HB366 would change how certain renewable energy-related disputes are reviewed in Hawaii. The bill applies to contested cases, environmental assessment cases, and environmental impact statement cases involving renewable energy projects larger than 20 megawatts, except projects involving incineration. For those covered matters, appeals from agency decisions would go directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court rather than first going through the circuit court or environmental court, and the court would be required to give these cases priority and decide them as quickly as possible.
The bill also amends the state’s judicial review provisions for administrative and environmental proceedings. It revises Chapter 91 on contested case review, Chapter 343 on environmental review, and Chapter 604A on environmental court jurisdiction to carve out this direct-appeal path for qualifying renewable energy projects. In addition, it expands the definition of “person aggrieved” for these proceedings to include agencies, and it preserves the general role of environmental courts except where the bill specifically routes cases directly to the supreme court.
Impact
HB366 would alter Hawaii Revised Statutes sections 91-14, 343-7, and 604A-2 by creating a special appellate track for large renewable energy projects. The practical effect is to remove an intermediate layer of judicial review for qualifying projects and to require expedited supreme court review, which could shorten permitting-related litigation timelines and reduce delay for project developers and agencies. It would also affect the allocation of jurisdiction between circuit court, environmental court, and the Hawaii Supreme Court in environmental and administrative cases tied to renewable energy development.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose reflects strong support for renewable energy development, climate action, and faster permitting. The legislative findings emphasize urgency, the state’s 2045 clean energy goal, and the need to streamline approval processes for projects that advance that goal. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public debate in the materials supplied; however, the text itself signals a pro-development, pro-clean-energy orientation.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the bill’s narrowing of judicial review and its preferential treatment of a specific class of projects. Supporters would likely view the direct-to-supreme-court process as a way to reduce delays and advance clean energy goals, while opponents may argue it limits procedural review, reduces access to lower courts, and could weaken opportunities to challenge environmental or permitting decisions. The exception for incineration suggests an additional policy boundary, indicating that not all renewable-energy-adjacent projects are treated the same under the bill.