Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Hello, mykako and good afternoon. Mahalo for joining us today in Aen hearing. It's Wednesday, February 4, 2026 and we're convened in room 224 and video conferencing, which includes the audio and video of remote participants and that's being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that this hearing is cut short, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Friday, February 6th at 3:02pm during AEN's time slot. And the public notice will be posted on the legislature's website.

And because of our 90 minute time limit for hearings, there will be a 2 minute time limit for all testifiers and we'll have a virtual countdown timer on the zoom screen. So first up on the agenda is Senate Bill 2309 relating to AG loans.

Requires the Agricultural Loan Division to sell portions of its loan portfolio to permitted third parties with proceeds to be deposited into the Ag Loan Revolving Fund. Appropriates funds out of the Ag Loan Revolving Fund to increase its expenditure ceiling and thereby expand access to agricultural loan financing and support local food production.

First up, we have the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, AKA DAB . Hey, Cedric.

Hello and good afternoon. Chair the Department, Cedric Gates here on the behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, AKA DAB. DAB stands on its written testimony and strong support of this measure. We appreciate the author introducing this bill and for your support hearing this bill. Chair, thank you so much.

Thank you, Cedric. Next is Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on his written testimony. In support.

Okay. And we also have in support the following. Benson Medina from the county of Hawai' I Department of Research and Development, Amanda Shaw from Ag Stewardship Hawaii, Micah Munakata from Ulupono Initiative, Eric Tanoe from hfna, Megan Blazak in support, and Jeremy Burns. All of those are in support. So we have eight in support, zero opposed.

Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Senator Gabbard. For the record, my name is Durazo Homa, the Executive Director of APEC Hawaii, the author of the new published book the Blueprint. I just wanted to mention a measure that I support the measure of the loan through the Agriculture under the Hawaii Agriculture Department.

Another thing I wanted to mention is this is very important that I know that our President Donald Trump had ordered an Executive order about two months ago allocating $12 billion to our American farmers. And this money can be used for research and development.

Where University of Hawaii can allocate some of that money as well with buying new fertilizer start up for new farmers, buy new equipment for the existing farmers. So I believe that most of the red states are obtaining that $12 billion. So like in Hawaii, we're in the middle of the Pacific. We're a blue state.

So I think we do have our congressional delegation lobbying the agriculture Department make sure that we get some of that $12 billion coming into Hawaii so that we can distribute evenly. And I think the state Legislature, with the loan of the funding mechanism, you guys can manage it correctly. So our local farmers can benefit from that.

And we can supply our own food supply source compared to our super. Our supply chain of food suppliers so high, we'll go to our grocery stores. You know, American farmers are currently yielding, or worldwide farmers are yielding 40% of the product only because of climate change issue. They should be harvesting 80% of the yield of their crops.

That's going to change the whole pricing structure of the supply chain issues. And American farmers could be feeding the global hunger. We can export on that, you know, food supply chain that we have here. We have abundance of resources. We just need to allocate it correctly and manage it correctly and do the research and development.

I think that's. So we should look into allocate getting some of that $12 billion first.

Okay.

Thank you very much for giving the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wanting to testify on this measure. Members, any questions? I have a question for Dab. In Dab's testimony, a concern was brought up about the possibility of not being able to find a qualified buyer for the portion of your loan portfolio. So could you give us a possible scenario?

Dean Matsukawa, Deputy Department of AG. Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Richards. Yes. What we're looking at was if we have, we're required to sell the full 11 million, we might not find a buyer, and then we'd have to kind of negotiate a less favorable rate for the state.

So if it's not a requirement and we can kind of work with sell different amounts, then we might be. We should be able to get a much more equitable return for the state.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Dean. Thank you. Okay, Moving on to the next measure, SB2317 directs the Department of AG and Biosecurity to conduct a study on insurance coverage for small ag producers requirements as a report to the Legislature. And the first up is DAB.

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands on its written testimony and strong support of this measure, thanking the author as well as for introducing the bill and hearing here for any questions.

Thank you, Cedric. Next is Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Hein.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farmers Union written support and support of this matter.

Thank you, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Brian Miyamoto.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will stand on its prison testimony in support.

Okay. Also in support, Brandon testifying for Hawaii Food and Policy, Purple Media foundation and Eric Tanoy with hfna. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any questions? Okay, let's see. Okay, a question for dab. So how much funding are we looking at to conduct the study?

I think we're looking at about maybe 250,000 maybe to do it right now. It's kind of broad, so we're not really sure what we're focusing on, but right now we were looking at crop insurance, maybe health insurance and liability insurance for the farmers.

Okay, so if we kind of do those three, I think the 250 would be sufficient. Thank you, Dean. Thank you.

Okay, moving on to the next measure. Sb2318 relating to AG statistics establishes the Agriculture Statistics Statistics program in statute and for 2318 we have. DAB is first.

Thank you, Chair DAB stands uninteresting testimony and strong support of this measure. Here for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you, Hawaii Farmers Union. Hunter Hein.

Thank you, Chair of the Hawaii Farmers Union standa on written testimony in support of this.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on his written testimony and support.

Thank you. We also have Parwinda Grewal from, uh, from CTAHR offering comments, and Benson Medina from the county of Hawai' I Department of Research and development, Carlin McFadden from Hawaii Food and Policy Purple Maia foundation, and Megan Blazak. All of those are in support. So 6 in support to 0 opposed on with comments. Any questions? Members?

I got a question.

Senator Richards.

How fast can you ramp up the program right now?

If we get the positions, I think we could ramp up pretty quick. We have experienced statisticians right now, so as long as they get help, I think we can ramp up pretty quickly. And then the bill provides what we should be looking at.

It provides kind of a template of the issues that we're supposed to be the statistics we're supposed to be working on. So I think that gives us a much easier road path going forward.

So if theoretically this was in law by June 15th or July 1st, say, would we have our first, though not complete, report? Would we have it by the end of the year?

Yes, I'm sure we could do that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next measure, SB2319 relating to Department of AG and Biosecurity, appropriates funds for one full time equivalent grant writer position within DAB and converts the position from temporary to permanent. DAB , you're up first.

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands in strong support of this measure. We have our subject matter expert and grant writer Leslie Hartley Harvey here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Cedric. Next is Hawaii Farm Bureau Brian Miyamoto.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Senator Rhodes. Brian Miyamoto, on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, you have a written testimony support. I would normally just stand on our testimony support, Chair, but this is one of the Hawaii Farm Bureau priorities. Believe it's a DAB priority. Local food coalition priority. Very, very important bill.

And I think we've already seen the return on investment. I'm going to say something that maybe others won't say again. Private funding worthwhile. We want this to be general funded. We want the position to be permanent because the individual we have right now, Ms. Leslie Harvey, is of value and has shown return on investment.

And there's a possibility that if we don't have assurance of funding, we may lose this valuable individual who is bringing money from outside of Hawaii into Hawaii for our farmers and ranchers. So again, one of our priorities. Priorities with many and we stand in strong support of this measure. Thank you for the opportunity, my testimony.

Thank you, Brian. Micah Munekata from Ulupona Initiative.

Good afternoon. Afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Senator Rhodes, Micah Munekata here on behalf of Ulupona Initiative, standing on our written testimony and strong support of this measure. As we have in the past, we've come here and spoke the. The wonders of, of the opportunities that are out there.

Besides coming to this square building every year, we've been lucky enough to be a part of the DABS opportunity to bring in someone to concentrate on grant writing and seek out federal funds. So taking a lot of pressure off of the state and seeking what federal opportunities are out there.

Historically we haven't tapped into it and now we have all this momentum behind a certain individual that's sitting behind me and she's been doing great work. In times of uncertainty, when the Federal Government is clamping its fists down on a lot of the funding that's been out there and canceling grants, we are still finding success.

Ms. Harvey is funded at $100,000 in General funds. Right now we're looking for her to be funded at $100,000 in perpetuity with General funds. She brought in $9 million last year. That's 90 times return on investment. She's also identified over $54 million in other opportunities.

And she's also shown a skill to work across different agencies and departments to all go after some kind of grant funding that's out there. It's not always the case that it's always for Department of Ag. There's some for adc, Department of Education, for example. So she's definitely being a valued resource across the state.

So we really do appreciate you introducing this measure, Chair, and continuing this discussion behind why we need such an important person. Thank you.

Chair okay, thank you. Hunter Haviland from Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair. Hawaii Farmers Union 7th stands on its strong support of this measure. There's no reason.

Okay, thank you. Let's see. Nicole Galassi, Mal Council. zero, you're in person. I'm so used to looking at the Zoom Aloha.

Chair Gabard, Vice Chair Richards, Senator Rhodes, Nicole Gassi. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council, we support this measure. As the previous testifiers have said, this is a small investment for a really large return. We've seen that happen this year in a very short amount of time.

And in our experience, we have worked really well with Ms. Harvey. She reaches out to us, asks what we need. She shares what things we need to provide to her to be able to be successful in her applications. And that's needed because these federal funds are ridiculous. They're very difficult to get through.

But when you can get through them, it helps the state a lot. So thank you for considering this bill.

Thank you. Nicole. Myung Oh, from the Local Food Coalition.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Senator Rhodes, Myongo here on behalf of the Local Food Coalition. Great things have been said about Ms. Harvey and the return on investment. We appreciate the Legislature and the temporary position in the last year.

We hope that the Legislature continues this on with a permanent FT position so that they can continue to drive and leverage federal funding back into the state. The challenge has always been local producers, farmers to apply notice of the application and the grants that's available and the opportunities that's there. So really appreciate the support from the Legislature.

Thank you.

Thank you. Lauren Zerbel from Hawaii Food Industry Association. She's on Zoom. Is she on Zoom there?

Not available on Zoom.

Chair okay, thank you. In support and also in the support, Amanda Shaw from Ag Stewardship Hawaii, Eric Tanoe from hfna, Frederick Muncher from East Ohio County Farm Bureau, Janine Mariano, from the Apurcoma. And then also these individuals. Megan Blaszek, Glenn Kagamida, Randy Cabral, Jay Ashman, John Gordenas and Jason Moniz and Jimmy Gomes, all in support.

Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Any questions? Members?

Just a comment. Yes, thanks. Chair. This is a comment that Mike made about return on investment. I don't think we have to say anymore. That's it. Let's just get it done.

Yeah, I hear you. Okay, let's move on to 23 SB. 2321. Oh, the two line spittlebug. Okay, here we go. Establishes a two year two line spittlebug response pilot program to mitigate and control the spread of the two line spittlebug. Requires reports to the Legislature. First up is DAB .

Thank you, Chair. DAB sends on its written testimony on support of this measure. Here for any questions.

Thank you. Janice Matsunaga from DLNR. Okay, Thank you. Nicole Galasse, Hawaii Cattlemen's Council.

Thank you, Chair. Vice chair. Members of the Committee, Nicole Galassi. On behalf of the Hawaii Cattleman's Council, we are in strong support of this bill.

It is unfortunate that the two line spittlebug is impacting ranchers, but it's not going to be just an impact on ranchers and we are seeing that it's going to be affecting anywhere that has grass and ground cover. I want to thank the Legislature for previous funding support.

We have seen that transpire into actual work on the ground for the ranchers to be able to reseed their pastures to prevent runoff into the ocean. But more importantly, it has given us the opportunity to make more awareness out there in the community.

This means that folks know that when they see something that might be two line spittlebug, they come to us and we're able to direct them to the right people. Big Island Invasive Species Committee CTAHR, they go out to the ranch and they have the expertise to be able to tell them, here's what you should do.

Here's the best practice without wasting time and without wasting money, because they have been able to study it. All of the funds that you have provided in the past have contributed to that. So we want to thank you for that. But we also want to ask you to continue it.

It's not a lot of money that we're asking for, but unfortunately we need to keep on this because the bug is spreading.

It is in new places outside of South Kona and that is the first time I'm sharing that with the Legislature in a hearing and so that's the unfortunate thing but we thank you for considering continuing the this support for addressing this issue.

Thank you. Thank you Nicole. Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Je the Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you Brian. Hunter Heaivilin, Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, Vice Chair Committee Members Hunter Hein on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union we'll stand on our written testimony in support of this measure but just would like to highlight this is 11 of the opportunities to address an invasive species before it spreads beyond our capacity.

While it breaks the mold of not being one of the bad three letter words of CRB or LFA with its TLSB shortening, we do at least have an opportunity since it is still somewhat geographically confined.

So we strongly support this measure and view it as a critical mechanism to ensure that its significant and negative impacts don't expand across our islands. Thank you.

Thank you Hunter. Also in support. All of these are in support. Benson Medina from R and D at the county of Hawaii. Stephanie Easley from Segaps. Kahul Wall from Wall Ranch Inc. Larry Jeffs from Larry Jeffs Farms Amanda Shaw from Ag Stewardship Hawaii Charlay Aranon from Triple S Livestock llc.

Brandon from the Purple Maia Foundation Lonnie Picci from Kapapala Ranch Woody Child, Randy Cabral, Negan Blaszek, Jason Moniz, Sarah Moore, Jimmy Greenwell, Eileen Yeh, Emma Waters, Shannon Wilson, Glenn Kagamita, Jimmy Gomes and Jay Ashman all in total 25 in support, 0 opposed and 0 comments. Members any questions? Question, Senator Department of a deb.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair Members of the Committee Pest Control Branch Manager can you report on what you guys have done so far in regards to spittlebug from the time it started?

Okay. I have to be honest. I came on board last year May and what happened in the past I have not looked into but ever since I came on board I have been managing for two line speed above grant past information about how much money was spent or some of the precautionary measures.

I mean this is what I think four years ago when it actually started and you know at that point I think the recommendation was what you guys was going to do about it then how yours is going to contain whether it be to create one buffer and burn back or I mean we always wait and this what pisses me off we always wait till we said mass and then we're coming in and then trying to solve one problem.

Let me get back to you on this one. I need to go back and dig for information you can send that to me, then I'll distribute it to the Committee.

Absolutely. Yes. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

Yes. I think this highlights this conversation we've had before and I appreciate Hunter's comment about getting our arms around it and fixing it before it goes too far. And this is where our biological, now biological invasive species control needs to happen quickly rather than waiting for processes and procedures to drag out till it becomes unmanageable.

So thank you.

Thank you. Next measure SB 2323. Relating to AG, establishes the Farmland Transition Commission to examine barriers certain farmers face when trying to purchase or access farmland and provide recommendations on possible incentives or policies to assist these individuals in purchasing or accessing farmland. Okay2323.

First up, DAB model Chair. DAB stands on insurance and testimony offering comments and supporting the intent of this measure. We're here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Cedric. Next is Hunter Heaivilin Hawaii Farmers Union.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Hunter Heaivilin still, on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union, we offered some testimony in support of this measure. I think like many of the other testifiers that submitted written comments, there is a General support of the intent of this notion of this measure. We echo those.

Despite having one foot in academia, I know a study isn't always the most effective way to move things forward. But if the creation of a commission were to start now, if we take the Agribusiness Development Corporation, say, as any measure which was established in 1994, it may be some time until we have some actual progress on this.

So we do believe that land access continues to be a barrier and especially for beginning farmers and small smallholders.

So we would like to see some effort move forward to support land access, whether that's this measure or conceivably maybe even integrated into the Agricultural Workforce Housing Task Force as another opportunity to expand some of the ambitious that it is tasked with. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. You have a written testimony which provides comments and I just wanted to qualify. May almost sound like somewhat opposition. It's not. Not what's in this bill is really focusing on some. Some real good issues that need to be addressed.

I think at first our hesitation was maybe forming a commission, but it doesn't appear to be any funding requested. So the commission, you know, without being funded or without asking the Legislature for resources, I think as we rethink our position, it is. These are issues that need to be addressed.

We still do have a concern which is in our testimony on the the age range that was chosen for that. That's within the the bill 25 through 40. Now granted I am in that age range, the lower end of that age range.

But I'm just saying.

But there are new farmers and, and far and and folks who maybe as a second career would still be interested in this transition and things that are covered by this bill.

Again, there, there's probably a reason why that age range was selected, but it doesn't encapsulate maybe a young farmer younger than that wanting a transition or looking for some ag land or some lease land.

So again, not sure where that age range came, but I think the concepts within the Bill are warranted and do need some study and we do need to address again our aging farmer population and just the transition.

Again we have some that don't have any succession plans, but if we have a transition plan where someone else can take over their operations, their success operations, those are the things that can be addressed by a commission. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Brian. Can I quote you on that? Next is Carlin McFadden from the Purple Maya foundation in support. Glenn Kagameda in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this matter? Members, any questions?

Question. You can the Board of AG perform the duties of this proposed commission or do we need to set up one separate commission in the Board of AG, do it early.

Earl Yamamoto, the planner in the front office of that. Can the board do it? Is the board responsible? Well, the responsibilities that are captured within the board statutorily are passed on I guess to the Department Chair. So the Department Chair acts on the best interest on behalf of the board.

So in that I don't know if I'm answering your question, but can or do we have the capacity. Yes.

So does the Board of Agriculture have the capacity to act on it versus setting up a separate commission to do this?

From my perspective, no, because they'll probably fall on me. But that's just thinking about myself.

You better think about yourself because you know the kind is here and she not here. So it'd be good. You think about yourself. Okay. No, I, and then you know, if that's the, if, if that's the case, what would you estimate would cost to establish on commission?

Yeah. Establishing in looking at what was going to be. Yeah. The, the, I guess the travel and, and this and that. Yeah. There must be some boilerplate numbers that that other commissions that have been created must have, but I don't have anything like that. In my head.

It is a minimum 10 Member commission and then subject to additional expertise. I noticed this is kind of tangential. I noticed that the counties weren't included. There's no county representation on this transitional commission, so there may be.

Okay, well, if you get that number, can you give it to the chair and he can disseminate to us, please? Thank you.

Yes. Okay. Also, we had. Yes, Carlin McFadden, Glenn Kagamido and support. Anyone else? Any questions? Any other questions? Members, I got a question for HFU Arms Union.

Hunter, in your testimony you requested an amendment to add two active farmers under the age of 40. And the bill already calls for one farmer from each county between the ages of 25 and 40. Is the keyword there in your request, active?

I think the idea is that we just have some diverse representation, whether they're, you know, I think I may have erroneously entered that and missed the county portion in there. So I think, yes, having active producers as opposed to just representatives like myself with soft computer hands who think about agriculture. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. All right, Moving on to SB2332 leading to taxation re. Establishes the AG Development and Food Security Special Fund, establishes the Carbon Emissions Tax and Dividend Special Fund, gradually increases the Environmental response, Energy, carbon Emissions and Food Security tax rates and establishes a refundable Carbon Cashback tax credit to offset increases for most taxpayers.

Let's see SB23. First up is DAB.

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands in support of this measure and defers to Department of Taxation regarding the tax part here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Department of Taxation, good afternoon.

Department of Taxation will stand on this. Comments.

Okay, thank you. Emma Ewan from DLNR. Thank you, Emma. Next is Travis Moon or Chris Leong from the AG's office.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General Travis Moon. We provided our written testimony with comments and recommendations. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much Travis. Benson Medina from the county of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development in support Carbon Cash Back Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is John Kawamoto, representing Carbon Cashback Hawaii which advocates for legislation that reduces carbon emissions and strengthens Hawaii's energy independence while protecting vulnerable Kamaina families. SB2332 does exactly that.

It is not the only policy that Hawaii needs to achieve these goals, but it is the most effective one and complements other emissions reductions approaches. The benefits and advantages of the Carbon Cashback program include the following.

First, it is the most effective policy to reduce carbon emissions because it corrects an existing market failure by internalizing the environmental and health costs of burning fossil fuel in the price. It addresses carbon emissions in all sectors of the economy. Second, it protects low income households because lower income families have a larger net financial benefit.

Third, it complements other emissions reduction policies. And fourth, implementation is relatively simple as it uses existing administrative processes for the barrel tax and income tax. I urge the Committee to pass this bill. Thank you for your kind attention. Thank you, John.

Next is Brian Miyamoto, Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair Members of the Committee, Brian Miyamoto here on behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. We had submitted testimony providing comments. We absolutely support the re establishment of the Agricultural Development and Food Security Special Fund. That was repealed. The barrel tax is still there but our special Fund was repealed.

We took an unusual step when the barrel tax is being considered. We normally oppose any tax increases but because there was dedicated funding for agriculture, Farm Bureau supported it when the barrel tax was being proposed. So we support the reestablishment and funding going back to agriculture from this tax.

We're not really going to speak on the other aspects of the barrel of what the bill aside from the proposed increase because that increase could affect the cost of living and could affect fuel cost of transportation costs. Again, barrel tax is $5 right now. Right? We were getting 15 cents per dollar 5 cents over the barrel tax.

The barrel tax has been proposed to be increased I think to Fund other initiatives and those initiatives are worthy initiatives. But again the barrel tax was developed for to support clean energy environment response and local agriculture production. Right now ag production is not included. We support that provision and that part of the bill.

We would like to see the barrel tax back with the AG Fund so that we can continue to support AG projects real time. We talked about spittlebug immediate. That's a possibly win that we can have invasive species barrel tax could support programs like that without having to wait till legislative sessions.

The responses can be quicker for the needs of farmers and ranchers through the barrel tax. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Brian. Next on Zoom is Tom Yamachika from the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. You there Tom. There you go.

Thank you. Senator Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation of Hawaii. Our testimony is extensive. We've included the policy comments and technical comments. I'm not going to go through all of it. I do want to mention that the impact of enacting attacks like this would be profound.

One of the things that you might not be thinking about but what it will affect is electricity generation. Because currently the way we produce electricity, you know, by and large is by burning bunker bunker fuel. So a significant tax increase on the bunker fuel is going to get factored into electricity rates.

We also have concerns about specifically how some of these computations are going to be made. And I think the Department of Taxation has express the same concerns. We're also very concerned about the possibility that applying the tax to aviation fuel may cause the whole system to come crashing down because of the federal anti head tax law.

That's, that's addressed at the on pages four through five of our testimony. Happy answering questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much, Tom. Next is Beth Amaro from the Kaua'i Island Utility Co Op also on Zoom. You there Beth. There you are.

Yes. Aloha from Kaua'. I. Thank you, Chair, Vice bhair and Members of the Committee. We stand on our testimony in opposition to the carbon emissions tax portion of this bill. We do believe that if it moves forward, electric utilities should be exempted as they are subject already to the renewable portfolio standard mandates.

And we go into reasons for this in our testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions for you if you wish. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Beth. Next is Dave Mullenix on Zoom from Greenpeace, Hawaii. Aloha Dave. Turn on your.

Oh, okay. Is it on? Yes, all good. Okay, great. Thank you Senator Gabbard and Committee. My name is Dave Mullenix, co founder of Hawaii and Hawaii State Representative, Greenpeace, Hawaii. I provided extensive written testimony on why carbon cashback is a very bad idea for Hawaii. First, I just have three quick points.

Carbon cashback does not cut carbon emissions. There's no evidence at all that has ever cut carbon emissions anywhere in the world. They use Sweden as an example of how they reduced carbon emissions by having carbon tax.

But Sweden actually switched from burning coal to burning wood and they don't count carbon emissions from Wood which actually produces more carbon emissions than coal. They also use Canada as a wonderful example of why carbon pricing worked. Well. Canada just this last year ended their carbon pricing because it did just what it predicted.

It raised prices on all goods and services. And that gets to my second point. It will raise prices on all goods and services because you're raising price on fuel. That means all the transportation costs are going to go up. Retail merchants mentioned this last year.

So the island plastic bag and it proven through in Canada they had to rescind their carbon tax because it actually did raise prices. The farmers are very upset. They were the ones that led the charge to end it in in Canada. And finally I am totally with the Farm Bureau.

We need to re establish the Agricultural Development and Food Security Fund. This is the part of the bill that I would keep and just dump the carbon cash back part. This reminds me of the old monster movies. No matter at times we try to kill this thing. It keeps coming back. It's not going to help Hawaii.

It's not going to reduce carbon emissions and it's not going to help our folks reduce their costs. It's actually going to raise cost on everything. Thank you so much for hearing our testimony and have a very good day. Thank you, Dave.

Next on Zoom is Paul Bernstein, Paul.

Aloha, Chair Gabbard, Vice Chair Richards and Members of the A Committee. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

As one of the economists who worked on the two carbon pricing studies for the state of Hawaii and found a program like Carbon Cashback to be quite effective at reducing emissions and equitable, I'd like to speak to an apparent disagreement within Hawaii's environmental community and around this policy.

Many of those that disagree with this policy, including Greenpeace, instead argue that we should be eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel companies and or fining them. But eliminating subsidies on fossil fuels or fining fossil fuel companies would do the same thing in terms of raising energy prices as taxation would do.

Removing subsidies or imposing fines would lead to an increase in fossil fuel prices. So actually the environmental community seems to be in agreement that we need to increase the price of fossil fuels relative to those of clean alternatives.

The problem with removing subsidies is this is a national issue as Hawaii doesn't subsidize fossil fuels or fossil fuel companies. Furthermore, removing subsidies would simply raise the price of fossil fuels without providing money back to people to help them transition away from fossil fuels.

So though Carbon Cash back also increases the price of fossil fuels, but unlike other programs, Carbon Cashback has a mechanism to put money into people's pockets, thus making them better off in general, especially low and middle income households.

Mahalo, thank you Paul. Next is Douglas Hagan on Zoom.

Not available on Zoom Chair.

Okay, Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? There were a total of 63 in support, five opposed and five with comments. Anyone else? Members any questions?

Question Chair for DOTAX. So how would you guys determine whether a taxpayer qualifies for for this carbon Cash back tax credit?

Well, as it's drafted now would be essentially any taxpayer who's eligible under Chapter 235, which could include both residents and non residents.

That's part of the reason we have the recommendation for some a little more specificity in that either to reduce it to a non refundable credit, to reduce the instances of people who qualify under Chapter 235 but aren't paying in, such as non residents with a very low state income compared to their federal income, or if you're not going to go with the non refundable to do the ratio so that the individuals who would otherwise be tempted to claim the credit when they don't have a significant presence in Hawaii don't have an undue return.

So, so it doesn't matter how much the electric bill is. They would still. So like if they save the residency three months in Hawaii.

As it's currently drafted, it's basically if they are eligible or sorry, if they are a taxpayer under Chapter 235. And that's very broad. So as long as they have some form of state income such as that they would be considered a taxpayer, they would qualify.

Okay, thank you. Yes.

Isn't the. I want to say that was DOTAX's suggestion that. Because I think other versions of the bill had just Hawaii residents, but it was a constitutional issue not to include everybody. So if you pay tax in Hawaii, you're eligible. But if you just said only Hawaii residents, then it's.

That might have. I don't know if that was, I wasn't privy to that conversation. I don't know if it was a DOTAX recommendation or an Attorney General recommendation.

So what we are proposed, what DOTAX is proposing to address that issue is to leave the Chapter 235 eligibility, but either change it from a refundable tax credit to a non refundable.

In other words, you have to be paying into this tax system enough that it qualifies or to institute the ratio of state income to federal income such that either non residents or part time residents will receive a proportion that is in a ratio that is proportionate to their Hawaii tax liability versus out of state tax liability.

Okay, but that would mean that out of an. Out of somebody who made most of their money out of state and only some of it in Hawaii would get a smaller correct. Okay, so it would more or less correct for the.

Yes, but it wouldn't, it wouldn't take into account residency or citizenship. So which is the leave that would, which is the.

No, no. Correct. Right. Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay. I have another question once. Why don't you do another round of here? Sure, go ahead. For Greenpeace if you're still there.

Dave, you still there?

Yes. Trying to turn on my camera. I'm here. Can you hear me?

Yes. Yeah. So my question, well, my comment really is it looks to me like the Canadians, they got rid of part of their carbon tax, but they kept it at the, at the industrial level, which was actually probably more like what we're talking about here with the barrel tax.

Is that, is that your understanding that they kept part of it but not all of it?

It's a bit, it was a bit confusing to me, but basically they made it zero. So. Because it definitely does Hurt consumers. You are raising the, look, it's gonna, it's gonna hurt small businesses because it's gonna raise the prices on everything. Transportation. Right. And also it's going to affect the power companies because they're buying the fossil fuels.

Right. So our electrical bills are going to go up. So there's no way of getting around that. It's going to raise prices. In fact, they don't, they don't deny that that's the truth, that that's going to happen.

The thing is, if, if, if, if the amount of money they're talking about giving back to people is not going to compensate for the amount of the prices are going to raise. And that's why the small businesses are concerned and why farmers should be concerned because they, they're on a very close margin.

Go back to my original point. The Canadians, in my understanding, they have not gotten rid of a carbon tax. They've rejiggered it, but it's not, it's not gone.

They made it zero. So that's what, they, they've just made it zero. Basically. Essentially the same thing, right?

No, that's not, that's not, that's not. My understanding is they kept, they kept it at the industrial level, which is more like this tax than any case. It's a, it's a fact question. I'm just. Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Okay, sure. I got a question for Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau, please. Brian, how impactful is these two farmers?

Brian Miyamoto, behalf of the Hawaii Farm Bureau, thank you, Senator, for the question. I believe it resulted in about $3 million per year that went to the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. So that's, that's some big dollars. And I believe, I don't know if it's amended again, it was repealed.

But even within the, the bill, it does say some of the things that is being proposed or can be used for agriculture was pretty broad. I recall it was pretty broad. Fortunately, we did have. The former chair of the Department of Agriculture was here who was under his watch also.

And so again, to have $3 million, right, every five cents is about $50 million worth. $3 million. But we believe that before it was repealed at some point with our clean renewable energy goals. Right. That the amounts of barrels coming in would be less and less and less, so probably be weaned off at some point.

But again, $3 million is, got a lot of money for agriculture from a tax that was originally designed to support agriculture, at least in part.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair okay, thank you.

One more question. Sure. If it's okay. Mr. Kawamoto. So my understanding is that every, basically every economist from all across the spectrum believe that carbon tax is the best way to get a grip on carbon emissions. Can you talk about that a little more? I mean, why do they believe that this bill is based on economics.

3,000 US economists have signed a letter supporting the carbon fee and dividend concept. 28 Nobel winning economists also have signed that letter. And four former chairs of the Fed have signed that letter, including Janet Yellen. So we believe that this bill has a very strong economic base.

I think it's, I mean, the whole point of the bill is to raise the price of using carbon. But what that also would imply, I think, is that any other source of energy becomes more competitive because we're. It would result in the true cost of carbon being charged to consumers.

And then when you compare that to the true cost of producing energy through geothermal or wind or solar, the other, the other sources are more attractive and as a result will slowly phase out of petroleum. Is that correct?

That's exactly right. Currently, fossil fuels are being subsidized by the government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year. It's been subsidized by the Federal Government for more than 100 years to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's why fossil fuel infrastructure is such a right. It's part of our daily life.

It's part of America. And that's why it's so hard to replace it with something else.

So we're. But that also, that also means that we're paying, we're getting, we're paying less for fuel. The government is subsidizing each one of us to use petroleum when we know at the same time that global warming is destroying the world.

That's exactly right. Fossil fuels are priced too low. Right. Government is subsidizing it with our tax money.

All right, thanks. Thanks, Chair. Appreciate it. Okay, thank you, Chair.

Yes. Pardon me, of taxation. Trying to get my arms or my head around this, I guess I should say, I understand by increasing the cost, theoretically we decrease the use.

That being said, this is a question that's come up since I've been in this building, that as we increase those costs, the people who are forced to use more fossil fuel are going to be paying more proportionately. What I'm talking about is on the Big Island, our people drive a lot.

And I think this, I agree with the barrel tax because I think it's going to Help agriculture, which advances our food security. But the carbon cash back.

I think the way this thing is structured is set more for an urban area where you can reduce your carbon footprint easier than you can where you're driving 200 miles a day to go to work. How do you think this stacks up?

I don't think I'm equipped to answer that question.

Nobody seems to be.

I don't have the knowledge base to address that. I don't know if that's something that will be included in our revenue estimate. I don't know how granular it would be to. If it would address that. I just don't have an answer for you. I'm sorry.

Okay. I appreciate your honesty on that. Chair, could I ask follow up question with maybe Tom Immachika, if he's on. Tom, are you still there?

Yes, I am, Senator. Thank you very much.

Yeah, did you hear the question? What I was talking about was on the Big island, we have a lot of workforce that drive a lot. And this is the carbon cash back. I think there's a disadvantage to people who have to drive far. Can you comment? That's correct.

I think that's correct. Because the carbon tax is based on usage. So the more gas you buy, the more fossil fuels you buy, the more the tax is going to impact it. And at the same time, the amount of the cash back credit is not going to change because it's based on per person.

Yeah, that's been my experience. And this is where I have a problem with that. Because typically it's the lower demographic, lower income demographic that ends up disproportionately playing more. And that's where I have an issue with this. So I appreciate that comment. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Okay. On SB 2332, there were 63 in support, five opposed and five were comments. And moving on to the next measure, SB2405 establishes an AG Workforce Housing Working group within Farmland Ag and Biosecurity to address the shortage and challenges of agricultural workforce housing in the state. First up is dab.

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands on its written testimony offering comments and supporting the intent. Referring questions.

Thank you, Cedric. Hunter Heaivilin from Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you. Stand on or written testimony in support of this measure.

Brian Miyamoto from Hawaii Farm Bureau.

Thank you, Chair. The Hawaii Farm Bureau was down on this written testimony against court.

Okay. And then in addition, we had Dean Minakami from HHFDC in support. Wendy Gady from ADC offering comments. Benson Medina from the county of Hawaii Department of Research and Development and support. Sydney Haas from Hawaii Food Plus Policy and support. Amala Thimpap from Maui Chamber of Commerce and support.

Keone DeFranco and Glenn Kagameda in support and Christina Medun Bendanza in opposition. Are there any questions, Members? So I have a question for dab. So given the $250,000 appropriation for the working group, what specific activities will that funding support?

I think a lot of some portion of it would have to be spent on that front end in order for the task force. It's like that commission that was discussed in a prior bill. To make these institutions more efficient in going about their business and arriving at functional conclusions.

They need to start with the data and information that would help them get a grasp of how important the magnitude of the problem at hand and all the other characteristics that go into workforce housing that should be, should be considered. What, what, what percentage or what dollar amount that that would entail?

I, I'm, I'm not, I'm not sure the other, what's the other cost?

But it would include consulting, outreach, et cetera, Right?

Yeah. Report preparation, hiring of, hiring of consultants.

But that that base, the foundational of any discussions going forward would have to be something that we all agree that the facts and the data is there, especially when like in the second paragraph of our testimony, we or I put down the fact that we found from the 2022 Census of Agriculture for Hawaii in terms of income, gross income at the $10,000 annual $10,000 level.

And how many percent? About 59%. 60% of Hawaii's farmers are at that level of income and lower. And you know, that would make me wonder how many of them could hire a farm worker, much less build or be part of workforce housing solution.

So this is these things that, that have to be established kind of early on for the task force, if in this case it's two years. But any task force, in order to arrive at something that's functional that can be considered by the Legislature, really needs that baseline data. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Moving on to the final measure on today's agenda, SB2485 relating to solid waste management establishes a temporary solid waste management working group in the office of the Governor to examine materials management policies and the programs that reduce solid waste and protect the environment and to present a list of alternative technologies to address solid waste management.

First up is Ernie Lau from Board of Water Supply. He's not here. He's in support. Roger Babcock from City and County Honolulu on Zoom. Roger, are you with us?

Not available on Zoom, Chair.

Offers comments. Hunter Heaivilin from Hawaii Farmers Union.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Hunter Heflin on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union like just to highlight some of the issue items from our testimony. Mainly that we view effective solid waste management.

It's a critical mechanism to support regenerative sustainable conservation agriculture, whatever terminology you prefer, in that it can provide an upstream resource for a robust composting industry. And particularly as we've continued to learn the costs of transporting soil and soil materials across the islands.

Having a distributed industry with a stable resource input coming from effective waste management I think is something that the state really needs to focus on.

And I would hope that should this measure move forward, it would focus not just on the technological solutions and waste energy and those types of approaches, but really starting to valorize organic wastes as the resource that they can be in addressing soil quality and helping the fostering and adoption of sustainable agricultures. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hunter. Mike Ewal from the Energy Justice Network on Zoom. Mike, are you with us?

Not available on Zoom.

Chair in support. Okay, and then also Ted Bohlen from Climate Protectors. All of these are in support. Oh wait, Ted Bohlen is in support. Glenn Kagamita is in support and opposed to Johnny May L. Perry. Okay, Members, any questions?

I got one.

Yes, Senator Richards.

Hunter, looks like you're the only one that we can bring before us to help us have a conversation. How's that? Back in my county days, waste management has always been a conversation for all society, especially on islands. In your experience looking at the biomass, because that's essentially what you're talking about.

If we can manage that, what it's come back to is the ability to sort our waste stream. Are you aware of any successes for waste stream sorting in the state? What applies to some of your farmers that may be able to capture.

Oh, gosh, I mean, there are, there's a patchwork of efforts from pilot programs in the city and county of Honolulu for composting that we're taking or allowing food wastes in the green bins for houses that have that type of a pickup.

Here on Oahu, there are community led efforts that accept compost from off site where the source separation is done by households themselves or generators who then partner with a company in most cases to process their waste as part of a General commitment to environmental management.

I think the source separation approach that Farmers Union has been advocating for for many years is in another measure which I unfortunately don't have the number off the top of my head. But setting organic waste diversion benchmarks and standards within the state, something that Vermont had implemented over the course of about a decade.

Where you start the source separation requirements for those largest generators of organic wastes. I think they had maybe set it initially at say 2 tons a week, something to that effect. And then you ratchet that down over time.

And by paring that ratcheting down of the threshold at which you must divert, we can simultaneously ratchet up through cip, other forms of subsidy, PPP efforts, the infrastructure for processing those wastes conceivably well distributed across the islands, again highlighting the need for this infrastructure both for local agriculture, but also as a means to reduce the transportation of these vectors, particularly in the case of green waste, for spreading invasive species.

So I believe this Committee has long at least heard that bill and I think often supported it. And so I think I view this as a mechanism, or ideally that kind of approach, as a robust mechanism to say we obviously aren't going to get everybody living differently tomorrow.

But as a result of starting with the highest volume producers, Vermont over the course of a decade or so actually ended up with being able to require that separation at the household level, effectively starting with maybe similar to the cash back and carbon tax programs, starting with the largest, and then being able to ratchet down and focus on that behavioral change that really is at the root, I think of the question you highlighted, which is exactly right.

And you brought up the. The green waste and crb. I mean, it's a big deal as we manage this stuff for. So, I mean, I like the bill. I'm just wondering how we could move things forward.

So some of that numbers that you were talking about, if you could share that with Chair, then he can send it off to us. I would appreciate that. So thanks, Andre. Thanks, Chair.

Okay. Any other questions?

All right. Recess for a second?

Yeah, sure, take a brief recess. Okay.

Reconvening the AEN Wednesday, 3pm agenda here in room 224 for decision making. Start off at the top. The recommendations are SB2309 relating to AG loans, requiring Ag Loan Division to sell portions of this loan portfolio to permitted third parties.

So for this one, the Chair's recommendation to pass with amendments to clarify that the program may but is not required to sell its loans and defer the date to July 12015 the appropriation amount, and inserted into the Committee report for consideration. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

Vice Chair on Senate Bill 2309, passing with amendments.[Roll Call] Chair, you have five in favor. Motion is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Let's see. On the second measure, SB2317 directing the Department of Ag and Biosecurity to conduct a study on insurance coverage for small ag producers. The Chair's recommendation will be to pass with an amendment defecting the date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

Senate Bill 2317, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, five in favor. Motion. Thank you.

Members, SB 2318 is establishing the AG Statistics program and statute. Chair's recommendation be passed with amendment defecting the date to July 12015. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

On Senate Bill 2318, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, we have five in favor. Thank you. Members.

SB 2319 relating to DABS appropriating funds for one FTE grant writer position. Chair's recommendation be the passive amendment defecting the date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

On Senate Bill 2319, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, you have five in favor. That was 2319. Correct.

Moving on to SB 2321 on the two line spittlebug, establishing the two year line two line spittlebug response pilot program.

Chair's recommendation will be to pass an amendments to defer the effective date to July 1, 2050 and insert into the Committee report for consideration the department's Appropriation request of $120,000 for one full time program coordinator to oversee and manage program activities addressing impacted rangelands and the threats posed by the TLSB 2 line SP. Any discussion?

Yeah. Quick conversation. Yes, Chair. I just wanted to save you getting this message out. We saw it in the news media and I really appreciate that, highlighting the concern of biosecurity and invasive species. So thank you.

Yes, absolutely. Chair votes Aye, Vice Chair.

On Senate Bill 2321, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair of five in favor. Motion adopted.

Okay. And then next is SB 2323, establishing a farmland Transition Commission. A recommendation will be to pass the Hawaii Farmers Union suggested amendments to clarify the scope of review and add two representatives from statewide farmer organizations to the commission.

We'll also amend the bill to remove the age restrictions on farmers and ensure the farmers on the commission are active farmers and also make some technical amendments, including deferring the date to July 1, 2050. In discussion. Chair votes Aye.

Chair, thank you for those amendments. Those are appropriate. On Senate Bill 2323, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, five in favor.

Thank you, Members. SB 2332, establishing the AG Development and Food Security Special Fund, establishing the Carbon Emissions Tax and Dividends Fund, and so on this one, we're still in discussion. On this. I would like to defer decision making until Monday, February 9th at 3:01pm in this room. Yes.

And then on SB2405, relating to AG, workforce, housing, setting up a working group, the recommendation be to pass with an amendment defecting the date to July 1, 2050. I blank the appropriation amount and insert it into the Committee report for consideration. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

On Senate Bill 2405, passing with amendments. [Roll Call] You have five in favor.

Thank you, Members. And the final measure on the 3pm agenda is SB2485, establishing a temporary Solid Waste Management Working group. The recommendation will be to pass with technical amendments, including deferring the date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Chair votes Aye.

Of all the Members attending, is there anybody voting with reservations or in the negative? Chair, you have five in favor. Motion is adopted.

And with that, we will adjourn the 3pm agenda.

Thank you very much.