We want, if we have limited funding, for example, we want funding to be focused to highest priority.

On the other hand, if there was a scenario where you had like someone, I don't know, I wouldn't want it there to be perverse outcomes where say you had a scenario where you had someone in priority three, but who wanted to do a conversion and then because you had made rules or we put something in statute, you were felt prohibited from helping them over someone, like if there wasn't other people, I don't know is that, I didn't say that very clearly.

But I mean, do you feel like it's really necessary or do you feel like you do that already or do you feel like more open ended language that just says highest risk might.

I think it might be a little difficult. I mean, if you, if you use, you know, criteria such as highest risk, you have to be very precise with what you're talking about.

I mean, the good thing about the language of this Bill, you know, priority area 12 and 3 are already defined as a tool to distinguish between priority areas. And then if there is a discrepancy of, you know, priority area 12 or three, a distinction between those.

I think our previous question talking to the University, University of Hawaii and how their tool is updated, because my understanding is that tool can be updated as information, better information is provided to them.

Yeah, to me it's a much better approach than using some type of adjective that is not qualitative, you know, might be a little bit subjective.

Well, I mean, I just think the tool also, I mean as we all know too, the tool can be by, it's like you can look at each tmk, but, but you can also look at by census block. So like which, when we say priority one and two, which are we talking about?

Right. So I think obviously priority one and two would be our focus points. But if there is something in priority three that comes to us and says we want to convert, or if there's an instance where they must convert based on our rules, we would of course require them to convert even if they're a priority.

Does that make sense?

So, yeah, I guess my question is by putting, if you're already operating that way, if we put this language in statute, will it create any unintended outcome where you feel restrained from helping that person? And also would it make more sense instead of referring?

I mean we use the cesspool prioritization tool for a lot of things and we should continue to update it with, you know, that's currently underway and I think additional funding is a good idea.

But should the language in HRS specifically refer to that tool or do we need, either we need to be more specific about what we mean about how we're using the tool or we can just reference like has the, you know, greatest impacts to xyz, environment, environmental quality and water quality.

Right. That those are, that's a very good point. But I think when we were looking at priorities prioritization one and two, it. Really was if we were going to. Have funds available to people to allow monies to go to priorities one and two, to be able to convert in that, in those highest priorities.

But we, you know, our mission is the same no matter what, to protect public health in the environment. So if someone in priority three comes to us and then they are renovating and requires, due to our rules, requires them to convert, we will absolutely continue.

I hear you. I'm just saying what this Bill does is tell doh. They must put, must make rules saying how you will prioritize one and two. So do you need that? Is it helpful? Is it going to be sort of too restrictive or.

I think it would be onerous. Yeah.

Okay. Okay, Stuart, if you want to come up.

Hi. Mahalo. Just quick clarification. I hear your point and I agree that, you know, we might not necessarily need to put all the emphasis, especially if it hamstrings us. But I think there are a lot of people that are pushing and saying, oh well, we don't need to do these.

And priority one and two really are like our top, top priorities across the state.

I think they all recognize that. I'd just be worried about putting that reference directly into HRS and then not.

I mean, at the least we'd have to clarify that we meant the ranking it got in the prioritization tool based on TMK and not the census block, which is like the default view everybody sees when they pull it out.

Right. And I think to the bigger point that I think you're making, and I totally agree with this, there are some discrepancies Right now the public only sees the tracked version. And so when you look at the block version, which is more detailed, that's more accurate.

So there are things that need to be corrected and there are priorities that are not accurate. And so I think right now if we keep on going back to wrrc, it takes, you know, you have to pass something and then it takes a year to do that.

Where I think a more a larger point might be having a group work on this that's constantly updated.

So your suggestion is that we should transfer the management of the cesspool prioritization. Tool to Department of Health to make sure.

And that could be with a third party contractor, but that's working on that, not just on the side, but like full time because this determines hundreds of millions of dollars what is spent. And so it's a super Important tool, but it's got to be as accurate as possible and as updated as often as possible.

Yeah. D'oh. Do you want to comment on that?

Not to add to your plate.

Good. We were looking for something.

I mean, do you feel doh or what would it take? Someone come forward, please. But what would it take for. If there was transferring the management of the. And sort of ownership, you know, would, uh, might have an issue with that because it's their work product also.

So, yes, that'd be like the two things that need to be discussed with. Uh, that's why we wanted to make the comments so that hopefully on the next round that they're available to, you know, comment on this. Because it's not just transferring who's running it. They did develop this.

A lot of, you know, the algorithm and the criteria, what I understand from Chris Schuller and previously Michael Mesokopoulos, you know, a lot went into this. You know, it's not. It's not just a program. There's a lot of human science that they put into this. So. And then.

And then the staffing issue, you need somebody that specializes in it, and we don't have those particular specialties in our branch at the moment.

I think a worthwhile ongoing discussion because, yeah, it would be putting it directly under, uh, would just more. Give us more assurance there was ongoing maintenance of it, maybe. Okay. All right, thank you. Any other questions, Members?

There's no one from, uh, here or anybody who has had data on this. Okay.

All right. If not, we will recess for decision making. We'll be back very shortly.

Live in 321.

All right, we are back for decision making on the 9:30am agenda. First up, we have House Bill 644 relating to single use plastics. A number of amendments for this, so bear with me. We're going to move this requirement into HRS321 to match with our current existing statute that regulates food containers containing PFAS.

We will change the dates, which is page 5, line 18, and page 6, line 18 to 2028. For our delayed implementation, we will delete the exemption for compostable plastics on page 6, line 6 through 10, and on page 6, line 20, we'll add refillable and reusable. To the types of food ware that should not contain PFAs.

We will add a definition of food ware. So food ware will be hot and cold beverage cups, cup lids, straws, utensils, stirs, cup stoppers, splash sticks, plates, bowls, clamshells, trays and other containers in their lids that are intended to hold or package food or beverages.

And then we will amend the plastic foodware definition to mean foodware that contains plastic that's just cleaner.

For subsection three, emergency exemptions, we'll change this to to read packaging in any situation deemed by state or county to be an emergency requiring immediate action for the preservation of life, health, property or safety, where adhering to the prohibitions in this section can be reasonably deemed to hinder emergency response or relief efforts, or if our drafters have language, better suggestions for language to accomplish that.

But the idea is, yes, in an emergency situation where there is a need to use single use plastics for emergency response, there has to be a specific nexus there. We'll delete the definition of prepared food uncompostable plastics, since those aren't needed.

And I think we will add a new subsection somewhere in here that just clarifies that the counties are still authorized to enact more stringent restrictions and that this shouldn't interfere with any existing more stringent things that already exist at the counties. And then we will have technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And we will defect the date to July 1st, 3000, and this forward. So, Members, any discussion? All right. Seeing none. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

House Bill 644. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Representative Chunk is excused. Representative Kahaloa? Aye. Representative Kush, Aye. Representative Quinlan is excused. Representative Matsumoto, reservations. Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And for House Bill 1802 relating to conservation mitigation Banks, we are going to adopt all the amendments in Earthjustice's submitted proposed draft basically which I think DLNR is in agreement with and some additional technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. We will defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any discussion? Seeing none.Vice Chair please take the vote.

House Bill 1802 chairs recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the excused absence of Representative Chun and Representative Quinlan. Are there any no's or reservations? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And for House Bill 1569 relating to the environment this is the microfiber filters on washing machines. We're going to make some technical amendments and defect the date to 7-1-3000. I think this Bill probably still needs work but we want to keep the discussion alive for now so we will move it forward. Members, any discussion?

Vice Chair on House Bill 1569, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting again the excused absence of Representative Chun and Representative Quinlan. Are there any nos or reservations? Seeing none. Charity recommendation has been adopted.

Seeing none.

House Bill 1619 relating to electric vehicle infrastructure. On this we are just going to defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and move forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair On House Bill 1619, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the absence as mentioned earlier. Are there any no's or reservations? Seeing none. Charity recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And then House Bill 1620 relating to energy. This is the Bill that increases the barrel tax to add additional funding to the EV charging system rebate program. We will blank out the amounts on page four line seven and page four line 19.

So that'll just be open for discussion if we want to increase it by that amount or a, a different amount or even. Yeah, be open for discussion. I want to add a section here I think just so that we have this option in there for potentially accessing later. But that would Transfer. Transfer I'm going to just say.

Or actually we'll leave it a blank amount but I'll note in the Committee report I'm thinking a million from the hydrogen fueling system sub account to the electric vehicle charging system sub account because that money is currently not getting accessed in any case and that would provide some short shorter term funding.

I think in dotax's testimony on the barrel tax they also had said it would take them some years to update a barrel tax increase anyway so it wouldn't kick in immediately. So we'll add a transfer with a blank Amount. We'll note a million in the Committee report.

And we'll also note the blanked out amounts that I've mentioned previously on page four, line seven and page four, line 19. We'll note those recommendations in the Committee report and then defect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? All right. Seeing none.

Vice Chair. On House Bill 1620, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the excused absences of of Representative Chan and Representative Quinlan. Are there any nos or reservations? Representative Matsumoto reservation. No, no vote. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And then House Bill 1730 relating to wastewater systems. For this we're going to take all of Department of Health suggestions except for we will increase the number of Members from nonprofits from 1 to 2. We will make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And we will note in the Committee report the suggested amount from Department of Health for the positions is $182,208. We will defect the date to 7-1-3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? All right.

Seeing none. Vice Chair and House Bill 1730, chairs recommendation again is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Noting the excused absence. As mentioned earlier. Are there any no's or reservations? Seeing none. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And then House Bill 1749 for this. For the time being, we're going to remove section one and four. And that'll give us a little more time to continue to discuss what we want to do here. We have another Bill we're going to hear that amends the same section of statute.

So it makes sense to combine that into one vehicle instead of amending the same section in two separate places, different ways. So we'll take that out for now and move this forward just as a clean Bill for the real estate disclosure. We will adopt do's suggested amendments for sections two and three.

And we will have some additional technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. And defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any discussion? Seeing none.

Vice Chair. On House Bill 1749, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting I. Noting finally the excused absences of Representative Chun and Representative Quinlan. Are there any no's or reservations on this measure? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And we are adjourned.

Sa.