SR91 is a Senate Resolution requesting the Hawaii State Energy Office (HSEO) to study whether Hawaii should establish a green bonds program. The resolution frames the proposal as part of the state’s broader climate and clean energy response, citing Hawaii’s climate emergency declaration, prior work on identifying vulnerable state facilities, and the Governor’s 2025 executive order accelerating renewable energy development. It also points to green bonds as a financing tool used in other jurisdictions to support projects tied to climate mitigation, clean energy, conservation, and related infrastructure.
The requested study must evaluate best practices for administering a green bonds program, identify clean energy initiatives that could be funded through such a program, and assess opportunities for interagency and public-private partnerships. HSEO is also directed to report its findings, recommendations, and any proposed legislation to the Legislature by twenty days before the 2026 Regular Session. The resolution does not itself create a green bonds program or change existing financing law; instead, it initiates a policy and feasibility review that could lead to future legislation.
The bill’s impact on state law is indirect but potentially significant. It places a formal study obligation on HSEO and signals legislative interest in expanding state climate-finance tools, especially for renewable energy, energy efficiency, green infrastructure, and other sustainability projects. If the study recommends implementation, it could inform future statutory changes governing state debt financing, bond issuance, project eligibility, disclosure standards, and agency coordination.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is favorable. The resolution passed both the Senate Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs committee and the Senate Agriculture and Environment committee with amendments, and both votes were positive, indicating support for exploring the concept. The amended passage suggests lawmakers were receptive to the idea while still refining the measure’s scope or language.
The main point of contention appears to be not whether to study green bonds, but how such a program should be structured and whether it is practical for Hawaii. Likely issues include program management, transparency and investor disclosure, the range of eligible projects, and how to coordinate among state agencies and private partners. The lone committee vote with one no in Agriculture and Environment suggests some caution, possibly about fiscal risk, implementation complexity, or whether green bonds are the best financing mechanism compared with other options.
SR91 does not amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes or create a new financing authority. Its legal effect is to direct the Hawaii State Energy Office to conduct a feasibility study and report back with findings and possible draft legislation. The resolution could influence future state law by laying the groundwork for a green bonds framework, including rules for bond issuance, eligible climate and clean energy projects, and oversight or disclosure requirements.
The overall sentiment appears supportive and exploratory. Both committees that voted on the resolution passed it with amendments, suggesting broad agreement that Hawaii should examine green bonds as a potential climate-finance tool. The amended votes also indicate some desire to refine the proposal rather than reject it, consistent with a study resolution rather than a substantive financing bill.
The likely areas of contention are practical and fiscal rather than ideological. Lawmakers may differ on whether Hawaii should pursue green bonds, how to manage the program, what projects should qualify, and how to ensure transparency and accountability for investors and the public. The single no vote in one committee suggests at least some concern about implementation details, financial risk, or whether the state should commit resources to this financing approach before seeing the study results.