Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good afternoon, folks. Good afternoon. The day after a nice holiday and a surprise that our Kilauea volcano has erupted. And I heard it was just nice as ever if you haven't been there. But the Committee on Transportation is on its notice of hearing notice Tuesday, February 17th. And we are in room 229.

And just some housekeeping measures as well. We will ask that the testifiers stand on your written testimony or limit your oral testimony to one minute. And decision making is to follow after the hearing and from all the testifiers, time permitting.

But as you all know, we all heard that if we don't pass these measures, measures will fly aloha somewhere. So we will try the best as we can. Senator, thank you for being here as well.

It's my favorite Committee. How would I want to miss it?

Good, good, good. And, and just to let you know, you're going to see, rooms like this can be empty for a minute and it'll be filled for a while. Today is, this week is one of our lateral deadline weeks. So let's proceed with SB2010 and it's relating to motor vehicles.

This authorizes the impoundment of motor vehicles when certain traffic violations have been alleged or committed. DOT. Okay. Senate Committee, DOT or anyone on zoom.

Yep. Good afternoon, Chair, Member of the Committee. This is Robin Shishido. Thank you, Robin. And standby are submitted testimony in strong support.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Robin. Deputy Attorney General, good to see you here as well. Thank you, Chair. You're just as busy as we are.

Good afternoon, Chair. Senator DeCorte. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for this Department. Department just provides comments for Senate Bill 2010. I'll keep it very short due to time. Specifically our comments only relate to Section 4, which is dealing with remedies for lien holders and registered owners.

Department would just suggest maybe more clarification on me for this Bill to limit or to express who is the potential parties that the remedies would be sought and also what type of remedies could be sought out by a lawsuit or an admin hearing. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Public Defender. Good afternoon.

My name is Hayley Cheng with the Office of the Public Defender and we have submitted testimony in opposition. And just to highlight one of our biggest concerns, we have designated or outlined a lot of the things that we see potentially problematic with this measure.

But one of the things that we wanted to highlight was the judicial and system resource impact by initiating something like this. We don't know if the judiciary or whoever the administrative agency would that would be responsible for holding these hearings have the capacity to take on something like this.

Additionally, if the Committee is interested in moving forward, we have respectfully asked for consideration of certain things as amendments which would be clear and objective criteria for officer initiated empowerment.

We believe the language is unclear for officers expedited post seizure hearings, consideration of hardship exemptions for primary family vehicles, fee waivers or sliding scale recovery for indigent owners, and limiting impound to post conviction findings for serious offenses. So I'll be available for questions and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

You made a comment, but you didn't give us any, any amendments to add? Just, just, just comments of.

Yeah, just urgent consideration of those, those bigger policy issues. All right.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hayley, Prosecuting Attorney of the City County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair Inouye, Members of the Committee.

Thank you. Daniel.

Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's office. And we support this Bill with recommended amendments. I will just point out that what we're talking about here and what the Department would recommend is targeting this to traffic offenses to things that are already defined by statute as not being subject to civil penalties.

And we'll note that anyone who parks in a to tollway zone is going to be subject to towing and impoundment. So this is not a particularly onerous measure and in fact it may encourage courts to use this as an alternative to either imprisonment or fines. So I'm available for questions. We did give some recommended amendments.

Yes. I see. Thank you so much. Appreciate that as well. Okay. Okay. Judgette Yendle sends comments. Johnny Mae Perry in support and Veronica Moore in support. Is there anyone wishing to speak to SB2010 hearing? None. We'll proceed then with. Let's see. One second. Let's take a short. Yeah. IT.

Transportation is going into a short recess before we get to the second item on its agenda.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you. The Committee on Transportation is going into continual hearing on its agenda of February 17th in room 229. We will proceed then with SB 2527. This is relating to commercial driver licensing.

It requires that state and county firefighters exempt from commercial driver licensure be subject to an alcohol and substance abuse policy for employees that is equivalent to or exceeds the provisions of the safety and health standards established by the United States Department of Transportation for holders of commercial driver's licenses. Dot Robin on Zoom.

Stand by our submitted testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Human Resources Development. Brenna Hashimoto. And I believe, I think she's with city and county. Okay. Sense communication in support. City and county of Honolulu. DHRD. Karen Miller. Aloha. Thanks for your patience as well. Good to see you.

Good afternoon. Chair Inouye and Member DeCorte. My name is Karen Miller, the Assistant Director of Human Resources with the Department of Human Resources. We stand on our written testimony in strong support of SB 2527. I'm also here to answer any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Yes, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. County of Hawaii Kimo Alameda. Okay. Sends communication in support. Mayor Kawakami of County of Kauai in support. Celeste Nim, Hawaii Firefighters Association. On zoom.

Not on zoom Chair.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB26? I'm sorry, 2527. Okay. Hearing none. Let's proceed on to SB2697. And this is relating to transportation.

And this prohibits vehicles from driving on the shoulder of a roadway except in certain circumstances. Okay. Robin.

Dot stands by their submitted testimony in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Attorney General. Attorney General's office. And this would have been from Michael Moriyama.

Not on Zoom Chair.

Okay, thank you. Sends communication with comments. Michelle Acosta, Judiciary. Okay. Sends comments as well. Law Office of Georgette Yandel. Okay. Sends comments. Johnny May Perry in support. And Veronica Moore in support. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB2697? Let's proceed with SB2812. And this is relating to transportation safety.

This requires testing of driver license applicants on the dangers that larger motor vehicles present to pedestrians and bicyclist. DOT.

DOT stands by their submitted testimony in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Public Defender, Hayley.

Good afternoon again. The office of the Public Defender is opposing this measure and we wanted to clarify, as indicated in our written testimony, that it is only for for the portion of the measure that requires a person convicted of excessive speeding to pass a driver's license examination as a mandatory penalty.

And the reason that we are in opposition to this is it does not take into account some of the underlying facts and circumstances sometimes of excessive speeding, especially as a first offense.

One of the most common ways that we see excessive speeding charge is at what we call speed speed trap locations, for example, people coming down the Pali highway where the speed limit drops. Airport viaduct where the speed limit drops. Likelike Highway where the speed limit drops. And many of these individuals are not reckless or irresponsible drivers.

It is just an oversight. And the existing penalties for excessive speeding are quite harsh. Already we have recommended that if the the Committee is interested in requiring something like this that it be limited to the second or subsequent offenses for excessive speeding.

We would also note that that it would require also, I believe, a license revocation rather than a suspension because the suspension will be returned. The license will be returned after the suspension period is over.

Additionally, just very briefly as to the DUI provision of the Bill, we believe that language is unnecessary as a revocation of because of a DUI automatically requires you to take a driver's license examination in order to get relicensed. That is already what the requirement is. So I'll be available for comments. I mean, excuse me questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. Sends communication in support. Law Office of Georgette Yandel is in support as well and so does Johnny Mae Parry and Veronica Moore. Is there anyone wishing to speak to SB 2812? Seeing none. Let's proceed then to SB 2991. And this is relating to highway safety.

This clarifies that persons whose driver's licenses have been revoked for certain alcohol-related offenses are required to undergo reexamination before the examiner of drivers may relicense the person. DOT.

DOT stands by its submitted testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. AMPO? Okay, sends communication in support, as well as Johnnie-Mae Perry and Veronica Moore. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to SB 2991? Let's proceed on to SB 3044, and this is relating to Statewide Traffic Code.

And this removes references to countdown timers as it relates to pedestrian control signals, including the requirement that pedestrians must begin crossing a roadway before the countdown timer begins. Very interesting. DOT.

We stand by our submitted testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. AMPO in support. Hawaii Appleseed center for Law and Economic Justice. Aloha.

Aloha.

Abbey. Good to see you.

Yeah, good to see you. My name is Abbey Seitz. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in support of this measure which proposes to modify HRS 291c to remove the requirement, as you mentioned, to start crossing the street before the countdown timer begins.

Currently, if a pedestrian does start crossing the street after the countdown timer has begun, and even if they do so before the don't walk sign starts, they can still be given a citation for $130.

We believe these rules go against the conventional understanding of how countdown timers are used, which exist not to tell pedestrians to not cross the street, but to rather provide them important information, specifically how much time remains to safely cross the street.

So we again, we support this Bill as we believe it's a step in the right direction to simplify our overly complex and burdensome pedestrian regulations. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Michael Cobb Jr., in opposition, in support, Johnny May Perry, Veronica Moore and Kiana Otsuka. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB3044?

Good afternoon. I'm with the Department of Health and we submitted late testimony with comments.

Okay. And I'm sorry, the Department of Health. Can you come up and share? It's kind of an interesting measure. We have support and we have opposition from those that who are really concerned about pedestrian control signals as well as other things that affect many, many issues that we all hear and read about. Please.

Okay. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to provide testimony. I'm Lola Irvin with the Department of Health, and we're standing in the middle, so we're offering comments. And the reason we offer comments and find it important enough to do so was that in terms of our priority, to support people having the default option to be physically active.

And that includes then having really, the structure, you know, in our environment to be physically active. And so we wanted to comment on just 291 on C33 that really uses enforcement on pedestrians. And so if I'm standing at a crosswalk and I see I have 24 seconds, the timer has started. Right.

The green person walking has now shifted to 24 seconds.

And I can actually make it across South Britannia if I step off into the crosswalk, I can actually be sighted with $130 for jaywalking, even though I can clear that crosswalk.

If you step off the sidewalk

Onto the crosswalk.

To the crosswalk before the timer.

Once the timer starts. And so, yeah, so even if I can get off that sidewalk and there's still 10 seconds left, my action would be considered jaywalking. And so in terms of just having that default of the timer, is there to let me know, can you make it in 24 seconds? If we can look at it that way.

That's what we're asking for consideration. But of course, we're offering comments in terms of just from our perspective, how we're seeing it with the pedestrian experience.

Okay. This is kind of interesting because we have the Director of DOT in opposition, and yet there are others like Ampo, who has transportation on their agenda is in support. And Appleseed has been giving us very good testimonies and others, but in support as well.

So, Members, since we have Department of Health, do you have any questions you'd like to ask? Okay, thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Chair.

All right. I think I did call Michael Cobb. We did have support from Johnny Mae Perry, Veronica Moore and Kiana Otsuka. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB 3044? Let's proceed on to SB 2995 and this is relating to transportation. This establishes a zero-emissions ride share rebate program to be administered by DOT, it establishes a ride share fee.

It establishes the Zero-Emissions Rideshare Subaccount within the Highway Development Special Fund. A very interesting measure. Tom Yamachika on Zoom. And normally, Tom has really given us good testimonies. Tom Yamachika.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha, Chair. It's Colleen Teramae, on behalf of Tom Yamachika, who's in another hearing right now. We stand on our testimony, and if there are any questions for him, he'd be able to address them following the hearing. I apologize that I'm not on video. I'm driving right now, so I'm in safe driving mode.

Are you driving? Can you go-- I have a question. Oh, and you can't just go park anywhere. Well-- oh, no, I don't want to ask you questions. I don't want to be responsible for your-- okay. But thank you anyway. He did give some good comments, and that's why I thought I wanted you to share with us this measure. We'll give you a few minutes if you can find a parking somewhere.

We'll certainly try.

Okay. Why don't you try and, Kat on IT, let us know if she is able to come on because this rebate program was sort of interesting, but also, I kind of rely on the Tax Foundation as well for a lot of the comments and what he shares with us every so often.

Okay, Chair. Thank you.

Thanks. Testifying for Earthjustice, Isaac Moriwake. Aloha. Thanks for being here.

Yeah, my pleasure. My name is Marti Townsend with Earthjustice, and we're testifying in strong support of SB 2995. This bill seeks to help to further our transition off of fossil fuels by supporting low-income and medium-income drivers of Uber, and Lyft, and other rideshare services, transportation network companies, as they're called.

It is not a tax; it is a fee with a rebate. The idea is that riders would pay a small fee on each ride--in California, it's 0.09 cents--and then that fee is immediately given back to the drivers at the point of sale when they purchase a zero-emissions vehicle.

And the idea here is that we are going to try to help support those drivers who are causing the most in emissions--they're driving 50,000 miles or more a year--and help them also to, you know, balance their budgets because they're spending upwards of $14,000 a year on gasoline.

So this measure seeks to both help in terms of, like, affordability for these drivers--you know, oftentimes this is their second job--so whatever we can do to reduce their expenses and help them also contribute towards our clean transportation revolution. So thank you.

So you're-- I mean, we're talking about Uber and Lyft, only those that provide-- what about the taxis and everybody else?

No, this is aimed towards-- well, any sort of transportation network company. So, yeah, taxis would also-- if you schedule the ride ahead of time. So taxis are different because you can hail them on the spot. The idea is supposed to be that riders will be able to make a choice whether to purchase their ride, right?

This tells them ahead of time, this is how far you're going and how much it will cost, and the fee would show up there. And it would be something-- you all would decide what the proper fee is, and we do have experts on hand if you would like to talk about what would be the right amounts to--

What happens if a rider refuses to pay that fee? Is it automatically on--

Yes.

If we pass this measure, it's automatically on, so it's not where-- it's not an option?

It's not an option, right. Yeah.

It's still a fee.

Yes, but it's not--

Somebody else has to pay for it, though.

Yeah, so it's the people who are benefiting from this service, right, which tends to be higher end--

But they have to buy a-- pretty much an EV, an electric vehicle.

Yeah, or any vehicle that doesn't have emissions, so it applies to any zero-emissions vehicle. So the most common ones on the market right now are electric, but as other technologies come online, they can use those.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions? Okay. Hearing none. Thank you so much. Anyone else wishes to speak to SB 2995? Okay. We'll move on to SB 3153--

Sorry for the interruption, Chair. Mr. Tom Yamachika is on Zoom.

Okay, good. Hi, Tom. I'm glad you're on. We're on SB 2995, and your comments were rather interesting, so please.

Does the committee have any questions for me? I mean, otherwise, I'd like to stand on my comments.

Okay. And it was just a reminder as well; we are still talking about raising a fee, or a tax, or something that other people will be putting their money into.

Yeah, I think that the point of our testimony is that if you want to tax rideshare, and we already have a means of doing that--that's in Chapter 251 and that already has the enforcement tools and powers in the Department of Taxation that are necessary to enforce it-- a new chapter in the HRS, which this bill proposes, may not have that integration, so that's why we would have the committee consider doing an amendment to Chapter 251 instead.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Tom Yamachika? Thank you, Tom. Appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you, Chairs. Bye bye.

Yes. All right. Okay, come on up.

So, I appreciate Mr. Yamachika's comments, and this situation is slightly different because it's a-- the fee that's being collected will be immediately turned around and given to the drivers to buy electric vehicles through the dealerships. And so I don't-- the Department of Taxation is not set up to do--

Not involved.

Yeah, not involved at all. So the Department of Transportation does have systems in place where they can have-- help to administer this, they are willing to take on that administrative burden, and it helps to make sure that the-- exactly the money that's collected is immediately put back into the system.

Is there any other state that does this?

Yes, California has done it, and you have other states like Washington State who are considering it.

Are they also doing this with the rideshare program, like Uber and Lyft?

Yes.

So Uber and Lyft would have to contact then, I guess, the car dealers?

Yes, yes. And they're already working on that along the same-- similar lines with other bills that are considering similar sorts of fees and rebates in order to help people transition to clean vehicles.

Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Yes. She has a--

Marti, thank you so much.

Yes. Senator DeCorte.

Thank you, Chair. So just for clarifying purposes, the fee would be imposed on the--

Rider.

The rider.

--ride sharer, right?

The ride sharer. And then that fee would go back to the driver--

--to purchase an electric vehicle?

To the driver.

Or any zero-emissions vehicle, but yes.

So what if fees are collected and the driver doesn't purchase an electric vehicle?

Then we'll have funds to be able to provide larger rebates for those who do partake in it.

Okay, but-- so I'm afraid that the passengers are being misled to think that-- or maybe even the driver--might be misled into thinking that that cost of those fees are going to go to them to accumulate. Is there like a deadline on how long, or is there a dollar amount like, hey, when you hit 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 40,000, what is the threshold?

This bill doesn't include a threshold, as far as I know. The deadline is 2045, so we have that imposed, and the amount of the rebate would be larger if there are less people participating in the rebate program. So those drivers who do decide to purchase a clean vehicle could get a larger rebate than if they do not have a lot of drivers who are taking advantage of that.

That said, there have been studies done by Ulupono that indicates that super-users like these rideshare drivers are particularly interested in trying to make this conversion because they are spending so much of their own money on gasoline.

Yeah, so I think that it just creates a little bit of a confusion or a barrier if the driver is under the impression that they're going to be accumulating fees to purchase the electric vehicles, but then maybe they can't cover the entire cost of the electric vehicle and then we just have a big pot of funds and--

Yeah, the Legislature would set the amount of money that would go back to drivers, and so you can set that, and we do have experts who can help you to say, like, if you charge 0.10 cents, it will accumulate this much money and will help these many drivers, and so you can figure out what exactly you would like that balance to be. But there's no misleading to drivers or the riders. The money is going towards electric vehicles or clean vehicles of any kind.

Do you know what the cost of the share of the drive-- of the passengers in other states?

California charges $0.09 per ride, so it's at most a $0.10 fee. I'm assuming we could probably charge less because we have a smaller market.

Is that realistic to make that goal in 2045 if we're charging--

Yes.

The bill, I believe, is implied to 0.10 cents?

The bill is blank right now in terms of the dollar amount.

Right now. So it's $0.09 per mile?

Per ride.

It's a flat fee.

Oh, per ride.

All right, any further questions? Thank you. Thank you, Marty. Thank you. All right, let's proceed with SB 3153. And this is relating to transportation. This authorizes DOT to designate airport special district zones within airports statewide. It adds a new HRS section to help prevent unauthorized access and enhance security. DOT. Robin. Oh, that's right.

I am pleased to have our DOT Airport Director here, but he's not Robin. Okay, State your name.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Committee Members. Curt Otaguro. I'm the Deputy Director for airports. So we apologize. We did submit late testimony in this. We're working with our attorney Generals on some languages that we'll submit shortly. But just want to comment.

You know, we're one of only three states in the US that run airports as a government, state government. You know, we have 15 airports. Five are commercial, five are, we would call it commercial, I mean, commuter. And then for the rest, for general aviation.

The purpose of a special district is really, there are many reasons, but primarily we'd like to establish the airport perimeters to be under the jurisdiction for enforcement. With DLE, our sheriffs, we have found over the years individuals unauthorized, not only loitering or trespassing, but creating hazards, whether it be fires, inadvertent or what have you.

And those kinds of things present disruption to the aviation. And so we'd like to enforce that a little bit stronger.

That's interesting. I thought you already had that capability. I thought it was pretty much, I think, part of the airport's jurisdiction, but I guess not.

There are some definitions that this Bill would help to clarify and to precisely define it better so that there is no question when a law enforcement officer is going to approach someone at the airports.

Okay, you mentioned that four states are not. Don't have this.

No, no, no, no. We're just one of three states in the US that are state operated.

Yes, I remember that when we created the airport authority Bill that, we were the only one of three states that are not under an airport authority. But we are government-run. As well. I was going to.

Reason I brought that up is because I thought if the airport authority group already has this particular, I guess, policy or jurisdiction.

Yes. And so that's why we strongly support this Bill, this measure, the airport corporation would be a separate topic. That is certainly one for consideration. Right now we just want to ensure that this Bill passes so that we can do better enforcement for security, health and safety for the employees as well as our airline partners.

So like Oahu DKI. Okay. You know the street in the back road that takes you to the federal penitentiary building? What. What's the name of that street? Roger.

i don't know. Welcome back.

Yeah. Okay. We. Yeah. There was a problem a couple of years ago, and that is within, I think, the boundary of the airport. I'm sure, but this is actually going to create areas then, is that it?

The entire districts of all 15 airports. The entire perimeter of the property line would be the special district zone.

Okay, the property line. Are you saying property line by. By the county's jurisdiction on the TMKs, or can you designate the area?

We can work with the county to designate areas.

Because DKI has a large area and you'd want to ensure that that's part of the jurisdiction. And for all of us here, we certainly would like to ensure as well, you know, the proximity, you know, so that they are protected.

So I'm sure this has to do with homeless and I guess any other activity that happens. So you don't have a present day. You don't have a boundary outlined yet. You'll have to work on it going forward. If we.

Yeah, we have property lines, but because we're a public facility, that's the question. Right. So the Bill attempts to address that so that we can do better enforcement and if need be, arrests.

Does that include oceans, maritime areas?

Property is within the state and the airport district.

As an example, I bring that up because in Kailua Kona, we have the fishing, a private sector that grows, what was it, the Moi or something right outside of Kailua Kona Airport and near Nelha. And the approval for a person, that group on a commercial sector is you need approval from FAA.

So I'm just kind of bringing that up. So probably you would go up to some of the boundaries, I guess, or

We could look at that. Yeah.

Natural Energy Lab because it's so close to the airport. I'm not sure.

That could be a MOU that we could agree on with the agency. But this would only be for airport property at this point.

Sure. Yes. Senator Elefante.

Yes, Mr. Otaguro, nice to see you. Two questions I have for you. You mentioned you're working with the AG on language. Are you able to share with the Committee and the public what particular areas of the Bill that you're working on? I know. I didn't see the AG's written testimony.

Yeah, they've been submitted, and we elected to put it in. Basically, it's to define terminologies a little bit clearer. So if I say a pathway or walkway, they want us to be a little more specific so that enforcement can be done. If it's vague, then it might be difficult enforcement. That's where it comes down to.

Okay. And then the second question I have is, in terms of special district zones, I don't know if we're required as we're going through with bills, but I know during my time at the county, what we did was we did maps of the special district zone areas to kind of, to chair's point, clearly identify what particular areas of enforcement DOT would be looking at to enforce.

Is that something DOT could take a look at with the AGs and other areas? Okay,

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Thank you.

This is a governor's package anyway, as well.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes. So I'm not sure. Well, the effective date is July 1st. I don't see any testimonies from the Attorney General.

So hopefully this moves on to Judiciary and maybe communication with the attorney General can finalize the language and we'll move along so it can be addressed at that time as well.

Thank you, Chair.

But I was just wondering on the effective date if that would be enough time because I would think perhaps not, because once we set it in statute, then the direction will be that you'll be coming up with, I guess, the policy and the areas that you'll be designating, I guess, and the reports.

I'm sure we'll ask for a report come next year. To see how you're doing. But yeah, this is probably something that I think in time that needs to be addressed as well because you got, you know, you're under FAA, you know, in the feds as well, so kind of important. Yeah. All right. Thanks, Curt.

Appreciate it.

Okay. Airlines Committee.

Good afternoon. Chair Vice Chair, Members of the Committee on behalf of the Airlines Committee and stand on our testimony in support for the reasons already stated by the Deputy Director.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Lori. Jacob Aki.

Chair, Vice chair, Members, Jacob on behalf of Alaska Hawaiian Airlines, we'll stand on our written testimony.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Airlines of America, Airlines for America sends testimony and it's great to see them participating in Hawaii's legislation as well. The Blind Vendor Ohana sends communication in support. And James Stone, an individual who's been very active in the commercial space sections of airports, sense communication in support.

Now that I would. I'm thinking about the jurisdiction as well. It's. I'm wondering how far that you will go, particularly here where you have the industrial sections of DKI, you know, in the perimeter. That's kind of interesting if that would also cover where the taxis are parked as well.

So, something I guess we all need to look forward to working with you folks. Yes. Chair. Okay, thank you. All right, is there anyone else who wishes to speak to SB3153? We'll move on to the last item, SB3156. And this is relating to federal military installations, also the governor's package as well.

Curt, are you speaking on this measure? Okay. All right, we got. Yes.

Chair, I'm happy to. Department stands on its written testimony in strong support of this measure.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Military Community Relations Office at DBEDT Alari Moore. Okay. Sends communication in support. Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, James Barrows or a representative in support. Hawaii Military Affairs Council. And this is I think the ME Pro. Yep, probably with the with the chamber, is that the group sends communication in support.

Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB3156. Hearing none, Members. We will go into recess for decision-making. Okay. It's.

The Committee on Transportation is going into decision making on its agenda February 17, Tuesday in room 229 Members. The chair's recommendation on SB 2010 is to pass with amendments and Chair would like to add the prosecuting attorney's amendments and the will amend the Bill to include the provision.

Let's see another this is another amendment as well that includes to this measure in SB2010 we'd like to add this provision that if a law enforcement officer lawfully stops a motor vehicle and the operator is cited for driving without a valid license, the officer shall not permit the operator to resume the use of the motor vehicle.

And this has been discussed in other measures as well and we'd like to add that into this particular amendment and as it moves on to the judiciary. So Chair's recommendation is to pass SB 2000 with amendments. Any discussions? Hearing None. Vice Chair for the vote Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. SB 2527 and this is relating to the commercial driving license and we'll pass this measure. Recommendation is to pass as is. Any discussions? Hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote, Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB2527 unamended of the three Members present any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. SB2697 relating to transportation. This is the measure that we heard regarding driving on the shoulder of the roadways. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments as well as recommendation to add the Attorney General's amendments as well as Judiciary amendment.

And I think this also was mentioned earlier and I think that came in from was it the public defenders giving the time for Judiciary to work on this. So we'll add the amendment effective date to August 1, 2027 as the measure moves on to Judiciary. This is yeah. Pass SB2697 with amendments. Okay.

Vice chair for the vote Chair goes Aye.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB2697 with amendments. Of the three Members present, any no votes or votes or reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair's recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. SB 2812 Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure as is okay. Any discussions? Hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes Aye and we'd like to make sure and there's there will be a lot of discussions to in Judiciary as well on this measure.

Okay. Chair's recommendations to pass SB2812 unamended. Of the three Members present, any no votes or votes for reservations? Hearing none. Madam Chair, the recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. SB2991 and this is relating to highway safety. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure as is. Any discussions? Hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote Chair goes Aye.

Chair's recommendations to pass SB 2991 on amended of the three Members present, any no votes or votes for reservations? Hearing none, Madam Chair. Recommendation is adopted.

SB3044 and this is the statewide traffic code. This is the measure we kind of talked about during our discussions. This has to do with the countdown timers. Chair's recommendation that more discussions need to be addressed with this important measure. And at this point in time, Chair recommends that we defer. SB3044. SB2995 similarly relating to transportation.

There's an interesting comment with regards to zero emissions ride share rebate program. I think perhaps it'll give us time to work on something like this next year. So the Chair's recommendation is to defer this for continual discussions up to leading next year. SB3153, this is relating to the special district, the airport district.

Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure with just a slight amendment with technical, non-substantive amendments to this measure. Chair's recommendation then is to pass SB 3153 with amendments. Okay. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 3153 with amendments. Of the three members present, any no votes, or votes, or reservations? Hearing none, Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

SB 3156, and this is relating to federal military installations. Chair's recommendation that we pass this measure only with technical and non-substantive amendments. Any discussion? Hearing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes aye.

Chair's recommendation's to pass SB 3156 with amendments. Of the three members present, any no votes, or votes, or reservations? Hearing none, Madam Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you. And this concludes the Committee on Transportation agenda. Okay.

Good afternoon, and welcome. Aloha to the Transportation Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and the Environment, here in Room 229 on its agenda of February 17th. And we ask that the testifiers stand on written testimony and a limit-- or limit the oral testimony to a minute.

Decision-making will follow from all of the testifiers, time permitting. We're on SB 2999, relating to clean fuel standard, and this requires the Department of Transportation to adopt rules by January 1st, 2028, governing a clean fuel standard for alternative fuels in the state. Okay, let's see. DOT. Aloha, Laura. Thanks for being here.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, and committee members. Laura Kaakua for Hawaii Department of Transportation. The department stands on our testimony in support and thanks you for considering our suggested amendments. I'm here for questions.

Thank you very much. Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. Aloha, Leia. You've been here all afternoon.

Yeah. Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Leia Laramy with the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony in support. Available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Island Energy Services, Albert Chee Jr. Okay. Sends communication with comments. Imua Alliance. Chris Caulfield, in support. Low Carbon Fuels Coalition, Robin Vercruse. Is that you, Robin? Or Chris? IT? Is that Mike-- okay, the next one, then. Energy Justice Network, Mike Ewall. Aloha, Mike.

Aloha. Good afternoon, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committees. I'm the executive director of Energy Justice Network, and I'm just here to share that so-called clean fuels are not clean. If it involves creating a fuel and producing it to burn, it is inherently going to be harmful to air, land, and water, and will violate the Navahine Settlement and state law that require by 2045 to have zero-emissions fuels.

That's why the HDOT plan that they came up with last summer requires two transitions, one from fossil fuels to biofuels, and then another one within under 20 years to electrofuels because biofuels can't meet the zero-emissions requirements, which makes it something that is not only normally expensive, but it makes it doubly expensive by doing two transitions within less than two decades.

So I encourage you to oppose this and related bills because it's just too expensive, and moving us toward differently dirty fuels instead of toward the clean ones that we really deserve. Mahalo.

Thank you. Life of the Land, Henry Curtis, in support. Melodie Aduja of the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, in opposition. Pump Cleaner Fuel, Hawaii, Lia Carlile or Leah? Lia.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. We stand on our written testimony in strong support of 2999. Thank you.

Thank you. Par Hawaii, Marc Inouye or Representative, sends communication with comments. Jacob Aki, Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines.

Chair, Vice Chair, members, Jacob Aki, on behalf of Alaska/Hawaiian Airlines. We'll stand on our written testimony with comments. Thank you.

Okay. Mahalo. Clean Energy, Ryan Kenny, in support. Okay. Simonepietri Enterprises. Okay, Naomi Kukac, in support. Cristina Cornejo sends communication in support. Aloha.

Yes, Aloha.

Thank you.

Cristina Cornejo with Neste. We are in strong support of SB 2999, and thank you so much for bringing this to our attention.

Okay. Thank you very much. Georgia Hoopis sends communication in opposition. Eva-Maria von Bronk, in support. Theodore Metrose. Thank you for bearing with us, our first agenda of earlier.

I'm Ted Metrose, just an individual with some commentary. I oppose this bill because I believe it's trying to capture fuel consumed by power plants. The bill excludes aviation and it also excludes marine transfer, so it really doesn't cover the whole gambit of things.

And so, to that end, there are targets in here specifically meeting 10% and 50% reductions that says we're going to meet transportation standards, but I think that should be whittled down and said, land-based transportation, so we have a clear understanding as to what the targets are, rather than making some targets that appear larger than they really are and unachievable.

We want to make this achievable and workable, and that's under section two, so my recommendation is to modify paragraph one and say, for land-based transportation fuels.

Okay. Thank you very much. You're going to be around in case there's questions, Theodore?

Yes.

All right, thank you. A late testimony, Daniel Holt, in opposition, Ken Stover, in opposition, Alice Abelanita, in opposition as well. Is there anyone else wishes to speak to SB 2999? Okay. Let's see. Who was on Zoom? Mike. A Mike on Zoom? IT, is Mike Ewall on Zoom?

Yes, I'm still here.

Okay. Can you tell us-- actually, we've had some opposition and comments made. What's clean fuel as per this bill? The way you see it?

I think clean fuel, honestly, is a bit of an oxymoron. A fuel is something that needs to be produced and consumed, often burned up and combusted, which means you will have--in almost every case, with some very rare, expensive exceptions--you will have carbon emissions from it.

So you can't have a zero-emissions burnable fuel, which is why we would like to see every sector that we can be electrified so that we can power them with clean electricity like wind and solar and enough energy storage to make all of that work. And most sectors, except for long-distance air travel, can be electrified at this point, even inter-island travel.

Even like with sea gliders, the inter-island air travel, there are now experiments. Hawaiian Airlines's been working on it for a little while. There's a company that actually has these built already. I believe there's a bill to subsidize them being heard this week.

So there are alternatives that don't involve burning things, and you get in a lot of trouble, especially-- I remember a hearing. Senator DeCoite, I see, is here, and she brought up the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to speak last year, and they admitted in their testimony that there is not enough land or water in the state to grow any meaningful amount of biofuels.

And so we're looking at either importing them from other continents with fossil fuel chips or trying to turn waste into fuels which itself is very toxic, and dangerous, and experimental, and tends not to work. So that would be my quickest summary I can give you on that.

Another question is, it also was brought up that this measure does not cover other areas. One concern that brings to my mind is air and airlines. I can't see anything that would change the fuels for airlines at this point in time unless something out there is in the Hopper. They certainly-- I don't think they'll ever get into electrifying airplanes, and we have someone here from Alaska who probably will-- we can ask that question as well.

Yeah. So Chair, I think the way the bill is written is it allows for the aviation and marine sector to be opted in, so there is an opportunity for the aviation and marine sectors to participate in this program. Obviously, because of federal preemption, the bill can't mandate that marine and aviation be obligated by the fuel standard, but I think what-- we've noted this in our testimony that we do appreciate that there is an opt-in function for both-- for the aviation industry as well as for the marine industry as well. I think DOT might be able to provide additional clarity.

But if we're looking at biofuels as an example, I don't think it even would work for the airline industry.

Yeah, so I mean-- and we included this in our comment. I think, you know, we are appreciative that there's an opt-in opportunity for the aviation sector. I think, you know, the way we've seen the CFS programs operated in other states, it largely benefits road users, but there is an opportunity to slowly close the gap between what it takes to produce conventional jet fuel and regular fuel, but it's our position that while this helps to close a gap a little bit, what would meaningfully close the gap is a more incentivized focus on SAF.

So we would be appreciative to participate, but I think our comments are-- is that, you know, we still need a more focused tax credit on SAF to incentivize the production of SAF.

All right. Members, any questions you have?

Chair, I wouldn't mind--

Yes. Yes, Senator Rhoads followed by Senator Lee.

Leia Laramy, if you don't mind coming back up. So, I mean, I understand the objections that some people are making to this, but your office has taken the position that it's-- I don't know. How--sort of on a positivity scale--is this sort of worse than the-- better than the alternatives, but not great, or how do you view it?

I think we view this as-- you know, the road to electrification is definitely where we want to be aiming, but also recognizing that if biofuels are used, we need to understand the life cycle of what the carbon emissions are of those biofuels. This really helps us to outline that and be clear on what emissions are being released in the production and burning of the biofuels.

So biofuels are more like an offset than they are a-- it's not clean energy, but it's not-- it's not like fossil fuel where you can't replace it. That's the distinction, I guess.

You know, what it is, is it's, you know, possibly a stepping stone or, you know, for larger vehicles that are harder to electrify right now, you know, it's a useful tool in the toolbox, but it's really important for us to understand the whole life cycle because there are some renewable fuels that are cleaner and, you know--

Some are worse than others.

Exactly. So it's to help us to understand which are better and worse.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Senator Lee.

Thanks. Can I follow up with Ms. Carlile? Thanks. These programs already exist in other states on the West Coast. I think for my purposes, looking at this, it's clear, I think, on the whole we want to move this general direction with electrification, everything that the other testifiers had talked about, as well as helping our airlines and other partners in the entire sector figure out how they can meaningfully transition.

Part of the challenge is, especially in the immediate near-term, we are short on cash as a state and not likely to suddenly grow hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on trees. That being the case, this mechanism has enabled--my understanding is--other states to be able to have access to the investment needed in these spaces that otherwise the state itself can't probably produce in the near future. Is that right?

Yeah. So the clean fuel standard works as an independent marketplace from the state, so this doesn't require financial obligation from the state in the same way that a tax credit would. So participants in the program function outside of the state. In addition, it incentivizes the private sector to really come to the table, and that's what we've seen in other states that have programs like this.

And so, we see this especially with electrification. So charging infrastructure and renewable energy projects are all beneficiaries of the clean fuel standard as long as that fuel is used in the transportation sector.

And so, it allows to-- it allows the state to lean on the private sector in that way. These programs exist up and down the West Coast--California, Washington, Oregon--and recently, New Mexico passed a program and is beginning their implementation, and that's why we see so much charging infrastructure, for example, in those states, because the private sector is able to benefit from this incentive.

Thanks. And Chair, just one follow-up with DOT, if I could?

Laura. Thank you.

Thanks. For your part, obviously, DOT has a significant road ahead working on all the various aspects of this in all three divisions. For your part, you guys had been doing some work on this, analyzing what it would actually mean, and what the analysis is, and benefit, and all that stuff. Do you have an update on where that's at?

Sure. Yeah, we included initial findings. Right now in our clean fuel standard feasibility analysis that's particular to Hawaii, we do have initial findings, and based on our pre-session briefing with you all, there were a lot of questions about what this would do. It sounds like a good idea, but how would it actually impact the price of fuel at the pump?

And so, because of Hawaii's unique situation and having to import our fuel, we did find that a clean fuel standard would likely increase the price of fuel at the pump, but there's flexibility built in so that that increase does not have to be extreme at all.

We modeled-- so far we've modeled a moderate scenario and an aggressive scenario that puts the range of cents added per gallon of gasoline at the pump somewhere between 0.05 to 0.20 cents.

And because we are prioritizing affordability in our Energy Security and Waste Reduction Plan, we've asked our consultant to model a even more conservative scenario that really tries to balance emissions reduction with affordability for a more gradual curve of the actual clean fuel standard.

And so that price added to each gallon of gasoline or diesel is expected to be at somewhere between one and a half and 0.05 cents per gallon. So we can start with a much more gradual curve, and then as our other infrastructure builds out--like there's investments in more electric vehicle charging stations--then in time, that curve can increase.

And then, just on the flip side of that, did you look at what having that infrastructure and other things put in place as a result of this would mean for savings for consumers on the back end?

Savings for consumers on the back end. Yeah, I think with-- really this does send a signal to the whole marketplace to work with public and private sectors to invest in the infrastructure needed, and so with those additional charging infrastructure, with the availability of more biofuel, renewable diesel, lower carbon intensity fuels, those would have significant savings is our estimation for the whole population that will increase over time.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Laura, I have a question and more of a concern, and this measure talks about, a clean fuel standard can create new markets for what is usually considered waste, including but not limited to municipal solid waste, construction, and demolition debris, used cooking oil from food processing, agricultural and forestry residuals, industrial emissions, invasive species biomass from landscape restoration projects, and renewable electricity.

When you think about where we are today, if you need a clean fuel standard needing items of what I just talked about, it's going to be forever. It's not working now because we're already using biofuels, but only to some extent, but not in massive.

So I don't see anything that would interrupt a clean fuel standard from what I read. So I'm kind of-- it's kind of interesting. That's my opinion because I don't see how we're going to use biofuels in a time frame-- the timeline that we want to reach there, aside from EVs or electrification. And so I'm just wondering why we are, at this point, considering this as well.

Sure, you're correct, Senator. There can be fuel and power from a number of different sources, and so each of those fuels under the model that we're recommending, and an amendment too, to use the GREET model, each of those sources of fuels will have a different established carbon intensity rate.

And what this whole system does for the clean fuel standard is it allows us to give credits to those, right, those that have fuel that has a lower carbon intensity and then deficits to those with fuel with a high carbon intensity. So it really does set a standardized credit or deficit for the whole marketplace to--

But my understanding is, getting to that point, I talked about the longevity and the timeline, but I think we're also looking at getting into land use. You need land, you need somebody to create the items I talked about as well but also to note that it's like what we're doing with biofuels.

Biofuels that we started years ago, they haven't even reached to a point where it has been successful. It has to some point, but just a concern that I think there's more environmental cause that we should be concerned on with what we're looking at as well. I'll leave the comments to my colleagues here if any questions further on. Okay. Yes, Senator Richards. And also-- I'm sorry. With the program-- I mean, with what I was talking about, you need a lot of land and you need a lot of water. Senator Richards.

Yeah. And I'm not sure who to ask, but since you're up--

Sure.

--and maybe some of the help from the audience. There's work being done to produce aviation fuel out of seawater. How does that stack up into this?

That's more of a--

Yeah, like I said, I don't know who to ask.

So this kind of gets at what I think you, Senator, we're talking about in terms of land use and other environmental impacts, and what Laura said was exactly right. So the way that the clean fuel standard works is we use the GREET model, which is developed by the Argonne National Laboratory, and it's a way to calculate the entire life cycle emissions profile of a fuel. So if over time there is one fuel that is more clean, it's going to be what's incentivized in this program.

So if a fuel does have land use or too much water, it is going to be disincentivized by this program because we're taking into account the entire life cycle carbon intensity.

And so to bring it to what you were saying, fuels that require innovation, like using algae as a feedstock, which is very low-carbon intensity feedstock, is its research and development is incentivized when these markets are in place because there is a spot for them to be sold. So algae-based, sustainable aviation fuel is--

This isn't algae-based, though. This is technology-based. There's no biological involvement.

Yeah, so, similar. So anything that's like in its research and development phase that has a very low-carbon intensity score, programs like this help to incentivize continued investment in the R&D.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any further questions? Hearing none, we'll go into decision-making. Okay. All right. Okay. Members, we're going into decision-making at this point, though this is something that I'm sure we need to address in the coming future. I think we need to understand the clean fuel standards, and I'm not sure if we're there yet, but I think more study needs to be done. Chair's recommendation that we're going to defer--that's the Committee on Transportation--recommendation is to defer this measure.

Same recommendation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. And this concludes then, the hearing notice on SB 2999. Thank you.

Okay, calling back, calling the 3:02 agenda. Joint decision making with AEN and TRS have one measure that we're dealing with, and that's SB2709 requiring the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to establish rules to enforce the Akamai Arrival program, requires DAB to strengthen enforcement of plant and non-domestic animal quarantine and microorganism importations.

So the Chair's recommendation for AEN will be to pass with the Alaska Hawaiian Airlines amendment. The department's inspection authority shall be exercised only at times and in a manner consistent with federal aviation safety, operational and security requirements and shall not interfere with the federally regulated operational control of aircraft, unquote.

And so the reasoning is, with this clarification, we can strengthen our biosecurity enforcement while avoiding legal conflicts with the federal regulations and without disrupting airline operations. So it needs more work. So we're going to defer this and. Excuse me, we're going to pass and as it goes to WAM, so sorry.

Will continue the conversation with us and when.

Yeah, okay, one second. Chair, I'm happy that with the discussions we had previously that you have removed the airlines from this inspection program as well. Deep concerns. I still had some concerns going on, but moving this measure with your amendments. Chair's recommendation on the transportation will be then to pass this measure with amendments.

Okay, so for AEM, any discussion? Chair votes Aye. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Okay. For the Committee on Transportation, same recommendation to pass SB2709 with amendments in any discussions. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair goes Aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

That concludes the 302 agenda.