Bills: HB2241, HB2316, HB1566, HB1926, HB1673, HB1948, HB2602, HB1598, HB2334, HB2451, HB2243

Keywords: renewable energy, income tax credit, solar energy, wind energy, low-income households, energy policy, lead materials, drinking water, public health, water infrastructure, safety regulations, HB1566, energy efficiency, LED lighting, light-emitting diodes, fluorescent bulbs, fluorescent fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, CFL ban, mercury-free lighting

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a bill to expand the solar energy tax credit for single-family residential properties by removing certain cap amounts and raising the adjusted gross income limits for taxpayers to elect a refund of excess credits. The Hawaii State Energy Office and Department of Taxation both said they were standing on written testimony, while industry and advocacy groups largely supported the measure. Members questioned whether the income thresholds were set appropriately, how many taxpayers would be affected at different income levels, and how many would qualify for refundable treatment; Taxation said it did not yet have the requested numbers but was preparing a fiscal estimate. A major issue raised was drafting and administration: witnesses said the bill appears to apply differently to owner-purchased systems versus third-party leased systems, and Taxation said it likely could not easily verify household income for leased systems or cross-reference different taxpayers. Discussion also covered whether the credit should remain refundable, whether credits should be limited to amounts actually expended, and whether the bill should instead be structured to keep the credit with the system owner or lessor, with concerns about equity, market effects, and possible incentives to lease rather than buy. The committee then moved to HB 2316, which would align state restrictions on lead materials in drinking water infrastructure with federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The Department of Health and other supporters testified in favor, and there were no questions from the chair. Next, HB 1566 on energy efficiency would require state agencies to use energy-efficient lighting, with the Hawaii State Energy Office providing technical assistance and a compliance survey prioritized for first responder facilities; testimony from state agencies and advocates was in support, and again there were no questions. For HB 1926 on Red Hill, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Board of Water Supply, and multiple organizations and individuals supported funding for remediation studies, environmental monitoring, groundwater research, independent testing, and a public dashboard, with DLNR emphasizing that decades of work remain necessary even after defueling and that the bill supports ongoing university and community partnerships. The committee then heard HB 1673 on landfill units. The Department of Health initially said it was in support but later corrected the record and stated it strongly opposes the measure, saying the bill would undo protections enacted last session that keep landfills out of areas over aquifers; the Board of Water Supply also opposed repeal of those protections, while the City and County of Honolulu supported the HD1 version that leaves siting decisions to the counties. Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi and the Energy Justice Network opposed the bill, arguing the original protections should remain and that the amended version had confused commenters; supporters of the original version urged restoring it and considering additional language on ash.

Bills: HB2611, HB2102, HB1710, HB1868, HB1920, HB1812, HB1733, HB1715, HB1723, HB1724, HB1727, HB1711

Keywords: HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability

Summary: The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent. The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.

Bills: HB1527, HB1823, HB2490, HB2223, HB2325, HB2104, HB2593, HB2592, HB1927, HB1553, HB1964, HB1918, HB1990

Keywords: gambling prohibition, Aloha Stadium, University of Hawaii, amateur athletics, state lands, coastal resilience, Maui, Mantokuji Bay, coastal erosion, environmental protection, Native Hawaiian, spiritual sites, historic preservation, economic development, burial sites, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, cultural history, archaeology, Hawaii Revised Statutes, civil service

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1527 relating to gambling. The chair outlined hearing rules, including a two-minute limit and a warning that bills not heard would die. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from a prosecutor, Honolulu Police Department, and Stop Predatory Gambling, all arguing that casinos and sports betting increase crime, sex trafficking, harassment of athletes, and broader social harm. No opposition testimony was presented, and the committee moved on without questions or action taken on the bill. The committee then heard HB 1823 relating to coastal zone management and HB 2490 relating to coastal resilience. For HB 1823, DLNR, the Office of Planning, and Maui County testified, with Maui County supporting the measure and its proposed amendments. For HB 2490, DLNR expressed concern about exempting a proposed Mokuji Bay pilot project from permits and regulation before a long-term plan is finalized, while the County of Maui, the Mokuji Soto Zen Mission, and the Office of Planning supported the bill as a coastal resilience pilot. The mission described severe erosion, sea-level rise impacts, and years of unsuccessful efforts to stabilize the shoreline; its consultant said the study is leaning toward nature-based and hybrid solutions. In questioning, members and DLNR discussed whether the bill should say the project “shall” or “may” be exempt, and the chair indicated the language would be adjusted to preserve DLNR discretion and to change the lead agency reference to OPSD. No vote was taken in the transcript. Finally, the committee took up HB 2223 relating to historic preservation reviews. SHPD said it stood on its written comments, while OPSD and DHHL supported the bill. DHHL argued the measure would streamline reviews, improve transparency, and help address long wait times for its projects, saying it could alleviate burden on SHPD and better serve beneficiaries. Representative Shimizu questioned whether the bill would create redundancy and expand government rather than strengthen SHPD, noting a separate staffing bill already exists. SHPD responded that DHHL is uniquely subject to 6E review and that the bill would not waive federal or state historic review requirements; the discussion also touched on possible federal-style grant support and the existing memorandum of agreement between SHPD and DHHL. The transcript ends during questioning, with no final committee action shown.

Keywords: HI House YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DUAgVWZAak, 2026-07-02T01:22:47+00:00, 2.2.24, Data collected via generic collector engine, Conference Notices: 9:15 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_JHA_04-28-23_RECONVENE_.PDF 9:16 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_TCA_04-28-23_RECONVENE_.PDF 10:00 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_EEP_04-28-23_RECONVENE_1_.pdf 10:30 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_TCA_04-28-23_RECONVENE_1_.pdf 10:31 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_CAI_04-28-23_RECONVENE_.pdf 11:00 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_GVO_04-28-23_.pdf 11:10 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_TCA_04-28-23_RECONVENE_2_.pdf 11:25 AM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_TRN_04-28-23_.pdf 1: 00 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_EEP_04-28-23_RECONVENE_6_.pdf 1:30 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HUS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_.pdf https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HHS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_D_.pdf https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HHS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_F_.pdf https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HHS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_G_.pdfhttps://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HUS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_3_.pdf 1:31 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_GVO_04-28-23_RECONVENE_C_.pdf 1:40 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HUS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_2_.pdf 2:15 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HHS_04-27-23_RECONVENE_C_.pdf 3:00 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HLT_04-28-23_.pdf 3:30 PM https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HHS_04-28-23_RECONVENE_.pdf https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/hearingnotices/CONF_HLT_04-28-23_RECONVENE_2_.pdf, 910, house, all, 2.2.42, 2.1.47

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a drop of 367. 90% of that $910 million, $810 million, is going to go to the federal government

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Bills: HB389, HB469, HB1510, HB1573, HB1705, HB1858, HB1875, HB1946, HB1961, HB1962, HB2001, HB2093, HB2096, HB2097

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: HB389, HB469, HB1510, HB1573, HB1705, HB1858, HB1875, HB1946, HB1961, HB1962, HB2001, HB2093, HB2096, HB2097

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: HB389, HB469, HB1510, HB1573, HB1705, HB1858, HB1875, HB1946, HB1961, HB1962, HB2001, HB2093, HB2096, HB2097

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: HB389, HB469, HB1510, HB1573, HB1705, HB1858, HB1875, HB1946, HB1961, HB1962, HB2001, HB2093, HB2096, HB2097

Keywords: HB389, uncrewed aircraft, drone, drones, UAS, unmanned aerial vehicle, misuse of uncrewed aircraft, criminal offense, felony enhancement, drone crime, public safety, police, deputy sheriff, fire department, intoxicated operation, registration number tampering, property damage, bodily injury, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package, Hawaii Revised Statutes

Bills: HB2116, HB1879, HB2214, HB2310, HB2168, HB2427, HB2560, HB1596, HB2197, HB2498, HB2167

Keywords: grants, community engagement, nonprofit organizations, federal assistance, volunteering, youth transit, public transportation, subsidized transit, environment, energy independence, affordable transportation, Hawaii, diaper tax credit, families, low-income, childcare, health, Hawaii Department of Human Services, DHS, emergency appropriation

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to human services, homelessness, transit, and family supports. HB 2116 HD1, concerning grants from the Office of Community Services to nonprofits providing training and volunteerism opportunities, drew strong support from Catholic Charities Hawaii, Hawaii Children’s Action Network Speaks, and multiple organizations in written testimony. Supporters said the bill would help vulnerable people affected by federal program changes and cuts by connecting them to reintegration and support services. HB 1879 HD1, establishing a subsidized youth transit program coordinated with counties, received extensive testimony in support from the Department of Health, Department of Taxation, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Aloha United Way, Hawaii Bicycling League, Hawaii Appleseed, Hawaii State Youth Commission, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Greenpeace Hawaii, Hawaii Youth Transportation Council, and others. Testifiers emphasized equity, school attendance, reduced transportation costs, climate benefits, and broader access for youth. Several witnesses urged amendments to make the program universal rather than means-tested, and committee discussion noted implementation questions for neighbor islands and rural areas. HB 2214, creating a refundable diaper tax credit for low-income families with children age four and under, was supported by the Hawaii Diaper Bank, Hawaii Children’s Action Network Speaks, and several other organizations. The Department of Taxation recommended making the credit non-refundable and clarifying definitions to aid administration, while supporters argued refundability was important for low-income families who may owe little or no income tax. HB 2310, an emergency appropriation to replenish DHS funds used to provide SNAP benefits during a federal shutdown, also drew broad support from DHS, Catholic Charities, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii Children’s Action Network Speaks, Hawaii Food Industry Association, Aloha United Way, and others; witnesses praised the state’s rapid response and said the appropriation would prepare DHS for future emergencies. The committee also heard HB 2168 HD1 and HB 2427 HD1 on education for students experiencing homelessness and unaccompanied homeless youth; the Attorney General recommended technical amendments to avoid conflicts with existing law and to clarify McKinney-Vento-related definitions, while advocates stressed the need for school access, transportation, meals, and other supports for homeless and runaway youth.

Transcript Highlights:

• 01:29:04.159> the both programs and particularly in the both programs and particularly in the 910
• 05.760> they<01:29:06.080> were<01:29:06.800> um<01:29:07.280> extremely 910
• bienium they were um extremely 910 bienium they were um extremely generous.<01:29:08.400> I<01

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Revenue is pretty small comparatively, $910 million total, 1,296 FTE.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the previous day’s journal, and a series of special guest introductions recognizing family members, interns, students, public servants, and community advocates. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on a large number of amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor action centered on the state budget, especially House Bill 2 (public education). The budget chair explained the conference report’s funding mix for K-12 schools, including $8.4 billion for public education, changes to the foundation formula, use of blind pension funds, and possible ARPA dollars later in the process. Members debated whether the report underfunded schools by $45 million or more, with opponents arguing the state was not fully funding the formula and supporters saying total school funding remained at record levels and that the issue was the source of funds rather than the total amount. A substitute motion to send HB 2 back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was third read and passed 83-68. The House then took up House Bill 2003 on higher education, where the conference report largely restored the governor’s recommendation and directed the department to develop a new funding formula by the end of the year. Members discussed performance-based funding, scholarships, apprenticeships, and the need for a slower transition to any new model. The conference report passed 119-28, and the bill was third read and passed 109-32. House Bill 2004, covering Revenue and Transportation, included about $20 million for rural roads and other transportation funding; members discussed constitutional concerns, MoDOT projects, and a small local safety fix. The conference report passed 128-21, and the bill was third read and passed 127-27.

Transcript Highlights:

• Revenue is pretty small, comparatively: $910 million total dollars, 1,296 FTE.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the prior day’s journal by a 107-1 roll call vote. Members then spent a substantial portion of the morning introducing guests, including family members, students, interns, nonprofit representatives, a park ranger recognized for life-saving work, and legislative staff being honored for service or graduation. Committee reports and Senate messages followed, including Senate refusals to concur on several amendments to Senate Bill 1421 and the appointment of a conference committee on House Bill 2818. The main floor debate centered on the conference committee report for House Bill 2002, the K-12 education budget. The budget chair explained that the report maintained record-level overall funding for the foundation formula but changed the mix of funding sources, including a reduction in capital commission dollars and use of blind pension funds, with possible later ARPA dollars to offset shortfalls. Several members argued the bill still underfunded schools by about $190 million and raised concerns about relying on projected or one-time funds; others defended the budget as meeting or exceeding constitutional requirements and noted record spending per pupil and recent increases in education funding. A substitute motion to send the bill back to conference failed 62-89, and the conference report was then adopted 83-68; the bill was subsequently third read and passed 83-68. The House then adopted and passed House Bill 2003, the higher education budget, by 119-28 on adoption and 109-32 on third reading. Debate there focused on restoring the governor’s recommended funding while directing higher education institutions to develop a new performance-based funding formula by the end of the year. Members generally described the compromise as a step toward a more sustainable model while preserving current funding levels. Next, House Bill 2004, covering the Departments of Revenue and Transportation, was adopted 128-21 and passed 127-27; discussion highlighted transportation funding, rural roads, and a small local safety appropriation that had already been addressed by MoDOT. The House then began debate on House Bill 2005, the Office of Administration budget, with members emphasizing IT accountability, state employee functions, and ongoing technology consolidation/deconsolidation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if we have the 910 and for some reason the federal government decides they're going to lower their

Bills: HB4420, HB3974, HB3016, HB3062, HB3021, HB3145, HB4128, HB3131, HB3015, HB3472, HB3453, HB1638, HB4126, HB2696, HB2710, HB3552, HB3031, HB3544, HB3521, HB4490, HB4488, HB1746, HJR1069, HB4428, HB4429, HB1170, HB3538, HB4124, HB3904, HB4106, HB2999, HB3982, HJR1077, HB3464, HB2588, HB3462, HB4440, HB3674, HB3345, HJR1067, HB4326, HB4331, HB4337, HB4338, HB4359, HB4392, HB3557, HJR1076, HB4003, HB3495, HB3497, HB3501, HB3505, HB3749, HB3011, HB4336, HB4346, HJR1087, HB3240, HB3647, HB3796, HB3969, HB3972, HB3983, HB3984, HB3989, HB3383, HB3130, HB4358, HB3327, HJR1055, HB3386, HJR1089, HB3087, HB2970, HB3314, HB4129, HB4199

Keywords: reading, intervention, literacy, education, third grade retention, teacher training, funding, Strong Readers Act, tort claims, inmate housing, government immunity, public trust, private prison, emergency legislation, vision screening, binocular vision, kindergarten, elementary education, health, firearm rights

Bills: SCR173, SCR78, SCR114, SCR162, SCR48, SCR160, SCR87, SCR28, SCR74, SCR20, SCR32, SCR55, SCR69

Keywords: ticket scalping, task force, consumer protection, event accessibility, local economy, menstrual health, menstrual cycle, period education, period poverty, menstrual products, menstrual dignity, health education, sexual health curriculum, DOE, Department of Education, public schools, school health, reproductive health, puberty education, hygiene education

Bills: SCR48, SCR28, SCR74, SCR62, SCR60, SCR89, SCR147, SCR179, SCR182, SCR59, SCR54, SCR180

Keywords: affordable housing, housing credits, perpetual credits, development, Hawaii Housing Finance, Vietnam veterans, commemorative medal, recognition, working group, Hawaii, no-bid contracts, emergency procurement, audit, state agencies, public funds, accountability, emergency response, disability access, 911 systems, life-saving measures

Bills: SCR48, SCR28, SCR74, SCR62, SCR60, SCR89, SCR147, SCR179, SCR182, SCR59, SCR54, SCR180

Keywords: affordable housing, housing credits, perpetual credits, development, Hawaii Housing Finance, Vietnam veterans, commemorative medal, recognition, working group, Hawaii, no-bid contracts, emergency procurement, audit, state agencies, public funds, accountability, emergency response, disability access, 911 systems, life-saving measures

Bills: SCR48, SCR28, SCR74, SCR62, SCR60, SCR89, SCR147, SCR179, SCR182, SCR59, SCR54, SCR180

Keywords: affordable housing, housing credits, perpetual credits, development, Hawaii Housing Finance, Vietnam veterans, commemorative medal, recognition, working group, Hawaii, no-bid contracts, emergency procurement, audit, state agencies, public funds, accountability, emergency response, disability access, 911 systems, life-saving measures

Bills: HCR92, HCR46, HCR172, HCR147, HCR112, HCR100, HR84, HR42, HR139, HR104, HR92

Keywords: automated external defibrillator, AED, cardiac arrest, state buildings, health education, public health, lifeguards, first responders, public safety, ocean safety, emergency response, Hawaii, workers' compensation, auditor, procurement audit, compliance, Department of Human Resources Development, transparency, accountability, medical care

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.