HB366 would change the judicial review process for certain renewable energy-related administrative cases in Hawaii. For contested cases, environmental assessment cases, and environmental impact statement cases involving renewable energy projects over 20 megawatts, the bill would require appeals to go directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court rather than first proceeding through the usual lower-court path. It also gives those appeals priority and directs the court to decide them as expeditiously as possible. The bill excludes cases involving any form of incineration from this special treatment.
The measure amends several statutes governing administrative and environmental review, including HRS section 91-14 on contested cases, HRS section 343-7 on environmental review proceedings, and HRS section 604A-2 on environmental court jurisdiction. It preserves existing review standards but creates a carve-out for large renewable energy projects, while also clarifying that agencies may be considered “persons aggrieved” for purposes of appeal in these proceedings. The bill’s stated policy goal is to speed permitting and litigation for clean energy projects in support of Hawaii’s 2045 renewable energy target and climate goals.
Impact
HB366 would narrow the ordinary jurisdiction of circuit and environmental courts for a defined class of large renewable energy projects and shift final appellate review directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court. In practice, this would alter the procedural path for agency decisions on contested cases, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, while leaving the substantive environmental review standards largely intact. It also modifies the jurisdictional language in the environmental court statute to make clear that the direct-appeal provisions control for these cases.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and framing are strongly supportive of renewable energy development and faster project approval, emphasizing climate urgency and the need to streamline permitting. The available committee history shows no recorded votes or transcript debate, but the last noted action was a recommendation to defer the measure in the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. That suggests the concept may have faced procedural or policy hesitation even though the bill itself is presented as a clean-energy facilitation measure.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restructuring of judicial review, especially the removal of intermediate court review and the requirement that these cases go directly to the Supreme Court. That change could be viewed as improving speed and certainty for developers, but also as limiting opportunities for fuller appellate review in environmental disputes. Another likely issue is the scope of the carve-out: the bill applies only to renewable energy projects over 20 megawatts and excludes incineration, which may draw questions about what projects qualify and whether the threshold is too broad or too narrow. Environmental advocates, project developers, agencies, and parties opposing or supporting specific projects would be the most affected stakeholders.