Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good afternoon.

Welcome to this afternoon's Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs and Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. We have one matter pending before the two committees. This is for Senate Bill 3322 relating to law enforcement.

The Chairs have jointly conferred and would like to recommend to our Members that we adopt the amendments proposed during the hearing that was held previously from Department of Law Enforcement.

And these amendments would exempt plainclothes officers from requirements for law enforcement officers to wear identification, specify that only vehicles used in immigration enforcement operations would be required to bear conspicuous law enforcement agency markings, and authorizing a plainclothes officer to wear a mask when the officer is within eyesight of another officer from the same agency who is unmasked while the masked plainclothes officers performs official duties.

And with the. That Chairs are prepared to recommend that the committees advance the measure forward. Any questions? Comments?

You don't. You don't have quorum.

Oh, I don't have.

We don't need a. Oh, actually, you do. Oh, Yep.

Okay. Okay.

So for Public Safety Committee Vice Chair Lee for the vote. Passing with amendments.

Voting on SB 3322. The recommendation is to pass with amendments.[Roll Call] Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. For Members of EIG Same recommendation and. oh, wow. Like magic, we have quarum. Any discussion on the Chair of Public Safety's recommendations? If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation on Senate Bill 3322 with pass with amendment. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This adjourns our joint meeting.

Thank you for joining us for this Joint Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Housing. So February 17th at 3:01 in conference room 224. This hearing is being streamed live via YouTube. If we have any kind of technical difficulties, we'll post a notice as to when we will reconvene.

We're going to limit testifiers to one minute. On our agenda is Senate Bill 3333. Almost like calling Charlie's Taxi, right? 22222. So this one's 33333. First on our testifiers list is Lindsay Garcia from the Realtors. Has submitted testimony support. Carrie Demotte has. Might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom. Chair.

Oh, Lindsay, you're on.

Standing on our testimony support, Chair.

Okay, thank you. We have someone from the Tax Foundation might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Also Thomas Croly has indicated he might be joining us via Zoom. Nope. Tom Croly there. Tom yeah. Tom Croly.

Chair he is here.

Chair.

Hi Tom.

Thank you for the opportunity. Tom Croly, I speak in support of this measure. I did submit some some written testimony. I served as Chair of the Maui County Real Property Tax Board of review. In 2020, the board received four tax appeals from first time new homeowners of affordable housing.

Unfortunately, these four homeowners had forgotten or were not unaware that they needed to file a homeowner exemption. As a result, they were they were saddled with taxes that were five times higher than they otherwise would be. And these were new homeowners.

As a board we wanted to grant these folks the exemption but our we were handcuffed by state and county law and we were not able to grant the exemption to these folks. I support this measure because it would make sure that the counties do apply the lowest tax real property tax rates to these new homeowners.

And to give you an example, an $800,000 market price home at without the homeowner exemption in Maui County is taxed at $4,700. With the homeowner exemption is taxed at $825. And if they were how your time is out restricted property, they would be taxed at only $300. So please pass this measure.

Thank you. Thomas yeah. Okay. Is there oh I, I see Carrie Demott has joined us. Welcome Carolyn.

Aloha. You. Oh excellent. I did submit some written testimony but I'm Carrie Demott and I'm with the Hole Maui and I just want wanted to say how much I support SB3333.

We have homeowners who have been paying personal property taxes on properties that are assessing at over a million dollars, yet they can only resell them at less than half that rate. This has been going on since we have started in 2006.

Recently I just bought back one of our homes that appraised at 1.16 and we bought it back using our resale formula for 492,000. We will be selling it to a new family for 495,000.

So they will never be able to sell it at market rate and we'd really like to see them taxed appropriately and I'd be happy to help figure out how that would look for our resale formula. Thank you so much.

Thank you for joining us. Kerry is there Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 3333? If not Members, any questions? Okay, if not, the two chairs have conferred. We like the this bill overwhelmingly positive testimony. Like to pass this measure out with amendments. Just defecting the date to take effect April 19, 2042. Any discussion?

If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for SP3333 is to be passed with amendments. [Roll Call] Five Ayes. Recommendation is adopted. Thank you. Committee on Housing. We do have quorum.

Okay, so for Senate Bill 3333 will have the same recommendation which is to pass with amendments. Discussion. Okay. Chair votes Aye.

Members SB333 Chairs Recommendation passed with amendment. [Roll Call] Chair recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Okay, we're Chair.

Good afternoon and welcome to the 3:02pm agenda of the Committees on Housing, Energy and Intergovernmental affairs and Water, Land, Culture and the Arts. Our first item on the agenda today is Senate Bill 2422 relating to housing, which establishes the Pro Housing School program to evaluate each county's performance in expanding housing opportunities and reducing regulatory barriers.

Requires the counties to publish their respective pro housing scores online and HHFDC to publish certain related information and data on a public dashboard. Establishes criteria for deeming a county non compliant. Establishes builders remedies for certain housing projects and TOD areas.

Specifies that if a county is deemed non compliant, the planning Director or an equivalent county officer responsible for land use approvals are responsible for approving or denying certain affordable housing development applications. Establishes procedures for certain DOD housing climate units. Our first testifier is HHFTC with comments.

Thank you.

HDCA with comments.

Good afternoon. HCDA stands on a table with testimony.

Thank you. OPSD with comments.

OPSD stands on its testimony. Comments.

Thank you. Housing hawaii's future in support. Thank you. Avalon Development Company in support.

Not present on Zoom. Chair.

Thank you. Hawaii MD in support. Johnny May L. Perry with comments. And Jacob we support. Is there anyone else who should justify Senate Bill 2422? Members, do we have any questions for this measure? If not sure, there's two questions for HHS.

Can you suggest how we would amend the bill to address your concern about allowing administrative rules for flexibility for counties facing extreme?

Yes, there are some certain cases where accounting may be close to, you know, hitting the goals established under the program or they maybe for some reason they. Could not attain the goal due to. A natural disaster, other circumstances beyond their control. So we ask that there be flexibility.

Incorporated that we allow an appealless process to be incorporated into the Administration administrative. Rules for this program so the county can appeal and explain why they could not hit the target.

Okay. How much money do you need to implement this program?

We may need about up to $200,000 for studies to supplement the Hawaii Housing Planning Study.

Thank you. Any further questions or discussions? Okay. If not, we'll hand it over to the waterline.

Chair, thank you. Moving on to the next measure, Senate Bill 2981 relating to land use, which prohibits minimum off street parking requirements for new developments in an urban district, makes other conforming amendments on 2981. Testifying first is DLNR. Thank you. Up next is zero OPSD. Thank you, Hawaii association of Realtors.

Thank you, Chairman. Customer support.

Thank you, Hawaii Bicycling League. Housing Hawaii's future. Good afternoon. Good afternoon.

Chair Lee. Chair Chang. Chair Wakai. My name is Perry Aerosmith. I'm the Director of Policy at Housing of Hawaii's Future. We stand in strong support of Senate Bill 2981. We see a clear and present nexus between housing costs and the cost of parking. We know that folks have different parking needs.

Some folks in their households might require one stall, no stalls, four stalls. But every single person has a different level of need. We strongly believe that giving folks more flexibility is appropriate if we want to lower housing costs in the state of Hawaii. A single parking stall can cost anywhere from 60 to $100,000.

At a hearing earlier today, HCDA, I believe, mentioned that a single new parking stall can cost $100,000. That cost eats into the cost of rent for residents. It eats into the cost of a new housing unit for residents. We want to decouple the cost of parking from the cost of housing.

And for that reason, we humbly urge you to advance this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Testifying next is Grassroots Institute.

Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. And we're in strong support of SB 2981 as well. This bill simply just removes the government from from forcing different parking mandates on projects that may not necessarily need it, understanding that every parking mandate adds costs. So every stall costs money. Those costs don't just disappear.

They show up in higher rents, higher mortgages, higher home prices. And I think it's also important to note that by getting rid of parking mandates doesn't mean that we're eliminating parking in Hawaii completely.

Home builders are still likely going to offer parking but this just gives them the flexibility that they need to address what the market wants rather than trying to meet some arbitrary number. So if we're serious about housing and addressing this housing crisis, we have to stop mandating costs that just continue to drive up that number.

So aloha, mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify in SB298 1. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions? Seeing none. Right. Turn it back over to my co Chairs.

I think we're ready to go straight to decision making in that case. All right. So for Senate Bill 2422 relating to housing having conferred, the Chair's recommendation will be to pass this measure with amendments. We will insert a defective date and also technical, non substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency.

We'll also include language to address HHFDC's concern about allowing administrative rules to provide flexible or contextual adjustments for counties facing extraordinary circumstances. So on page 12, 201H.

E. The sentence would read corporations shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 91 for the purposes of this part, including rules to clarify the methodology for determining the numerators and denominators used in the percentages described Described in Section 201H.VB the treatment of partial years of interim estimates within each five year housing planning period, an appeals process for counties determined to be non compliant and any other manner necessary to implement and administer the pro Housing SCORE program.

In addition to the Committee report will note a request for a $200,000 appropriation for studies needed to implement the Any discussion or questions? Senator Elefante.

Chair, I appreciate your amendments. I do have concerns with respect to pages 14 to 16 of the Bill as it may be a little too stringent on the counties and I believe counties still need that flexibility in order to determine whether or not to deny or approval project.

But I do appreciate your amendments and for those reasons I'll be voting with reservations. Thank you.

We can note your concerns. You'll also note that the counties didn't provide testimony, which I was a little bit surprised. Thank you. Any further discussion? Members. If not for the Committee on Housing Chairs recommendation for Senate Bill 2422 pass with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Members, SB 2422 chairs recommendations passed with amendments. Noting the reservations with Senator Elefante. [Roll Call] Chair recommendations adopted.

Thank you.

For EIG Same recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2422 is to pass those amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you. For the Water Land Committee, same recommendation. There's no discussion. Acting Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Senate Bill 2422, recommendation is to passed with amendment. [Roll Call] Chair, your measure is adopted.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to the second measure on the agenda, SB 2981 relating to land use. Seeing kind of a motley crew of testifiers from interestingly all persuasions and realms and sides of the political spectrum together on this ones. Recommend moving us on to the Judiciary Committee as is. Any questions, any comments?

Just a brief discussion on that. The concern that I have is, especially even though the areas I represent is not urban, is when we take away the use of minimum off street parking, it really could impact some residents that I live in.

So one thought that I have is tying in the date to the opening of Skyline was it comes into downtown, which would be 2031. And I did speak to some of the advocates on that, so that would be some of the concerns that I would have on that. So with that, I'll be voting with reservations. Thank you.

So noted. Thank you.

Okay. Committee on Water and Land, SB2981. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. [Roll Call] Okay, with three Ayes. Chair, your measure is adopted.

For Members of ERG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

This recommendation for Senate Bill 2981 is to pass unamended, noting the presence of all five Members. Are there any objections or reservations?[Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted. And for the Committee on Housing, Same recommendation for Senate Bill 2981 to pass, unamended. Any discussion, question? Chair votes Aye.

Members SB 2981 Chair's recommendation pass unamended.[Roll Call]. Recommendations adopted.

There being no further business, this agenda is adjourned. Good afternoon. We're committing.

Thank you.

We're convening the joint committees on Waterland, Culture and the Arts and our friends from the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. On our 3:03pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224 we have a few measures on the agenda. So we'll ask you to make sure your written testimony is submitted.

We'll be limiting folks to one minute to make sure that we have time to get through all the testifiers and give everybody a chance to say their piece. So up first is SB3.0.

Excuse me, SB 2007, relating to land use decision making, which provides authority for counties to amend district boundaries up to 25 acres for various purposes on 2007. Testifying first is the Attorney General on Zoom. Zero. Or in person. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair. Chair Lee. Chair Wakai.

Policy Forum. I believe they had a event here on that date. So, anyway, this is excellent indication that we just don't have enough capacity to. And all the goals here.

Okay. We'll definitely take a look at that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Members, any further questions? If not, we're going to move on to the last measure on the agenda, that being Senate Bill 2673 relating to the counties.

On our testifiers list, we have Ann Lopez or someone from the Attorney General's office.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Allison Kato, Deputy Attorney General.

We submitted written comments on a few things, but the main thing is that the bill may be subject to challenge as an unfunded mandate because it requires the counties to develop and maintain the state large database without providing any funding. So we recommend either including an appropriation or authorizing rather than requiring the counties to do this.

We also noted a few technical and practical matters in our written testimony. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Allison. Mary Alice Evans fromThanks, Diane. Christine Sakuda or someone from the Office of Enterprise Technology Services.

Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2673? If not Members, Any questions? I have a question for Rebecca. So OPSD says they don't want to do this and can I shove it on you?

We don't have the business knowledge on any of the permitting regulations. Permitting data. We need a business to drive this.

But we can support on the technical front end, we can provide technical platforms to share data and to enable the standards in the technical platform.

Okay. Thank you, Rebecca. Thank you, OPSD.

So you heard Rebecca say that she doesn't want this entire responsibility other than the technical part of it. Do you have a suggestion as to which government entity could take responsibility for carrying out the responsibility?

I don't have any specific suggestion for somebody to replace our role. It does really need to be led by DAGs and the counties. We can help administratively, to help run meetings and to foster that collaboration.

But we as an agency don't have any. Or the deep permitting knowledge that exists in the county departments.

Great. Thanks, Diana. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll brake briefly prior to taking the vote.

All right. Good afternoon.

We're reconvening the joint committees on Water, Land, Culture and the Arts and Energy and Intergovernmental affairs for decision making on our 3:03pm agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 224. We had a number of bills on the agenda, beginning with Senate Bill 2007 relating to land use decision making, which provides authority for counties to amend district boundaries.

Like to note. Well, first of all, there are other measures on this, but secondly, like take some time to figure this out and do it right. Just noting concerns and opposition on this one. So we're going to defer this particular measure for the time being.

Up next is SB3028, relating to property conveyance, which restructures the conveyance tax to a marginal rate system and adjust the tax for multifamily properties. We like to recommend moving us forward with amendments and appreciate all the folks weighing in Tax foundation and others.

But note that there is some benefit here in particular to smoothing out the tax curve so it's simpler and more fair and not a deterrent to making particular decisions in this space. So we will, though, blank out the amounts that are in here.

And I'll note for some of the testimony, there are blanks in different portions of this bill already. That is sort of standard practice. As we go to the Ways and Means Committee, we're going to let. Excuse me, the. Yeah, Ways and Means Committee. We'll let them take a stab at what those appropriate amounts should be.

But just note, the intent is to provide a benefit here. We'll also add in a defective date to the measure. And with that, any questions or comments on this measure? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote on SB3028.

Okay. For the Committee on Water, Land, Culture and the Arch, Chair's recommendation is to passed and amended, pass with amendments. So SB328, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.[Roll Call] Chair, your measure, your measure is adopted.

Thank you. For Members of eig, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang. I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 3028 is to pass amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to the next measure, SB3033, relating to coastal zone management, which allows the public to petition the Public Advisory Board for review of the integrity of beach structures.

Similarly, we'd like to move this forward, noting this is obviously an ongoing issue, but passed with amendments, I think, noting OPSD's comments that they are not the appropriate agency for making regulatory decisions. And so we'll replace them for the moment with DLNR more broadly.

And I imagine you know that this is going down the road, but adding in also a defective date so we can have that conversation as this goes forward to the Judiciary Committee.

The last thing we'll do is in the existing bill, make a change so that that agency, once it receives note that there is a threatened structure, shall not order the counties to then demolish said structure or take whatever that appropriate action is, but make that recommendation to the counties in that case.

So we'll see where the conversation goes from there. Any questions or comments on that? If not acting Vice Chair.

Okay. Committee on Water and Land, Culture and the Arts. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absence of Senator Inoue. Anyone going with reservations? Anyone voting no? Chair, your measure has been adopted.

Thank you. For Members of eig, same recommendation. Any discussion?

Yes, I appreciate the intent of this, but remember my time in county and when we hit this, we ran into a bunch of roadblocks just trying to figure this out. So I'll be supporting, but with reservations.

Thank you. Any other comments? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation For Senate Bill 3033 passed with amendments in the presence of all Members and the reservations of Senator Richards. Are there any other objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendations adopted.

Members, the next measure is Senate Bill 2434 relating to electric vehicle infrastructure. The two chairs have confirmed we'd like to make one small adjustment and take into account OPSD's recommendation as we try to deploy more EV queuing stations around the state.

On page six, line 16, instead of the sentence starting off with construction installation, it'll be starting off with installation, then maintenance, repair, replacement of an electric vehicle charging system as defined in Chapter 269 and going on. That's the only amendment offer. Any discussion?

Put in the infrastructure. Can you have the electric vehicles further down instead of taking the closest spot to the store?

Okay, well, we can put that in the Committee report, courtesy of Senator Fevella. He wants the EV people to be farther away from the shopping centers. Senator DeCoite.

You know, I got to agree with him. Or at least let me park in. At stall too, since I pay my taxes.

Okay, she's going down a different road. Any further discussion? If not Senator Chang. I vote yes.

Just recommendation for Senate Bill 2434 is to pass with amendments, noting all Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Water and Land Committee, same recommendation.

Committee on Water and Land and the Cultural arts voting on SB 2434. Chair's recommendation is to go with the same, with amendments. Chair goes Aye, noting the excused absence of Senator Inoue. Anyone going with reservations? Anyone voting no? Chair, your measure has been adopted.

Thank you. The last measure on this agenda is Senate Bill 2673 relating to the counties. The two Chairs have conferred and want to make a number of amendments to this measure. We're going to take the AG's two technical amendments. Just a spelling mistake.

We're also going to revise the language on page nine, lines 12 to 14, to read recommended fields described and then move on to subsection C and D. Also based on the AG's testimony, we're going to change the date from July 1, 2026. Deadline for publication of a statewide permitting data standard.

Going to change that date to January 1, 2027. Also based on the AG's testimony, we're going to blank add in a blank appropriation for the counties to develop and maintain this date data set. You may recall, Members AG said that this is an unfunded mandate.

So we're going to have funding, although we don't know how much funding for this mandate. And we're going to make technical, non substantive amendments for the purpose of clarity. Clarity and have a defective date of April 19, 2042. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang. I vote yes. Just recommendation?

Just a quick comment. Yes, of course. Yeah. Again, county, we can't get the permitting done. I'm concerned about now requiring another report. So I'm going to go with reservations.

Any further discussion? If not Senator Chang. I vote yes.

This recommendation for Senate Bill 2673 is to pass with amendments with all Members present running the reservations of Senator Richards. Are there any other objections and reservations? The recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Same recommendation on the Committee for Water, Land, Culture and the Arts. Chair goes Aye. Noted, noting the excuse absence of Senator Inyoue. Anyone going with reservations? Anyone voting no? Chair, your measure is adopted.

All right, thank you very much. This takes us.

Yep, this takes us out. We're adjourned. Thank you for your patience.

We're continuing the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs on this February 17th. We are jumping into the 305 agenda. We have four bills on this agenda. The first is Senate Bill 2369 relating to combustion Free Energy Solutions.

On our testifiers list, we have Mark Glick. Thank you, Mr. Glick. Mike Ewall from Energy Justice Network might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay, how about Sarah Steiner? She on Zoom?

She is present on Zoom Chair.

Oh. Hi. Sorry.

Welcome, Sarah.

Yes, thank you. Actually, about the custom, the combustion free energy solutions, I just want to make sure that you're not considering geothermal as being a combustion free energy solution.

You know, drilling into the ground to create wells, build power plants, roads and electrical infrastructure is a major use of, of oil and gas and then electricity and to produce all the heavy equipment that's going to be running those power plants and everything.

All of that equipment, thousands, hundred, you know, tens and hundreds of thousands of gallons of petrochemical pentane nitrogen. All of that is shipped over to oceans. Puna Geothermal Venture gets all of their things from Israel, from Ormato. So that's not very, you know, that's not a very greenhouse gas friendly thing.

And so they lose a lot of that chemicals and all that petroleum products into the air. It's not, shouldn't even be considered.

Sarah, could you summarize, please?

Okay, am I cut off? Is that done?

I'll give you five seconds.

Oh, well, Helco has to keep a whole plant for PGV anytime they go offline. See, every geothermal plant you want to put, you need another power plant. It's just not feasible.

Got it. Thanks for your extra 10 seconds. Okay, anybody else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2369, if not Members? Kurt, you question Aloha?

Yes, I am. I would like to testify.

Oh, okay. Sorry I can't see you, but you're welcome.

Okay, so aloha, Tara Rojas. I would like to say, you know, I, I also raised my hand too, and I got muted. I put on my video so you could see me and I got my video turned off.

So I just want to state that in the past couple items in like, the past couple meetings, I've been wanting to testify. So please be aware and take a look at the Zoom, because there are people you know wanting to testify.

So I'm in opposition to this one as well as what the previous testifier, Sarah Steiner said regarding making sure that it does not turn into geothermal. So this path, this Bill creates a pathway for total dependence on electrification. If it misses alternative locally based energy solutions, the cost impacts to residents is not addressed.

And if this is true, this study, it must remain open, unbiased and inclusive of all viable pathways. And again, just oppose this measure unless it's amended to remove these limiting assumptions and allow for truly comprehensive evaluation and to make sure that it doesn't, you know, end up towards as well, geothermal. Mahalo.

Thank you for joining us, Tara. Sorry for the difficulties. Is there anybody else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2369? If not, no questions. We're going to move on to the second measure. That is Senate Bill 3081 relating to a program to characterize the potential of underground energy resources statewide. On our testifiers list we have debit. Dean.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee, Dan Wicker, Deputy Director of DBEDT. And we stand in support of this administrative bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Mark Glick from the energy office.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, Members of the Committee, Mark Glick, Chief Energy Officer, in strong support of this measure, Administration measure, which we think will support energy self sufficiency in the state. Thank you for allowing me to testify and be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Glick. Kanoy Case from Truth for the People.

Aloha Okonoe Ko'. Uinoa. I'm just here with one minute. There's not much. We flew over from the Big Island.

So, you know, I'm not going to cause anxiety, but I am going to sit here and take my one minute to honor Tutupele, to state that we stand in protection of our rights as Kanaka, as we are petitioners of our native Hawaiian practices.

And so I don't know, we had our 42nd episode the other day and it was beautiful. She did go ahead and rain tephra all over our windows and our cars and, you know, so if you folks haven't been able to go and see her or, you know, it's different from. Than watching her on the live.

We honor her with every press, with every. With every step, with every bone, and with every drop of blood and sweat and tears of our body. And so I think it be wise for this administration to oppose this bill in strong opposition and would appreciate that.

Thank you. Thank you. Terry Napeahi Truth for the People Network.

Aloha. My Chair and Committee Members. Mahalo Nui for allowing us some time a minute. I. Geothermal is not. This is not their first rodeo. In the early 80s, Donald Thomas, geochemist, did subsurface testing.

And with all of the initiatives that they had in the early 80s, they were to build 2020 geothermal plants and to produce 500 megawatts with a cable that is coming. Hale. Hale all the way to Oahu. It failed. They lost $80 million.

We're imploring you not to go and do the same mistake with his protege Nicole Lautz and the State Office of Energy. You are going to lose the money. We will be there every step of the way to make sure the TCP is not forgotten. Mahalo, Nui. Do not spend taxpayers dollars.

Mahalo. Great. Thank you. Terry. We have a Sarah Steiner via Zoom.

You try to be really quick, but I just. I really feel we don't. We don't even get two minutes. We don't even get three minutes. Anyway, we do need to poke around. We need to find water. The people in Kona are continually under water restriction. You read in the newspaper just yesterday got a voluntary comply.

They don't have any pumps, they don't keep equipment. So, yeah, you need to poke around and find water. You do not need to poke around to find geothermal. The University of Hawaii has done that already. There's been no robust community engagement for the last 40 years. I've detailed in my testimonies, the reports and the.

And the university thesises that you can read about how you guys have totally trashed us, made us look like the protesters. You refused to discuss that hydrogen sulfide is a deadly toxic gas that comes out of geothermal plants all over the world. There's no closed loop systems. The pipes are corroded. They leaks out of the seals.

The flanges and the underground wells in Hawaii are ground together in the rift zone. The island is grinding apart and it is.

Could you summarize, please?

Yes. Okay. And in closing, Mark Glick, my last paragraph of the Hawaii State Energy Office said in PGV's final environmental income statement. Income, excuse me, Environmental impact statement. That they are not to use testimony that doesn't come from expert witnesses. And I object.

And I think that is the rudest thing because why are we even allowed to comment then? You guys just want to seem to do whatever you want and so. No, I have a lawsuit about that. We need environmental impact statements. Thank you, sir. Even monitored, there's not even any seismic monitoring.

And none of you guys ever talk about this. And you better start talking about it.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you.

Sure. Do we have Dana Kave on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Do we have Jasmine Steiner?

She is present on Zoom Chair.

Aloha, can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Aloha, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jasmine Steiner. I am a born and raised Puna woman. I've lived here since 1988, right next to the state's only geothermal plant.

I run a community Grassroots organization, Kahupuna to educate the world on geothermal harms here in Hawaii and to protect the lower Puna Aina, Tutupele and everyone within this area. As Kama Aina fighting this for years and as a mother, I strongly oppose SB3081. This Bill funds invasive boreholes, the same exact type needed for expanding PGV venture activities.

Pune Geothermal Venture. 50 years of drilling into the world's most active volcano. It's just ludicrous. They call this seven inch holes slim, but please know it's not. Those are not slim boreholes. True. Slim holes are less than 6 inches more so 2 to 5 inches to 4 like Hawaii's SOH program. 7 inches is conventional.

It's way more bigger. Way more wrists you cannot leverage. Our deity is not for sale. Guys, we gotta stop poking around the world's most active volcano. This is not New Zealand. It will not bring electricity costs down. No matter what they tell us, what lies they feed us. Thank you.

Protest brought the biggest mass arrests in Hawaii history. Yeah, I don't know if you guys know that bigger than tmt. And we are ready to do this again when you guys pass geothermal bills. Most critically to close amid the community's Hawaii geothermal injunction case filed by my mother pro se which has multiple volcano scientists within this.

It seemingly stalled while they try to push all these geothermal bills through the Senate. With almost total Kanaka Maoli opposition. And only for profit support this state RA risks massive liability violating due process. An article. Thank you, Jasmine. Section seven consultation desecrating Pele. Please read my full written testimony that I submitted you guys.

And please vote no on SB3081. Malama. I know. Okay. Pele is not for sale.

We have it. Yeah. Okay, we're going to move on to Tara Rojas.

Aloha, Tara Rojas. As you heard, the previous testifier said they have been listening for over 45 decades. 40-50 years. I really hope that you are listening and you're reading their testimonies as is their testimonies that are going to determine that determine the state and the fate of what you guys plan to do. The slim hill.

Boring. This characterization ends up being a precursor to then to development basically the geothermal. Actually, are you really listening or you just kind of.

I'm listening.

I read your testimony. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And so it's the. You hear the contamination, you hear the negative health effects. And if you didn't Hear it before December 8, 2025 the Clean Air Help Branch listened to PGV's request for expansion of their permit.

PGV operating right now is causing the health effects and have the passing of community members in Puna. I'm going to say this now because you need to hear this because I don't know if they made their decision. PGV should have been shut down after six months.

They have been operating several times found to be violating operating without permits and. And then how is it that they're not shut down and they're asking for expansion? 3 hours worth long meeting. In December 8th the whole Pune community came out. This is what you want to do continuously to Moko Kiawah and all Hawaiiine without community consent.

Not only on DHH. DHH land but also for all of Hawaiine geothermal in Hawaiine. Just Harry, your term is up. Yeah. So oppose it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 32? Excuse me. 3081. If not Members, any questions? Okay, we're going to move on to the next measure that being Senate Bill 3218 relating to bonds. We have Mike Yadal from the Stadium Authority has submitted testimony in support. Dean Minakami, hhfdc. Thank you Dean.

Mary Alice Evans from OPS. Great. Thank you. Craig Nakamoto from HCU. Thank you, Craig. Andrew Pereira from PRP. Thank you, Andrew. Lindsay Garcia.

Hello Chair. We stand our testimony.

Thank you. Lindsay. Lee Wang, Housing Hawaii's future has submitted testimony in support. Mark Clemente.

The Regional Council of Carpenters strong support.

Thank you, Mark. That's all I have for those indicating they'd like to testify. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to testify in Senate Bill 3218 or online? Okay, Member, start to get questions right. We're going to move on to the last last measure on this agenda.

That is Senate Bill 3219 proposing amendments to Article 7, Section 12 and 13 of the Hawaii State Constitution. On our testifiers list for this measure we have hhfdc Dean Minakami. Okay, thank you. Mary Alice Evans. Thank you Craig Nakamoto. Thank you, Craig. Andrew Pereira.

Thank you Chair. Member Fevella. Andrew Pereira with Pacific Resource Partnership and strong support of HB 3219. Just wanted to add really quickly to my written testimony that PRP received a briefing from the financial advisement company Stifel back in October.

And really interesting Chair, that this type of value capture financing can not only be used for a district perfect for a district like the New Aloha Stadium entertainment district. But it can also be used down to the single building or even a single city block.

So this is a tremendously important tool to put in our quiver to build the housing that our people desperately need. So urge you to pass this measure forward so that we can add this to our toolbox. Thank you very much.

Lindsay Garcia.

We stand in our testimony with strong support.

Thank you. Lindsay. Lee Wang Housing Hawaii's Future is to be testimony in support. Ken Hayashida from Nia Poi.

Aloha Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oy on behalf of Nia Poi, we stand in strong support of this measure. You do have a written testimony, so I'll just quickly summarize. You know, this provides the highest financing capacity for infrastructure for communities and our our housing in the future. And Hawaii desperately needs this.

So we strongly urge this measure be passed. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Evan. Mark Clemente from the Carpenters. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 3219? If not Members, any questions? No? Okay, we're going to go and jump straight into decision making for the 2:305 agenda on the first bill regarding a study for combustion Free Energy Solutions. We are going to defer action on this.

Since Mr. Glick and the energy office says we did a study similar just three years ago. I don't think the world has changed dramatically to make that study stale. So we're going to defer on this measure for Senate Bill 3081 regarding geothermal resources. I'd like to pass this measure out with amendments.

We're going to blank out the appropriation, make some technical non substantive amendments, add a defective date of 04-19-2042 and note in the Committee report that there was an appropriation for Wham to consider inserting $6 million into this Bill if they seem and deem it fit. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 3081 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair Aye. Senator DaCoite and Richards are excused. Senator Fevella, reservations recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. On the next Measure, Senate Bill 3218 relating to bonds, we're going to pass this measure with just technical non substantive amendments. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation For Senate Bill 3218 is to pass with amendments. The Members present noting the excusals of Senators DeCoite and Richards. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none.

The recommendation is adopted.

On Senate Bill 3219. This is a constitutional amendment that marries the previous bill and would like to pass this measure as is any discussion. If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

First recommendation for Senate Bill 3219 is to pass unamended. Other Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendations adopted.

Thank you. We are adjourned.

Thank you for your patience.

We're convening the Triple Play Committee today. The Committee on Energy Intergovernmental Affairs, Committee on Transportation and our friends from the Committee on Agriculture and Environment. And By Miracle, it's 3:04 on this Tuesday, February 17th in room 224. We really appreciate everyone's patience in gathering all the bodies necessary to move this measure along.

We have one bill on this agenda that is Senate Bill 2027 relating to sustainable aviation fuel tax credit. On our testifiers list we have Gary Suganuma from DOTAX on on behalf of DOTAX. I will stand on our written comment.

Thank you, Albert She for Island Energy Services has submitted commentary. We have Brian Miyamoto from the Farm Bureau has submitted testimony in person. I just want to mention we are very tight on time and many of us have read the written testimony. So you could stand on your written testimony. That would be greatly appreciated.

Chris Bennett from Pono Pacific. Thank you, Chris. Mike Ewell from Energy Justice Network might be joining us via Zoom.

Hi Mike. Hello. Good afternoon. Chairs, vice chairs and Members of the committees. I'm the Executive Director of Energy Justice Network and I'm asking you to oppose this bill. It's because there is no such thing as a sustainable aviation fuel.

Some have grown to call it alternative aviation fuels because they're just differently bad, they are not necessarily an improvement over fossil fuels and that some of them can actually be worse than fossil fuels in different ways, including even for the climate.

And as the testimony I provided on documents in comments that I did on the HDOT plan last summer, there are climate scientists disputing the green model and other models that are used to make it seem like biofuels are climate solutions when in fact because of flaws in those models that these scientists are disputing about indirect land use change, they can actually be worse and yet they look better on paper but are actually worse in reality.

So I urge you to reject this bill and focus on the sectors that we can cleanly decarbonize by electrifying and not worry about long range air travel which is not a legal mandate to address.

Great perfect timing. Thank you, Mike. We have Tax foundation of Hawaii that might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Thank you. Jacob AI, Alaska Airlines. Representative from the Airlines Committee of Hawaii. Thank you, Lori. We have par hawaii other designee

Thank you, mark. Ted Metros.

Hello. I'm Ted Metrose I'm one of the few in opposition to this bill. Unique type of situation for the taxpayers. I am a whistleblower on the PAR Hawaii FTZ case where I made allegations of them not paying their taxes. This credit bill is a big boon for PAR Hawaii, which really needs to be questioned.

There is a tax credit provision in this bill that gives five year rollover accounts after the first year of production. PAR could claim essentially three years worth of credits. $60 million from their first years of production could be claimed. I don't think that's right when there's an outstanding issue related to taxes still unresolved.

I hope you have that same feeling. To preserve the state's integrity, I've asked that we add in an amendment in here to include a provision that DOTAX has the authority to accept or reject claims for additional tax credits consistent with the federal program that has that same provision intended to protect the interest of the public.

Ted, could you summarize? Thank you for joining us. We're going to move on to Nahelani Parsons,

Aloha Chairs and Members of the committees. Nahelani Parsons, Executive Director for the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition. Our coalition includes a lot of Members from the energy, agriculture, labor and transportation sectors. And I just wanted to highlight.

We're in support of this measure and in our testimony we included an amendment to help address the concern raised by DOTAX to make sure that this tax credit would not be stackable with any other tax credits. So we provided some proposed language that could be added to the bill in order to address DOTAX's concern.

Available if you have any questions.

Thank you. Nadia Lauren Zuribal might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay, and Marie Joel Simon Pietri might be joining us via Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom.

Chair Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2027? Yes, please.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee Members, Laura Kaakua for Hawaii Department of Transportation. Our apologies if our testimony came in too late for the packet.

The Department does support this measure and we recommend including the same amendments that the House companion bill included, as well as clarifying that this staff tax credit should not be able to be stacked with the Renewable Fuels production tax credit so that each gallon of gasoline or each gallon of fuel just gets one tax credit and is not available for two.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate.

Excuse me, Chair, we have. Someone on Zoom that would like to testify.

Naomi, please.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Naomi Kukak. I'm here on behalf of Simone Pietree Enterprises. We submitted written testimony which will stand on. And I do apologize if you do not receive it in the packet as we did submit it a little bit late, but basically we do support this bill and its intent.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on 2027, if not Members? Any questions? Yes.

Laura. As of today, do you guys have sustainable aviation fuel producers who distribute in the state?

Right now? There's not sustain. No. I believe no SAF is used in the state as of yet.

So no fuel producers for aviation.

Yeah. Someone in the room may know better than me unless I know that we. There's huge efforts to start the production of SAF and begin to use it in this in the state. I think there's Pono Pacific here as well as Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska here that are working on that joint venture.

So where would they grow this?

Where would they grow this in that vast amount? Because I talked to them last year, and last year they told me they engaged with Mahipono, which probably has the biggest land mass. When I spoke with them, there's nobody there growing SAF. So I'm looking at $20 million credit. How we.

How do we do that and where does the jobs go in relation to growing something like this?

Sure. So in terms of the. The land area, I really am not the expert on where we could. I know they. That folks that are growing sample trials of Camelina have looked at the whole land available and have identified what might be ideal parcels.

I have also learned that even if that industry expands, we're still going to need to import our fuel and marge part. So even if we are able to produce SAF locally, which is the trajectory that we're on, we would still need.

To produce it locally. If the credit is coming from the state of Hawaii for the jobs, I think, you know, we're looking at. And then the issue I have with it is that it then becomes a competition between growing food and growing energy.

So I know that there's trials being done, but there's been trials being done for I don't know how many years, and I have yet to see deliverance on it.

I guess the way that the bill is written now, it would incentivize the industry both locally. Right. And have additional incentive for local producers, but also be able to incentivize the importation of sustainable aviation fuel so that the planes.

So I guess what you're saying is, if we're going to incentivize them. Why don't we incentivize them from the other states and they can just grab the fuel from that side and fly this way and then whatever comes out of here, then we push it back the other way. I mean, I think that would make no sense.

Right?

I think it, I think the bill does that. So I think right now we are incentivizing that the import of fuel and our state greenhouse gas inventory done by the Department of Health is really tracking Hawaii interstate flights as well as those starting in Hawaii and heading out.

And so if we're able to import that sustainable aviation fuel or grow ourselves, then that's what we're calculating in terms of Hawaii's emissions. What Hawaii is responsible for is those planes that can then refill here locally or imported SAF and head out of state.

So as of today, how many of those planes are using safety?

Zero.

Okay, that's what I thought. Chair, can I talk to DOTAX?

Talk to anyone you like. Oh, wait.

Oh, I. Sorry.

Talk to DOT. Sorry, sorry.

I know you said you're not a professional land, but if we, we, we will plant it here, how much of the crops we would have to need to sustain our aviation fuel?

The estimates that I've heard is somewhere between 4 to 10% is a goal to be grown locally and then the rest would have to be imported.

So how much acreage is that you think?

I am not sure.

Okay, appreciate it. Okay, anybody from DOTAX.

So do you see any administrative burdens if this tax credit passes?

Well, the biggest one and we mentioned in there, is administering the credit. We just don't have the systems to do that within DOTAX. But if somebody else can do that, I don't see administrative problems.

Who would you recommend to do that?

If I knew you'd ask me that. Well, I mean the obvious would be transportation. I can't speak for them as far as their capabilities or if they doing that on other projects or not, but that's obvious. I guess the other would be the energy office potentially, but again, I can't speak for them. Thank you. You're welcome.

Thank you. Chair, I have a quick question. Yes? This bill has rollover language. So if you don't, I mean you hit the 20 million dollar cap, whatever extra can be rolled over to the next year.

I mean it could be foreseeable that PAR could expend a 100 million dollars and then be first in line for five years and gobble up all $20 million worth of tax credits if we had it for five years here. Yeah. Correct.

Correct. That's the way I read it.

Okay, Jacob, thank you. Can you give us an idea? Like, if I were to take a trip to Los Angeles and you feel that playing with Seth, what would the cost be for me as a passenger on your plate? How much more am I going to pay for my ticket?

You know, sir, I think that's a good question. I don't think it's a question that we can necessarily answer right now because there isn't enough staff for us to actually use. I think, you know, the issue that I think what this.

What this Bill is trying to address is the ultimate challenge of trying to produce SAF is to close a cost gap of what it takes to produce traditional jet fuel versus what it takes to produce SAF. There's about a 4 to $5 cost gap per gallon.

So it takes about $4 more to create conventional jet fuel than it does to create SAF. What other states are doing, I think what the aviation is, the aviation industry is doing across the entire country is trying to close that cost gap.

During the Biden Administration, there were some federal incentives that did provide about $1.50, almost $2 to close that gap. But to make it worth for the producers to produce SAF, the idea and the strategy was to look to states to try to close that gap. Other states, like Washington, Illinois, California, has been.

Has put in mechanisms in place to help to close that cost gap, and we're starting to slowly see production in those states.

I think this bill, though, I know there were a lot of questions about ag, but this bill is separate from, I think the other issue, the other bills that we had brought previously in that we recognize that there's still a lot of questions, there's still a lot of work being done, trials being done to, you know, see how much we can locally grow.

But I think to some of the points that you folks have brought up with the past several years, is that we're not going to be able to grow enough staff that we're going to need. The aviation industry in the state uses over 600 million gallons.

So with all of the available land, we wouldn't even get close to that. I think the estimates that Laura from DOT shared about 5 to 10%. You know, that that's something that I think we've looked at, but the idea is that we would still need to import SAF to our local producers to produce the saf.

So the feedstock would be imported, and then it would. It would be produced locally. And I think that's what this bill is trying to do is to try to recognizing that we're going to need to import at some point.

The state, through via Navahine, has a mandate now to try to reduce our state's carbon footprint in the transportation sector. And the aviation industry is the largest emitter of that. So this, I think part of this bill is an effort to try to look at how do we work with the state to kind of close that gap.

The state has an obligation now, the private industry, the aviation industry are looking on how we can do that. I think from the Hawaiian Airlines, Alaska.

Airlines front, I want to get to the economics of this decision.

So if it's $4 more for SAF versus regular diesel aviation fuel times I don't know how big a gas tank is on, on a plane times divided by X number of passengers, you should be able to tell us what is the actual cost for a passenger, because that's going to weigh heavily on our decision. Right?

It's like 20 bucks. Then just eat it. If it's more than that, then. But we've been at this for two years now. They've asked you this question repeatedly, and you still come back with, I don't know. We should know. I mean, you're an airline.

You must know the economics of how the difference is between a charge for diesel aviation SAP. How much more are we going to pay for a trip to Los Angeles or elsewhere?

And I think that's something that we've looked at. But I think, you know, and maybe I'll try to better convey it is I don't think we can understand what the cost we're going to eat is until we can get a market up and going. But isn't Washington, Oregon creating. It's slowly.

I mean, I think what we're seeing is that it's, you know, for Alaska Hawaii Airlines, I think Alana James, who leads our, our overall effort in SAF is I think overall, maybe total SAF usage of all the fuel we use is maybe about 1%, right?

So of all the fuel that, that we are using across the entire system, only 1% of it is actually SAF. And that's due to the market not being able to.

We're getting the markets up, you know, up and going, but it is going to take several years for us to get to the point to really be able to provide that, you know, that actual number.

So I think what we're trying to do is just to get the industry going and then we'll have a better idea of what that might be. In the case, it might be better to pass it off. I don't know. I don't want to commit to that. But I don't think we have enough information because.

Because there is no industry. And in the places that we do have an industry, progression towards getting to that point is still a couple of years away.

Thank you.

Thanks, Senator.

For the questions. Yes. Department of Health? I don't think so. Department of Health? No. No. The environmentalists? No. Anyone else?

Senator Rhodes.

Terry, Jacob. He might come back up. So I guess the question. Sure. Wakai's question raises more questions for me, which is my understanding is the Federal Government still subsidizes trolling industry to a pretty substantial tune, like $80 billion a year. So.

But of course, that's not, you know, you can't just subtract that off because that's not the way markets work. You charge what the market will bear.

So either that means that the oil companies and airlines just make more money and the price stays exactly the same same, or they actually lower the price somewhat because they can't pass it on all through. But don't you also have to factor in other things like what the subsidy for the other fuel is?

And even in a broader picture, if we're not pricing carbon at what it should be priced at for the amount of damage it's doing, that has to factor into it, too, to come up with a real. To make a real economic decision. Is that fair?

Yeah, I think, you know, and I'll. Maybe I'll lean on some of the other producers because in this case it will. The tax credit wouldn't be passed off to the airline. The tax credit would be passed off to the overall producer to those who are producing the fuel.

I think our support of this is we want to get our hands on SAF. We want to be able to reduce our carbon footprint, but we're not able to do that until we're able to get SAF in our tanks and to get it at, you know, really at a market scale. It's not at market scale yet.

Fair enough. Thanks. Cheers. Sure.

Any further questions?

So, Jacob, I mean, you guys are big business. I mean, you guys, Revenues are cranking, airfares have been going up and I mean, I know we had this conversation with the other airlines. I mean, baggage fees alone have just surpassed anything I've ever seen.

And yet it bears the back of this state and the State Taxpayer Dollars to put that up front. You know, we, we've talked about this. You know, how do we share the cost? But you know, at this point, it's, it's hard to swallow when we're having to deal with cutbacks everywhere. You know, that, that it comes through.

So, like, I mean, even if the credit does come down, I, I would assume like everything else is, it increases, that you would think that they would pass that down. But I have not seen one cut in airfares except just increases after increases.

Well, Senator, no, and I definitely understand that kind of framing that, you know, that you just shared. But I think, you know, even if we wanted to cut costs, there's nothing to cut because we have no SAF in our tanks. Right. I think what we're trying to do is, as I shared, right.

We're trying to upstart that industry. Industry. We're trying to close that gap. I mean, for us to actually and meaningfully purchase SAF, it needs to be at a cost that is comparable to conventional jet fuel.

Because if it's not, we're going to be increasing the amount of money that we're spending on SAF, and that in turn would potentially pass it off to the overall customer.

I think what we're trying to do is to minimize the impact to the customer by trying to close that cost gap and get SAF at a market rate that is comparable to what we're paying for jet fuel now. But I think to my other point, there isn't enough SAF for us to even use.

Like for Alaska Hawaiian Airlines, we're using maybe 1% of SAF, and that's as much SAF that we can get our hands on. Other airlines may have a little bit more, but we're still using a lot. We're still using probably 95%. For a airline who's getting a lot of SAF, still using 95 to 99% of conventional jet fuel.

If more SAF was available on the market, I think we would purchase it, but it's not available at the market yet.

And I think for us, as a state that is heavily dependent on the aviation industry and because of a lot of the long range flying, if we're able to produce some of that SAF here, I think we're seeing that we could reduce our carbon footprint print locally.

But I think, you know, overall, I think in the aviation industry, we are kind of restrategizing what that looks like and how do we kind of really shift our efforts. We still have some of the federal incentives that are in place. Some of them have been cut down a bit. Right.

So I think we're still trying to figure out how do we get there, we have ambitious energy goals. And right now, even if we had all the amount of SAF, federal guidelines only allow about a 50% blend. So. So we would still need to use 50% conventional jet fuel.

But what we found is that with sustainable aviation fuel, we're able to cut our greenhouse gases. And don't quote me, I have it, but probably in that range of 70 to 80%. So once we start to use it, then we'll start to see the overall impact that it can have.

But we're not using yet because there is enough on the market.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? If not, we'll take a very brief recess prior to taking the vote. Thank you for your patience.

We're convening, reconvening the triple Committee hearing with Energy Intergovernmental Affairs, Committee on Transportation, Committee on Agriculture and Environment. The three chairs have conferred. We know that there is a House version of this bill that is moving, so we have decided to defer action on this measure. Thank you for your time.

Everyone we're adjourned.