Transcript Highlights:

• So there's a 20% reduction from that baseline by 2030 through 2039, 70% by 2040 through 2049, and 95%
• Back to the emissions reduction standard, I just wanted to specify the proposed sub.
• I don't know. ...to the emissions reduction standard.
• Megan, did I hear correctly in the hallway that the carbon accounting for this includes both biogenic
• So the emission reduction opportunities, there's a long list there.

Bills: HB2416, HB2537, HB2575, HB2322

Keywords: waste management, energy, climate action, environmental regulations, fair treatment, renewable energy, sustainability, emissions, climate commitment act, environmental regulation, trade regulation, facility compliance, reporting obligations, energy laws, compliance, business impact, alternative fuel, carbon reduction, aviation, energy production

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee held executive session on four bills. HB 2416, dealing with a Spokane waste-to-energy facility under the Climate Commitment Act, was presented with a proposed substitute that would remove the facility from CCA compliance, create separate emissions-reduction standards and reporting requirements, and authorize Ecology enforcement. Members discussed whether emissions accounting included biogenic emissions and whether reductions had to occur on-site. The substitute was reported out with a due pass recommendation on a 12-9 vote. HB 2537, concerning emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) facilities, would require Ecology to report recommendations on post-2035 allowance schedules, continue no-cost allowances if the Legislature does not act, and require biennial reporting and facility plans. Supporters said the bill would help identify decarbonization opportunities facility by facility, while opponents warned about competitiveness and job losses. The bill passed out of committee 12-9. HB 2575 would reduce certain reporting requirements for utilities and Commerce, including removing a heat-disconnection reporting item and making state energy strategy reporting less frequent. Members described it as a streamlining measure that would save utilities money and improve the usefulness of reports. It was reported out unanimously, 21-0. HB 2322, on alternative jet fuel incentives, was amended to base eligibility on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, set a July 1, 2031 effective date, remove capacity thresholds, and drop a Clean Fuels Program carbon-intensity change. Supporters said the substitute clarified the tax incentives, and it passed unanimously, 21-0.

Bills: SB2373, SB2101, SB2905, SB3231, SB2486, SB2376

Keywords: carbon sequestration, marine ecosystem, climate change, renewable energy, biodiversity, nature-based solutions, organic waste, solid waste, waste diversion, composting, bioconversion, recycling, food waste, green waste, food-soiled paper, wood waste, landfill diversion, waste reduction, waste management, county solid waste plan

Summary: The committee heard SB 2006, which would clarify that a farm dwelling permit in an agricultural district may include a single-family farm dwelling with an accessory employee housing structure, subject to restrictions. Testimony was largely supportive, with comments from the Department of Agriculture Biosecurity, DPP, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Hawaii Realtors, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Hawaii Farmers Union, Housing Hawaii Future, and several individuals. The chair noted there were nine in support, two opposed, and four offering comments. In decision-making, the chair recommended passing the bill with OPSD-suggested amendments to clarify the definitions of farm employee housing and bona fide agricultural services. The chair also referenced opposing testimony that raised concern the original draft could limit tourism activities that provide supplemental income for bona fide farming operations. The proposed amendments were intended to make clear that farm employee housing is only for workers and not visitor accommodations, while allowing tourism activities on the same parcel if they are secondary and incidental to a bona fide agricultural operation, do not occur in employee housing units, and comply with county ordinances. The committee adopted the recommendation and voted to pass SB 2006 with amendments. The recorded votes showed the chair, vice chair, Senator Rhoads, and Senator Awa in favor, with Senator DeCoite excused. The same pass-with-amendments recommendation was then made to the housing committee and adopted there as well, with Senator Elephante voting aye and Senator Favella excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could have easily been called a low-carbon portfolio standard.
• It says how much electricity is carbon-free, regardless of the technology.
• Electric cooperatives more flexibility to meet their emissions reduction targets by using this carbon-free
• Nuclear energy is a carbon-free resource and could Available in the future.
• It is a zero-carbon energy. There's absolutely no denying that.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 47, a composting/organic waste measure that had been brought back from the table. The sponsor and witnesses described amendments that reduced the solid waste surcharge, added flexibility for landfills to divert organic waste to regional compost facilities, and delayed the effective date to July 1, 2027. Supporters said the changes made the bill more affordable and workable, while opponents from the waste industry still objected to the surcharge and wanted the proposed study completed before any tax was imposed. After committee discussion, a motion to table resulted in a tie vote, so the bill remained on the table. The committee then heard Senate Bill 195, which appropriates $1 million for training elected officials and staff of soil and water conservation districts. The sponsor and the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts said the money would support compliance training, procurement and audit requirements, board education, and outreach for the state’s 47 districts. Support came from district officials and environmental advocates, who cited increasing responsibilities tied to disasters and climate impacts. The bill passed unanimously. Next, the committee considered Senate Bill 196 and Senate Bill 197, companion appropriations for animal care and spay/neuter services in Las Vegas and Raton. Senators questioned whether the bills mixed operating funds with capital improvements, whether the projects duplicated statewide spay/neuter grants, and how much local funding was involved. The sponsor said the local communities had substantial skin in the game and that the appropriations were needed for facility expansion and repairs. Both bills passed on 6-2 votes. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 198, which would fund an endangered species hatchery and rearing station in Las Vegas. The sponsor argued the project would help restore aquatic species and use available state land and water, while supporters said it would strengthen conservation efforts. Opponents argued New Mexico already has a hatchery doing similar work, raised concerns about nuclear and water issues, and questioned the location and policy direction. After extensive testimony, the committee did not finish the bill and recessed SB 78, a separate measure to allow nuclear energy to count toward renewable portfolio standards, for continued discussion on Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do not believe a reduction of the existing BAC is necessary.
• c><01:27:30.400><c> not</c><01:27:30.639><c> believe</c><01:27:30.800><c> a</c><01:27:31.040><c> reduction
• </c><01:27:31.360><c> of</c> Um so we do not believe a reduction of Um so we do not believe a reduction
• That change led to a 10.4% reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities, with no change in alcohol

Bills: HB1694, HB1695, HB1986, HB1797, HB1879, HB2034

Keywords: sustainable aviation fuel, tax credit, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, Hawaii, economic development, carbon footprint, aviation sector, renewable fuels, local production, energy resilience, agricultural innovation, job creation, clean fuel standard, alternative fuels, carbon intensity, emission reduction, greenhouse gases, transportation, autonomous vehicles

Summary: The committee opened by explaining hearing procedures, including a two-minute oral testimony limit and that decision-making would follow after testimony. It then took up SB 20008, which would set 55 mph as the maximum speed limit on all parts of the DKI/Saddle Road highway. The bill’s introducer described it as a response to safety concerns and noted prior public opposition when the speed limit was lowered from 60 mph; the Hawaii Police Department was listed in opposition, while DOT and several individuals testified in support. No vote was taken during the portion provided. The committee next heard SB 20009, requiring new plates/tags or emblems for used motor vehicles transferred between private individuals, and SB 2026, which would require drivers approaching stationary vehicles on the shoulder or roadside to slow down and, if necessary, change lanes. The Attorney General supported SB 2026 but recommended narrowing and clarifying the language by removing references to shoulder/roadside, collision or mechanical problem, and other limiting definitions so the duty would apply more broadly and be easier to enforce; AAA and OMA also supported the measure. Members discussed the practical need for a mandatory move-over rule, especially for roadside workers and tow operators, and the committee heard concerns about enforceability on two-lane roads and in accident scenes. SB 2053 was then heard, authorizing electronic signatures on supporting documents used to transfer ownership of total-loss vehicles to insurers without notarization and requiring insurers to indemnify the finance director for claims arising from those electronic title issuances. The Hawaii Insurers Council, Copart, the City and County of Honolulu, and others supported the bill, with Copart describing it as a modernization that would reduce delays for total-loss settlements; technical amendments were requested. The committee also heard SB 2172, which would allow all-terrain vehicles to operate at night if equipped with lights and a slow-moving vehicle emblem, adjust helmet requirements, define utility terrain vehicles, and include ATVs in motor vehicle insurance law. DOT said it could support the bill only if limited to low-speed areas, and the insurance industry warned it could create a new insurance scheme; the City and County of Honolulu opposed while the Hawaii Farm Bureau and an individual supported. Finally, SB 2253 was introduced to expand first-degree negligent injury to include injuries negligently inflicted by intoxicated drivers, with DOT, county prosecutors, and the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office in support; Honolulu prosecutors said they would oppose a proposed amendment because they wanted the language to preserve the offense as a lesser included offense tied to negligent homicide.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could have easily been called a low-carbon portfolio standard.
• targets by using this carbon-free baseload energy source.
• Electric cooperatives more flexibility to meet their emissions-reduction targets by using this carbon-free
• It is already in law that nuclear energy is a zero-carbon resource.
• It is a zero-carbon energy. There's absolutely no denying that.

Bills: SB47, SB195, SB196, SB197, SB198, SB78

Keywords: food recovery, composting, waste management, solid waste surcharge, organic waste reduction, environment, grants, advisory group, soil conservation, water resources, training services, outreach programs, environmental protection, animal care, veterinary services, spay and neuter, Las Vegas, community funding, animal welfare, animal shelter

Transcript Highlights:

• These so-called sustainable and clean fuels are not carbon-free. They have carbon.
• </c> to fuels that are carbon-free. to fuels that are carbon-free.
• They have fuels are not carbon-free.
• </c> specifically impacted by the low carbon specifically impacted by the low carbon fuel<00:13:37.800
• </c> additional 1 cent 1% emissions reduction additional 1 cent 1% emissions reduction up<00:15:14.960

Bills: HB1986, HB1694, HB1695, HB2030, HB1673

Keywords: clean fuel standard, alternative fuels, carbon intensity, emission reduction, greenhouse gases, transportation, sustainable aviation fuel, tax credit, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, Hawaii, economic development, carbon footprint, aviation sector, renewable fuels, local production, energy resilience, agricultural innovation, job creation, clean vehicles

Summary: The committee on Energy and Environmental Protection heard testimony on three measures related to cleaner fuels. On HB 1986, which would require the Department of Transportation to adopt rules for a clean fuel standard by January 1, 2028 and include reporting and public informational sessions, testimony was largely supportive from state commissions, fuel companies, airlines, and other industry and advocacy groups. Supporters said the bill would create a long-term framework for reducing emissions and developing cleaner fuels in Hawaii. Opposition came from Energy Justice Network, which argued that so-called clean fuels are not carbon-free, would be costly, and could delay a needed transition to electrification. The department later said it was monitoring the bill and was concerned about costs. No vote or final action was taken in the hearing. The committee then heard HB 1694, a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit bill that would provide a per-gallon credit for SAF, cap annual credits at $20 million, require reporting, and sunset in 2035. The Department of Taxation testified on administration, while the Department of Transportation said it supported the measure as a short-term strategy to jump-start SAF until the clean fuel standard ramps up. Airlines, fuel companies, the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Renewable Fuels Coalition, and others supported the bill, saying it would send a market signal, help close the cost gap with conventional jet fuel, and encourage local production and investment. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network, Life of the Land, and Ted Metros, argued the bill would be expensive, could lock in a transitional fuel system, and would not produce enough fuel to meet demand. Committee members asked about the likely impact and the share of total fuel demand the credit could support; DOT said the supported gallons would be only a very small percentage of annual demand and that the credit was intended to work alongside the future clean fuel standard. Finally, the committee took up HB 1695 HD1 on renewable fuel, which expands the renewable fuels production tax credit. Testimony was again mixed but generally supportive from the Department of Transportation, Department of Taxation, Island Energy Services, airlines, the Tax Foundation, Pana Pacific, and the Hawaii Farm Bureau. Supporters said the measure would encourage local feedstock production, create agricultural opportunities, and help attract investment in renewable fuels. Pana Pacific requested an amendment to explicitly include camelina in the definition of renewable feedstocks. Opponents, including Energy Justice Network and Life of the Land, repeated concerns about cost, imported feedstocks, and the risk of undermining full electrification goals. The hearing transcript does not show any vote or final committee action on HB 1694 or HB 1695 HD1.

Transcript Highlights:

• It emits carbon dioxide.
• , the low-carbon portfolio, or the...
• Say the carbon, the low-carbon portfolio, or the zero-carbon portfolio, or what it says is renewable.
• And that is intended to be an offset, a carbon emission offset equivalent to the carbon emissions being
• As far as carbon emission, you know, carbon-burning, you know, carbon-burning climate-killing fuels,

Bills: SB78, SB235, SB22, SB310

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 78, which would classify nuclear energy as renewable energy. Senator Thornton and supporters argued that New Mexico needs dispatchable, baseload power and that nuclear should be added to the state’s renewable portfolio standard because wind and solar are intermittent and require extensive land, mining, and battery storage. Supporters also emphasized nuclear’s zero-carbon profile, the safety record of U.S. Navy reactors, the possibility of small modular reactors, and the fact that New Mexico already uses nuclear-generated electricity from out of state. Opponents, including Senator O’Malley and Senator Charlie, argued nuclear is not renewable because it relies on finite uranium and creates long-lived radioactive waste, and they raised concerns about uranium mining impacts, waste storage, and the bill’s lack of a limiting principle. The committee voted 5-4 to do not pass the bill, with Senators Cervantes, Hamblen, O’Malley, Lopez, and Charlie voting yes on the do-not-pass motion and Senators Ezell, Scott, and Thornton voting no; the chair then explained that the vote reflected disagreement over whether nuclear should be labeled renewable, not opposition to nuclear power itself. The committee then heard Senate Bill 235, the Microgrid Oversight Act, with a committee substitute. Sponsor Senator Steinborn said the substitute would restore existing renewable benchmarks for microgrids, require large microgrids to meet zero-carbon targets by 2045, add reporting and PRC oversight, and close a loophole that could let utilities buy microgrid power and shift costs to ratepayers. Supporters, including environmental groups and community advocates, said the bill was needed to regulate large data-center microgrids such as Project Jupiter in Doña Ana County, which they said could drive major emissions, ozone, and nitrogen oxide pollution, strain water supplies, and undermine state climate goals. They also argued the bill would protect ratepayers and ensure transparency and community benefits. Opponents, including Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, oil and gas associations, Xcel Energy, PNM, Consumer Energy Alliance, and economic development groups, argued the bill would impose unnecessary regulation on private microgrids, slow investment, raise costs, and reduce flexibility for reliability projects and industrial development. They said microgrids are already regulated for safety and interconnection, and that the bill could discourage projects in New Mexico. In response, Steinborn said the bill was necessary because current law leaves a loophole for large polluting microgrids and because several major projects are already planned or underway. The committee heard extensive public testimony on both sides, but the transcript ends before a final vote on SB 235 is taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It emits carbon dioxide.
• Zero carbon emissions.
• , the low-carbon portfolio or the...
• Say the carbon, the low-carbon portfolio, or the zero-carbon portfolio, or what it says is renewable.
• And that is intended to be an offset, a carbon emission offset equivalent to the carbon emissions being

Bills: SB78, SB235, SB22, SB310

Keywords: nuclear energy, renewable energy, sustainability, carbon emissions, energy regulation, microgrid, zero carbon resources, Public Regulation Commission, energy generation, electric utilities, motor vehicle manufacturers, licensing, dealers, franchise agreements, consumer protection, water supply, sewage improvements, environment, funding, Mora County

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the change is even more extreme for their LIHEAP customers, where they saw an 81% reduction in
• Wetlands are powerful carbon storage systems.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met and first considered SB 321 with Senate Amendment 1, the community solar utility billing bill. The sponsor explained that it would consolidate the two-bill system for community solar subscribers into one utility bill, with the utility forwarding the subscriber fee to the solar facility through an escrow mechanism so costs are not shifted to other ratepayers. Testimony from the solar industry, the Public Advocate, and environmental advocates supported the measure, emphasizing easier enrollment, fewer barriers for low-income customers, and guaranteed savings. The committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, but after a roll call vote it was released from committee. The committee then heard SB 9 with Senate Amendment 1, a wetlands protection bill creating a state non-tidal freshwater wetlands permitting program. The sponsor and DNREC described a framework of exemptions, general permits, and individual permits based on wetland type and value, with an advisory committee to develop regulations. Witnesses explained that “exceptional value” wetlands would include unique wetland communities and high-functioning wetlands, and that the bill was intended to preserve important habitat while allowing farming, drainage, and other exempt activities to continue. Some members raised concerns about flooding, land classification, and the balance of the advisory committee, while supporters said the bill was the product of broad stakeholder consensus and would protect wetlands without unduly harming agriculture or development. Public comment on SB 9 was strongly supportive from environmental groups, the Delaware Native Species Commission, the Home Builders Association, the Farm Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, and affordable housing advocates, who said the bill balanced conservation with practical land use concerns. After remote testimony, the committee took a roll call vote and SB 9 was released from committee. The meeting concluded with remarks thanking the chair for her service and instructions for members to sign the backers before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that change is even more extreme for our LIHEAP customers there, where we saw an 81% reduction in
• Wetlands are powerful carbon storage systems.

Bills: SB9

Keywords: wetlands protection, nontidal wetlands, Delaware, environmental sustainability, climate change, carbon sink, permitting process

Summary: The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee met to consider two Senate bills. SB 321, with Senate Amendment 1, would change community solar billing so subscribers receive one consolidated utility bill instead of separate bills from the utility and the solar provider. Supporters said the bill would simplify enrollment and payment, improve customer retention—especially for low-income customers—and include safeguards such as guaranteed savings and an escrow mechanism to prevent cost shifts to other ratepayers. After public testimony from solar developers, the Public Advocate, the Sierra Club, and others, the committee initially lacked enough members present to release the bill, so the vote was circulated to absent members and the bill was later reported out for floor action. The committee then heard SB 9, with Senate Amendment 1, a long-negotiated wetlands protection bill. The sponsor and DNREC explained that it would create a state non-tidal wetlands program with exemptions for certain agricultural, conservation, and routine activities, general permits for some lower-impact projects, and individual permits for higher-value wetlands. Witnesses described the bill as a compromise among environmental, agricultural, development, and local government stakeholders, while some members raised questions about flooding, landowner impacts, wetland delineation, and the role of the regulatory advisory committee. Public testimony was broadly supportive from environmental groups, the Farm Bureau, builders, engineers, and affordable housing advocates. The committee then voted to release SB 9 from committee. At the end of the meeting, members offered thanks and remarks recognizing the chair’s service and leadership on environmental and energy issues. Both bills were ultimately released from committee and reported out.

Transcript Highlights:

• But Canadian of carbon cash back.
• Finally, carbon cash back is based on an unproven theory that carbon taxes will reduce carbon emissions
• policy on emissions reductions and concluded overall the reduction from carbon pricing was limited to
• Finally, carbon cash back is based on an unproven theory that carbon taxes will reduce carbon emissions
• policy on emissions reductions and concluded overall the reduction from carbon pricing was limited to

Bills: HB1617

Keywords: carbon emissions, tax credit, fossil fuel, agriculture, food security, environmental tax, greenhouse gas, 910, house, all

Summary: The committees heard testimony on HB 1949, which would create a public dashboard for the green fee to improve transparency and accountability. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, and many community and conservation groups was generally supportive, with several speakers urging that the governor’s project recommendations remain largely intact and that community-driven projects continue to guide spending. One amendment was suggested to place the dashboard at the Department of Budget and Finance for fiscal expertise, while other testimony favored keeping it with the commission. Members asked about procurement, ETS involvement, recurring hosting costs, and whether the dashboard could be funded from green fee revenues; the commission said it could work with ETS and that green fee funds could reasonably be used. The committees then voted to pass HB 1949 with amendments. The committees also heard HB 2618, which would require the governor to submit a separate bill for amounts tied to any increase in the transient accommodations tax and, in later discussion, was expanded into a broader restructuring of future green fee allocations. Testimony from the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, and others supported the bill and emphasized the value of more predictable, dedicated funding for conservation and climate-related work. During decision-making, the chair described amendments creating several special funds under DLNR, including a watershed biodiversity and wildfire risk reduction fund, an aquatic resources conservation fund, a coastal restoration fund, a cesspool conversion revolving loan fund, and a green fee special fund for remaining revenues, with recommended amounts discussed for some of the funds. The committees voted to pass HB 2618 with amendments. The hearing then moved to HB 1644, a consumer protection measure for residential solar sales that would require compliance with consumer protection laws, licensing or contractor affiliation for sellers, and a standardized disclosure form. Testimony in support came from the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, DCCA’s Office of Consumer Protection, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, the Hawaii Solar Energy Association, and several solar companies and individuals. Supporters said the bill would address complaints about third-party sales practices and improve disclosure, especially around financing. The committee then began hearing HB 2243, which would require electric utilities to provide public, electronic customer bill impact analyses and annual reports to the Public Utilities Commission; the Division of Consumer Advocacy and the PUC offered comments supporting the measure’s intent.

Transcript Highlights:

• The article a result of the reduction.
• The first chunk shows revenue reductions, and these are the largest revenue reductions relative to the
• The first chunk shows revenue reductions, and these are the largest revenue reductions relative to the
• revenue reductions shows revenue reductions and<00:19:07.440><c> these</c><00:19:08.000><c> are</c><00
• </c> that have the largest revenue reduction that have the largest revenue reduction or<00:19:19.760>

Bills: HF9

Keywords: energy policy, renewable energy standard, carbon-free standard, solar standard, hydroelectric, hydropower, electric utility, Public Utilities Commission, PUC, renewable portfolio standard, carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, greenhouse gas emissions, climate policy, nuclear power plant, certificate of need, fossil fuel plant demolition, utility compliance delay, beneficial electrification, sales tax exemption

Transcript Highlights:

• vote in November for a constitutional amendment to either be for, uh, allowing Class 6 gas wells or carbon
• </c><00:09:21.519><c> gas</c><00:09:21.839><c> whale</c><00:09:22.240><c> or</c><00:09:22.800><c> carbon
• </c><00:09:23.279><c> dioxide</c> class 6 gas whale or carbon dioxide class 6 gas whale or carbon dioxide

Bills: SB266, SB287, SB266, SB287

Keywords: contract review, legislative oversight, state agencies, funding transparency, professional services, Sheriff, Barbour County, law enforcement, qualifications, training, executive education, Covington County, Alabama constitutional amendment, local amendment, carbon dioxide sequestration, carbon capture and storage, CCS, Class VI well, underground injection well, Underground Injection Control Program

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll take questions. of low carbon standards. of low carbon standards.
• </c> low-carbon energy. low-carbon energy.
• </c> the costs are in developing carbon the costs are in developing carbon CO2<01:08:19.520><c> capture
• <01:08:33.799><c> capture</c><01:08:34.880><c> methodologies</c> carbon capture methodologies carbon
• </c> up because it's not a low-carbon up because it's not a low-carbon standard<01:16:19.360><c> in</

Bills: HB0116, HB0056

Keywords: water rights, beneficial use, industrial production, hydrogen, applications, public welfare, carbon capture, energy standards, public utilities, environmental regulation, state law, 916, all

Bills: HB393, HB61

Keywords: tax abatement, incentive programs, NAICS code, economic development, business, Covington County, carbon dioxide, underground wells, nonhazardous fluids, environmental protection, constitutional amendment, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And then next up we have Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. Michael Paul in support.
• House Bill 1981, relating to a program to characterize carbon sequestration potential and geothermal
• House Bill 1981, relating to a program to characterize carbon sequestration potential and geothermal
• 42.160><c> program</c><00:48:42.480><c> to</c><00:48:42.720><c> characterize</c><00:48:43.280><c> carbon
• </c> to a program to characterize carbon to a program to characterize carbon sequestration<00:48:44.319

Bills: HB1924, HB2121, HB1928, HB1979, HB1650, HB1543, HB1981, HB1982

Keywords: mattress recycling, waste management, producer responsibility, environmental health, steafardship program, electronic cigarettes, disposable devices, environmental protection, plastic pollution, lithium batteries, pollution control, public health, deposit beverage container, bottle bill, container deposit law, container redemption, recycling refund, extended producer responsibility, EPR, deposit return system

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's low-carbon.
• It's low-carbon.
• It's low-carbon.
• It's low-carbon. It's It's secure. It's low-carbon.
• </c> carbon-free standard. carbon-free standard.

Bills: HF4560, HF4559, HF2317, HF3179, HF4880, HF2862, HF4374

Keywords: Public Utilities Commission, PUC, energy regulation, utility regulation, electric utility, public utility, rate case, multiyear rate plan, decoupling, rate decoupling, greenhouse gas, social cost of carbon, environmental cost, resource planning, certificate of need, distributed renewable energy, interconnection, budget billing, electronic filing, contested case

Transcript Highlights:

• Importantly, this section requires carbon-free energy tracking on an hourly basis, which supports the
• If utilities are required to incur greater costs for little to no additional reductions in carbon, those
• Minnesota's carbon-free by 2040 statute provides an existing framework for transitioning to carbon-free
• House File 2928 appears to establish a new framework for carbon-free, which we see as unnecessary.
• Lastly, I'll just add that the carbon reduction will deliver a carbon-neutral building in this urban

Bills: HF2928, HF2912, HF2297

Keywords: water appropriation, data centers, environmental review, energy conservation, permit application, carbon-free energy, geothermal energy, renewable energy, Macalester College, appropriation, sustainability, solar energy, pollinator programs, license plates, agrivoltaics, environmental sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• If the utilities are required to incur greater costs for little to no additional reductions in carbon
• If the utilities are required to incur greater costs for little to no additional reductions in carbon
• If the utilities are required to incur greater costs for little to no additional reductions in carbon
• Lastly, I'll just add the carbon reduction will deliver a carbon-neutral building in this urban environment
• :59:36.480><c> a</c> uh carbon reduction will deliver a uh carbon reduction will deliver a carbon<00:

Bills: HF2928, HF2912, HF2297

Keywords: water appropriation, data centers, environmental review, energy conservation, permit application, carbon-free energy, geothermal energy, renewable energy, Macalester College, appropriation, sustainability, solar energy, pollinator programs, license plates, agrivoltaics, environmental sustainability, 1183, house