House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

All right, Good morning, everyone. It is Tuesday, February 3, 2026. 9:30am we are here in room 325 for a meeting of the hearing of the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. And first up on the agenda is House Bill 1924 relating to recycling. This establishes a mattress stewardship program.

And first step to testify we have Department of Health.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair with the Department of Health Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch stands on our written testimony offering comment available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Ted Bohlen in support. International Sleep Products association in opposition. Retail Merchants of Hawaii with comments not present and one individual, Kelsey Amos, in support. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not Members? Any questions? Okay, no questions. We'll move on.

Next on the agenda is House Bill 2121, relating to waste management. And this prohibits the sale of disposable vapes in the state. First up to testify is Department of Health.

Good morning. I'm Lola Irvin representing the Director of Health. And I want to thank you very much for HB 2121. And I think you're used to the Department of Health coming forward and talking to you about impact of E cigarettes on our youth.

We appreciate this measure, as the youth and the legislators have recognized impact of disposable vapes on our environment, the health of our environment. We do offer comments on this bill in that we do find that section 342-G deals with waste management. And so that section of the law actually has regulatory impact on products after they've been consumed.

And this bill refers to the sale of the products. And so we do recommend that perhaps it might be better suited in a different part of state law. At the same time, we do appreciate this attempt at getting these disposable vapes out of our market and out of our environment. Thank you.

Thank you. And then Hawaii COPD Coalition in support. Friends of Kamalani and Lydgate Park in support. Oh, City and County of Honolulu in support. Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council on Zoom. Luke Itomura.

Aloha, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. On behalf of the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, thank you for allowing us to submit testimony in strong support of HB 2121.

The CTFH Youth Council is a nationally recognized group of youth leaders comprising of middle school, high school, and college students with representation from across Hawaii's county. And we're fighting to envision a Hawaii centered on uplifting public health beyond the reaches of Big Tobacco. Hawaii is facing a youth vaping epidemic.

Disposable E cigarettes have become especially popular among teens because they're cheap, widely available, and easy to use. E cigarettes also have higher nicotine concentrations than previous generations of E cigarettes. Despite many of these products being illegal in the US, they remain accessible in our communities, demonstrating the urgent need for policy action.

In addition to harming youth health, disposable E cigarettes are creating an environmental crisis in Hawaii. These devices contain dangerous plastics, toxic chemicals, and lithium ion batteries that leech into our environment. Currently, there is no standard way to recycle disposable E cigarettes of the United States, resulting in toxic materials leaching into the environment.

During a CTFH Youth Council beach cleanup, members collected a staggering number of E cigarette butts along Hawaii's shoreline. While the Youth Council initially observed less visible E cigarette waste, we later learned that many disposable E cigarettes components do not float to the surface.

Instead, they sink to the into the sand and ocean floor where they can release toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and nicotine residue. This hidden pollution threatens aquatic life and contaminates our marine ecosystems. The lithium ion batteries inside disposable E cigarettes also pose serious safety risks to our communities.

When improperly discarded, these batteries can overheat, rupture, or ignite under high pressure and heat, creating dangerous conditions in waste facilities. At Hawaii's H-POWER facility, battery related fires and explosions have slowed operations, damaged equipment, and put workers at risk. H-POWER shared with us that 158 fires total, with 44 being lithium battery related.

And because these batteries are so small and powerful, stopping them before they enter H-POWER is one of our best bets for keeping the plant operational and the staff safe. Members of the Youth Council have also witnessed disposable E cigarettes catching fire unexpectedly, with some youth experiencing burns and close calls as a result.

These incidents demonstrate that disposable E cigarettes are not only harmful to the health of the environment, but also present immediate physical dangers. Disposable E cigarettes are hazardous to the health of our people and our environment. Please pass this bill to help create a safer Hawaii for us all. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Aloha and good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kevin Ramirez. I'm the Program Manager for Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii, which is a program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute. Thank you for scheduling this hearing and providing the opportunity to testify today. I'm here to testify in strong support of HB 2121, ending the sale of disposable E cigarettes.

When a consumer finished using their disposable e cigarette, they either end up in the trash or in the environment. At this point in time, it's classified as hazardous waste. While there are hundreds of different designs of E cigarettes, they all share the same construction.

On average, the individual components of a disposable e cigarette range from about 10 to 15 pieces. So inside the outer is made out of a non-biodegradable plastic or metal housing. Inside of that is more plastic parts ranging from buttons, switches, to moldings.

There's also metal wiring, a circuit board, a large piece of cotton that's absorbing liquid, nicotine, and other chemicals. Many of these devices come with LCD screens, and last but not least, there's a lithium ion battery inside. When these devices are thrown into our waste management stream, they're causing fire hazards.

When these devices are thrown into our environment, they become toxic waste, polluting our environment with microplastics, metals, poisonous chemicals that leach out of the devices and poison our land, waterways, impacting wildlife and aquatic life. Additionally, because disposable e cigarettes have dominated the market since 2020, a lot of the recent studies on the health impacts unique to disposable e cigarettes have been conducted.

Last year, the University of California at Riverside conducted a study on unique hazards that disposable e cigarettes posed to its users and found that users of disposable e cigarettes are exposed to much higher levels of metal than combustible cigarettes.

And last but not least, the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii every year conducts a survey of Hawaii registered voters. Last year we added a question to that survey gauging support on a law ending the sale of disposable e cigarettes.

And we were not surprised to find that in our survey of over 7,000 registered Hawaii voters, 81% support a law ending the sale of disposable e cigarettes to protect our community from the health risks of these products and also protecting our environment from the hazardous waste they entail. Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to testify in strong support of HB 2121. We kindly ask you to pass this measure.

Thank you. And then next up we have Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, Michael Paul in support. Hawaii Smokers Alliance. And then we have 29 additional individuals submitted testimony in support and one in opposition. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not, Members, any questions? All right, seeing none. We will move on.

Next up, House Bill 1928 relating to the deposit beverage container recycling program. And first up to testify we have Department of Health.

Hi, good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Of the Committee speaking on behalf of The Department and we stand on our written testimony in this measure.

Thank you. And we have Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents on Zoom.

Yes, hello. Aloha Chair Lauren, Vice Chair Peruso and Committee Members. My name is Lindsey Sabec-Kuzuma. I'm here on behalf of the Solid Waste Task Force of the Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and just want to start by saying thank you for hearing this House Bill 1928 and for hearing our comments.

I don't have much to add to our written testimony, but I do want to emphasize that we believe that with Amendments 19, House Bill 1928 has the potential to modernize and make some real and necessary improvements to the existing deposit beverage container program.

And we urge the Committee to consider our comments in three areas in particular as we outlined in our testimony and that we believe will really help House Bill 1928 reach its full potential. And particularly that was clearly integrating, reuse and reusables into House Bill 1928. Including.

Strong enforceable safeguards to ensure timely pro formation, accountability and compliance up front. And that'll help implement. Help mitigate implementation issues on the back end and just stronger consideration of existing compliant redemption centers, even requiring the pro to contract with those existing compliant redemption centers.

We appreciate the opportunity to share these comments and look forward to continued discussion as bill moves forward. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. And then Zero Waste Hawaii Island with comments Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Thank you, Chair for the opportunity to testify. We submitted comments. We appreciate the intent of this measure. However, we would prefer a strengthening of the existing High 5 program. There is an ample amount of resources with which to do that. We appreciate and would support a bag drop program as outlined in the bill.

However, we're concerned about the fees for the pro being undefined and creating instability and we're concerned about what happens with the existing infrastructure. I'm available for questions afterwards. I also wanted to note that we are looking down the pipe at some very expensive independent audit requirements which we had suggested earlier.

Hearing on a bill related to that as that will definitely increase the cost of food and drivers if it's not fixed. So thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii in support Upstream in support on Zoom.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Aloha. Thanks for allowing me to Zoom in. All the way from snowy Maine. I'm the policy Director at Upstream. As you mentioned, we're a national nonprofit that advocates for waste prevention and reusable packaging systems.

And we really strongly support modernized bottle bills because they're great for catalyzing reuse systems. They boost container return rates and enable easy sorting to set aside reusables and get them back to producers. And those are both essential to successful reuse programs.

So we definitely support the intent of this Bill, but we want to echo the Zero Waste Task Force comments, as we noted in our written testimony as well, that a few changes are recommended from our perspective to this Bill to just tighten up some of the definitions for reusables, ensure they're properly handled without being, say, crushed in a reverse vending machine, and allow flexibility for small craft beverage producers who want to try out reuse.

And we also strongly agree that the Bill would benefit from stronger oversight and enforcement language to safeguard implementation. This is based on lessons learned the hard way in other states. And we do support as well increased emphasis on protecting existing redemption centers.

So very, very happy to work with you on any of these and send additional resources if you like. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have a Container Recycling Institute, Susan Collins with comments, a Story of Stuff project. Miriam Gordon with comments not present. American Beverage Association. David Thorpe on Zoom not present. Hawaii Liquor Wholesales association, down to Earth, organic and natural, Mr. K's recycling and redemption Center, Hanada and Sons, Aloha Shell Service.

And then we have Angela Young on Zoom present. And then additional two individuals in support, one in opposition Round three with comments. That's everyone. We have signed up to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else here to testify? All right. If not Members, questions. Thank you. Okay. All right.

Just noting, we know this bill needs some work, so we're going to be doing decision making right in a few days from now. But yeah, thank you for all the testimony we did read through it all. We will move on to House Bill1979 relating to environmental review. And first up to testify is the Judiciary.

State of Hawaii Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Morning, Chair, Members. I'm Tom Eisen with the Environmental Review Program of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. We stand in our submitted testimony as commenting and offers amendments to HB 1979. Available for questions if you have any.

Thank you. Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Morning. Morning, Chair Lowen, Vice Chairperson Perruso, and Members of the Committee. Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

I'm presenting this testimony because HCDA is a current developer of four affordable housing projects in Kaka‘ako and maybe doing other affordable housing projects outside of our district and also developing infrastructure under Part 10 of Chapter 206, part of our statutory. Offer really two comments.

One, on the substance of the bill, we kind of defer to and accept the testimony of the Executive Director of OPSD on her comments. Second, with respect to the definition of affordable housing, we offer some suggested amendments on page 4, line 12, as shown in our testimony. Often affordable housing projects encompass more than just affordable housing.

They have maybe a programmatic space on the ground floor for mixed uses like a convenience store, small shop. And it also includes sometimes on site infrastructure, off site infrastructure that support or facilitate the housing necessary for that affordable housing. So I just want to offer amendments to just make clear that affordable housing includes that kind of elements to it. Thank you.

Next up we have Kauai Island Utility Cooperative on Zoom. Beth Amaro.

Hi, good morning. Aloha from Kauai. Good Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. We do support this bill. We've submitted testimony. We stand on the testimony, and I'm available for any questions you might have. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then we have 350 Hawaii, Sherry Pollack. Terri Napeahi.

Aloha. Terri Napeahi from Hawaii, Hawaii Island, Moku o Keawe. I'm here representing Keaukaha Action Network, Pele Defense Fund, and also the truth of the people. We see this bill, the action of this bill, lessening the judicial process for an environmental review which gives, which does not give enough time for people to...

Well, in a judicial process to have enough time to gather information or in the process to file a lawsuit. And this is something that gives an opportunity to the people so that we can have an opportunity to gather information, enough time. Shortening this process is going to be limiting the time for input from our community. I oppose this project and I stand by our testimony.

Next up we have Isaac Moriwake, Earthjustice.

Good morning. We stand on our written testimony. Just wanted to note briefly that, in the fog of the late night hour, I neglected to fill in a citation here in the testimony to the Hawaii Administrative Rules. So for the record, it's section 11-200.1-15c10. It's a little bit of a mouthful. And I provided corrected testimony here, filling in that blank for the committee record if that is appropriate. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, next up we have Outdoor Circle on Zoom. Not present. Ron Tubbs on Zoom. Not present. And Gregory Misakian on Zoom. Not present. Okay, now we have four additional individuals in support, and 10 in opposition. Was there anyone else here to testify on this measure? All right. If not, Members, questions? For, starting with OPSD.

Just to clarify, if I read it correctly, your testimony was suggesting that the 30 day challenge, like the 30 day challenge over the filing of an exemption. So the decision to not proceed with a EA, you would like that to apply to all exemptions across the board?

Yeah. 30 days as opposed to the current 120 days. Because discovery is much easier now.

All right. I just want to clarify that. Okay. That's the only question. And then for HCDA. So I'm not sure. I think I might leave it to the Housing Committee to take a look at the proposals that you made. It's not quite clear because I think our desire was to have a quite narrow definition, a more narrow definition of affordable housing and clean energy.

Just so that we're, you know, we know that people are very protective of Chapter 343 and we want to try to facilitate affordable housing and clean energy but not have an overly broad definition. So if it includes these ancillary activities, would that then apply to development of those types of...

I mean, is the concern that if you're developing affordable housing in conjunction with those ancillary activities, that this exempt, this not exemption, but this expedited process would not apply?

I think, I think that's the concern is that an affordable housing project encompasses more than just the residential units. That's the important part of it. But in order to build an affordable housing project, you need to have ancillary off site, on site infrastructure. And oftentimes affordable housing projects benefit by having program space on the ground floor for the convenience of the residents.

But I guess what I'm asking is that affordable housing as defined in this bill, which, you know, I worked on with other people, it's not really my area of expertise. Would it exclude, would it exclude an entire affordable housing development from allowing a slightly, very slightly expedited process because it included some ancillary activity, or would it still be included? Because I think it was sort of like as defined by the county.

I think, Chair, I think we just wanted to be certain or add more certainty to the definition. I'm happy to provide these comments to the Housing Committee, if that's your preference.

Okay. Or maybe it'll be clarifying that it would be those kind of activities as long as it was in conjunction with affordable housing.

Sure. I think that's reasonable. I think that's reasonable. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think no one was here from the Judiciary. Is anyone here yet? If not, I guess Earthjustice.

To be clear, I'm not speaking on behalf of Judiciary, but...

Just any attorney will do. Can you just start, because I'm not that familiar. How many courts, if we don't have it expedited, because the bill proposes these challenges will go direct to the Supreme Court.

And the Judiciary's testimony was concerned about bypassing the environmental court. What's the usual process like? Would it normally just go environmental court and then appeal to the Supreme Court, or are there other courts that a challenge could go through?

After the Environmental Court, the first appeal goes to the intermediate court of appeals. Unless you get a transfer from the Supreme Court, then you go straight to the Supreme Court.

So, like, a compromise could be that it would go environmental court and then direct to Supreme Court?

Like a mandatory transfer? Sure.

Okay. I mean, I know you don't... I know your testimony is you don't support it, but just I'm not sure how many different levels of courts there are, I guess.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay. All right. Seeing none, we will move on to House Bill 1650 relating to environmental assessments. This would remove Waikiki Special District and historic sites from the trigger language in Chapter 343. 5. And first up to testify is OPSD.

Right.

Good morning again, Chairmembers. We stand in our submitted testimony and available for questions.

All right, thank you. DLNR State Historic Preservation Division.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Jessica Puff. The administrator for the State Historic Preservation Division. We stand on our testimony as submitted. Are here for any questions you have. Thank you.

And then we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha. I'm actually appearing by Zoom. Leialoha Makuanani on behalf of Office Hawaiian Affairs. And we'll stand on our written comments available for questioning. Just highlighting our request to retain historic sites. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then Hawaii Realtors, Hawaii Yembi, Hawaii Yembi. In support, we have United Chinese Society of Hawaii Outdoor Circle.

And then, we have one individual in support, and it looks like 16 in opposition. And Gregory Masakian signed up to testify on zoom. Not present. Was there anyone else here to testify on this measure? Please come forward.

Terry Napiahi with—I work for the Planning Department and county. I'm off today.

I was told to make sure that I say that. I am here representing our moku kaiwe but also every kiawe that's being, being discussed here, especially Waikiki. Removing historical sites, constructing on one and san in Waikiki, which is what Waikiki is made of, you could possibly dig up Iwikupuna.

And so, without doing an environmental review, irregardless of where you do a project, the possibility of digging up Iwikupuna will stop with Shipti in a second. So, to do without an environmental review anywhere in Waikiki is completely heava. I stand in opposition. Thank you very much. Mahalo.

Thank you. And anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not, Members, questions?

Yes. Aloha. Are you taking online?

Oh, yes. Please go ahead. State your name.

Okay.

Mahalo, Tara Rojas, and regarding 1650, exactly what the previous testifier just said. This really comes to mind when it brings to mind, for example, the Mona when you read this about taking away historic sites, taking away environmental assessment, the Waikiki Special District, it's like, you know what? We've desecrated and destroyed enough.

We don't need to do any more assessment. I'm seeing it and I read it right now already in the Kalila Master Plan where there's no T1 zoning anymore, which is natural habitat. So, they're saying, you know what? There's no more T1 zoning anymore, only T2 to the T6. Let's just do this.

So, I'm not even sure why or how that you know that this even comes up and a lot of these bills that I'm seeing and I'm trying to be in in like three meetings at once. But again, I oppose removing historic sites and the Waikiki Special District from the requirement for environmental assessments under Section 343-5.

Again, every place in Hawaii needs to be protected. So, I would just like to add that to your decision making. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? If not, Members, questions? I guess I have a quick question for OPSD. Sorry, I said OPSD. I meant Shifti. Sorry.

I think your guys' testimony indicated if we remove the historic sites from the trigger language, we should still include it as a factor that has to be assessed. And if an EA is required for another reason, and that's already, would that be—is that not already required?

It's not, it's not something that we regularly see in EAs and EISs that our office does comment on. We receive EAs and EISs that are triggered for a number of factors, not just perhaps because there's a listed historic property that is owned by the county or the state, but for any number of reasons. Right?

And while in those EA assessments they don't, or EISs, they don't necessarily do an actual historic properties assessment, our staff ends up providing them with information about burials located in the project area or historic resources, you know, in the project area or adjacent and comment on like perhaps the sensitivity of the site.

So, it's not something that is reliably done, even though these projects also, additionally, likely have to do a Kapaakai analysis. There doesn't seem to be a lot of connection where they're showing of the homework that crosses from one assessment to the other.

What's a Kapaakai assessment?

So, Kapaakai analysis is something that is required of state projects to assess the impact to cultural resources. So, it's another sort of separate from the 343 process.

What triggers that?

Like state governmental projects or state-supported governmental projects are supposed to be doing these Kapaakai analyses, so.

But we don't necessarily see that at Shifti when we receive, say, an EA or EIS. That information isn't necessarily reflected in those reports, and it also isn't necessarily reflected in the HRS 6E.

Whether you're submitting for 6E-8, which are governmental projects, or 10, which are privately listed historic properties, or 42, which are privately owned properties that require a permit, we're not necessarily seeing the research that they've been having to do for these other assessments crossover. So, I think that if there was a.

What's the benefit of duplicating the work though? I think that intention of the Bill is to streamline.

Yeah, I understand the intention of the Bill to streamline. And so, I could see removing the historic preservation trigger alone because 6E is still a requirement.

The benefit of having the historic properties assessment, though, in an EA when they are required, is that the project proponent is doing an early assessment before the project is fully developed, in order to use that information about whether there's burials there or historic properties there to inform project development.

That's the beauty of inserting it into an EA or an EIS and the beauty of doing Kapaakai, right, is because they're doing.

Kapaakai is triggered later?

Kapaakai should be being triggered at the same time, and I think.

And I don't understand why you would need to have it in full. Could it just be alisting of identification of it as a historic site and then it could be sort of cross referenced to the Kapaakai assessment, instead of requiring the assessment to be, but like redone?

I would say yes, if the Kapaakai analyses were being done, were actually being done, which is the other issue is that they're not always done. So, and not all projects that trigger an EA trigger a Kapaakai analysis.

I was hesitant to put it in this extremely litigious section of statute as a replacement for people not following what the process is supposed to be already.

Yeah. And I think that if we could figure out a way where project proponents—I think the goal, from our perspective, and I think that we're open to the conversation is to have project proponents that are requiring this early environmental assessment also use that time to reflect on the impact to historic and cultural resources in their project area, so they can pre plan for it.

Because if you remove this from the 343 section, then the next—the time that they are triggered for actually making that assessment if they are exempt from Kapaakai is when they come to Shifti for the 6E review.

And that's oftentimes too late in the project development stage to be able to have a meaningful impact to avoid those historic properties or to take into consideration potential impact. And then, we're always having to respond to those impacts after the fact. Right? Where there's limited options.

So, I think I'm definitely open to figuring out a way to streamline things, so long as we're taking it from a holistic approach where we're able to hold local and state agencies accountable for pre planning and, and considering historic properties in that pre planning stage. Essentially, that's I think the best way I can explain our position.

Okay. Thanks. I guess OPSD. What are your thoughts on like same, same topic but...many years of experience.

The statute has very prescriptive content requirements for EISs, not so for EAs, is kind of talk about what's important, talked in a general way, the content requirements. So, it doesn't specify that an identification of its presence as a historic site is known, but it would be pretty hard to say that it was wrong if it didn't, if a historic site was not noted as one.

This whole thing kind of presumes that there will be a 343, an EA, for another reason, not only because of the historic site, but if for some reason there isn't any other reason, then none of this would come to pass.

If there was the only reason 343 was because it was a listed historic site. How often that is, we don't have the record. Very few would be only historic sites, but I suppose the content requirements for an EA could be made more prescriptive.

Do you think that's a positive step?

Well, if the whole reason for doing all of this is just to capture identified historic sites and why not keep it as a trigger? Because not many projects go through only because of that trigger.

So, I think eliminating it is not going to eliminate much process for most things and you'll lose this little bit of progress protection by doing so. So, I, I, it's kind of a six or one half dozen view.

Got it.

Okay. All right, thank you. Other questions, Members? Okay, in that case, we will move on to House Bill 1543, relating to environmental review. This is the bill about how long an EA remains valid. And first up to testify, we have OPSD.

This is still morning. We stand in our submitted testimony with strong concerns about this Bill. Clarify questions as needed. Thank you.

Next up, DLNR.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. Michael Cain on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. We understand the concerns about having environmental assessments show up after 20 or 30 years and still be valid but also understand the strong concerns OPSD had about setting a hard limit and taking away agency decision making powers. So, what we, what we're suggesting is a middle ground where we lay out a framework for how an agency would assess whether an EA or an EIS is still valid.

This is a first stab at such a framework, so, we're not committed to the language, but our model was on the Kapaa Kai analysis that we follow to evaluate impacts on Hawaiian cultural practices and resources that was imposed by the courts. I'd rather that we develop our own framework than have the Legislature order us to follow it. So, respectfully, I'll be around for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And then, Ocean Tourism Coalition. NYA Hawaii Chapter, Ken Hayashida. Not present. Then, we have additional testimony from three individuals in support, four in opposition, and one with comments. It looks like we had Ron Tubbs signed up to submit testimony via Zoom. Is Ron Tubbs present? And Gregory Misakyan, still not on Zoom?

Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? All right, if not, Members, questions? Question maybe for DLNR. I guess I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to, but I know that in recent years, Chapter 343 has been expanded beyond just what we would typically think of historically it was applied to, which was like physical construction projects, et cetera, for example, where it's been applied to fishing permits or to the management of Ka'Anapali.

And so, for that kind of program, because I think the argument in the past about whether there should be a time after which an EA or EIS expires was sort of related to projects that had done an environmental assessment but never gotten built. And, you know, many years had passed in the interim and impacts may have changed.

But now, we're talking about a document that maybe applies to an ongoing program that never gets built, you know, or not built. So, it seems like, would it be that's even more onerous for it to then expire?

To be honest, my office deals with physical land uses, so I didn't take into consideration sort of the more general activity assessments.

That's kind of new.

In our mind, we did have the programmatic permits or programmatic environmental assessments regarding projects, such as beach nourishment or loco area restoration, that, to be honest, I don't want to have to defend every time a practitioner comes in for a fish pond restoration permit. I want these programmatic EAs to be valid as long as conditions haven't changed.

I'd have to follow up on how this would impact recreational permits outside my office's jurisdiction.

Thank you. I think that's all the questions I have. Did you have a question?

No. Okay, thank you.

All right, we are back for decision making on the 9:30 AM agenda. And first up, we have House Bill 1924 relating to recycling. So, we're going to take a little more time to work on this, so, we're going to put off decision making until Tuesday, February 10th at 11:15. We'll come back to that.

And then, moving on to House Bill 2121, relating to waste management. Per Department of Health's testimony, we will move this language to Chapter 328J and then we will defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And then, for House Bill 1928, related to deposit beverage container recycling, for this, we will also defer decision making to February 10th at 11:15 AM so we need a little more time to work out some of these details. Moving on to House Bill 1979, relating to environmental review.

So, for this, for this we'll note, we'll note in the Committee Report the suggested changes to the definition of housing from HCDA and we'll note that we leave that to the Housing Committee, which this Bill will go to next to consider.

But we're going to leave the current more narrow definition of affordable housing in this Bill and then, we will make some amendments to stipulate that these challenges can go to Environmental Court and then direct to Supreme Court.

So, it will still be a slightly expedited process, but it will allow for that preliminary court ruling and then, any challenge to that court ruling, as was mentioned in the Judiciary testimony, there can be an application for an expedited process.

So, we will just put something in our amendments to this Bill that will clarify that that expedited process will be automatic.

So, it will be like automatically assume an application for an expedited process to the Supreme Court for these narrowly defined affordable housing and renewable energy projects and then, we will defect the date to the year 3000. With that, members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. For House Bill 1650, for this, we will, we will take out from the Bill the changes regarding historic sites as a trigger. So, that will remain a trigger.

And so, this bill, moving forward, will just include the removing the Waikiki area specifically as a trigger, which I think generally was agreed to be less of an issue by all the testifiers. And we will defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

And for House Bill 1543, based on testimony, we're going to defer this Bill. And then, House Bill 1981, this is the first geothermal Bill that gives funding to the Energy Office. So, for this, we're going to match some of the language to what was in the admin bill, which was House Bill 2262.

So, that will just clarify that funds for EA or EIS will be sought upon identification of a resource appropriate for geothermal development, and it will change the reporting requirement to an annual report to the Legislature on the status of geothermal resource identification and development potential, or development in the state, including information about developments in geothermal energy technology activities in other states or counties, and geothermal energy's role in achieving energy self-sufficiency in the state.

We will note in the Committee Report that the blank amount for an appropriation from the Energy Security Special Fund is recommended to be 6 million. I think we'll remove the position, at this time, to match that up to the admin bill and then, I'd like to add an additional blank appropriation from the General Fund and just note in the Committee Report that should General Funds be available, additional funding would be recommended.

And then, we will defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward for further discussion. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

All right. And then, the last bill on our agenda, House Bill 1982, relating to Department of Hawaiian Homelands. For this, we will just blank out the $5 million amount and note that amount in the Committee Report, defect the date to the year 3000, and move this forward for further consideration. Members, any discussion?

Seeing none. Vice Chair, please take the vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, and we are adjourned.