07/15/2025
𝐄𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐜𝐮𝐬’𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐅. 𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
𝘕𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘍. 𝘷. 𝘏𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘪 𝘋𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 was a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of young persons seeking legal protections to guarantee a better environment. The lawsuit was settled. The co-chairs of the Environmental Caucus, along with advisor Mike Ewall, strongly believe that the settlement negotiations are leading toward a final inadequate settlement.
The centerpiece of the negotiations is a “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan” that is required by the settlement. A plan to reach zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045 seems wonderful, and it would apply to ground transportation plus sea and air interisland transportation.
However, it quickly becomes evident that many dangerous and polluting technologies are intended as part of this “solution.” First, any such solution would require electrifying the transportation sector. This would mean that the electricity sector, not just certain transportation sectors, has to be completely decarbonized.
The transportation sector cannot be zero emission if it relies on an electricity sector that is still powered, in part, by GHG-emitting combustion sources. Currently, the state’s electricity sector is powered largely by burning oil, plus some burning of trash, trees, and biofuels, all of which must be eliminated to reach a zero GHG emissions target.
With support from the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring 100% renewable electricity by 2045, this is very achievable, especially once the RPS law is fixed to remove combustion technologies so that the burning of “biomass” (trash, trees and other solid waste and crops), liquid biofuels, and biogas (toxic landfill gases and anaerobic digester gas) no longer qualify.
You can electrify ground transportation, and sea and air interisland transportation, while decarbonizing the electricity sector, in a clean way that focuses on conservation, efficiency, solar, wind, and energy storage, as KIUC is showing is possible. This can be done reliably, more cheaply, and with fewer environmental impacts than the false solutions outlined below.
This GHG Reduction Plan is elevating multiple false solutions such as:
̲𝙱̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚘̲̲𝚏̲̲𝚞̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚜̲: burning biofuels releases GHGs plus other air contaminants. Production takes up land, depletes water and soils. Furthermore, genetically engineered biotech enzymes and crops are being pushed as part of this, risking our natural ecology. Claims of carbon neutrality have been scientifically debunked and this faulty carbon accounting should not be permitted to justify biofuels. As the Department of Agriculture testimony showed on SB 995 in 2025, there is nearly no land or water available to grow “sustainable aviation fuel” in the state, which means that nearly all reliance on biofuels will require shipping it in from the Americas.
̲𝚆̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚎̲-̲𝚋̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚍̲ ̲𝚏̲̲𝚞̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚜̲: some companies are advocating gasification or pyrolysis technologies to make burnable fuels from construction and demolition debris and other waste streams. This is toxic and polluting, quite expensive, and has not worked at commercial scale.
̲𝙱̲̲𝚞̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚐̲ ̲𝚝̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚑̲ ̲𝚊̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚍̲ ̲𝚝̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚜̲: “biomass” is, regrettably, part of the state Renewable Portfolio Standard law mandating 100% renewable electricity by 2045. Burning trash is dirtier than burning coal by many measures, and is 65% worse than coal for the climate. Burning trees is 50% worse than coal for the climate, yet advocates of both forms of “biomass” argue that they are climate solutions and get away with zeroing out their “biogenic” carbon emissions with faulty carbon accounting tricks. Both trash and tree burning are also among the most expensive ways to produce electricity. They must be eliminated.
̲𝚆̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚐̲ ̲𝚎̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚢̲ (̲𝚑̲̲𝚢̲̲𝚍̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚘̲̲𝚐̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚗̲ & ̲𝚍̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚝̲ ̲𝚊̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚛̲ ̲𝚌̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚙̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚞̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚎̲): Hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuels, but could be produced by splitting water with electrolysis using wind or solar electricity. This is “green” hydrogen, but technically, any “renewable” electricity is color-coded as “green,” which means burning trash or trees is also included, even though their GHGs are worse than coal. Even if only wind and solar were used for electrolysis, 50-80% of the energy is still wasted. It is better to use that clean electricity directly until the grid is so saturated with wind and solar (aided by storage) that there is extra wind and solar we can afford to “waste” by making hydrogen for sectors that cannot easily be electrified.
Long-distance aviation and some industrial heating applications are the only sectors that may need this, and both are outside of the scope of this settlement. Prematurely allowing “green” hydrogen in the plan just means more oil burning to make up for the electricity wasted making hydrogen.
Direct air capture is another inefficient and wasteful scheme some aim to combine with other energy-wasting ideas (green hydrogen) to make “sustainable aviation fuel” which is specifically promoted in the settlement. Like green hydrogen, it makes no sense to use before the electric grid is 100% powered by non-combustion renewable energy sources and has extra wind and solar to spare. Doing so would release about as much or more CO2 than it would capture, either directly by using oil-fired power, or indirectly by using up renewables that could be displacing oil-fired power.
̲𝙻̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚔̲̲𝚢̲ ̲𝚙̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚙̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚜̲: transportation of hydrogen and methane in existing, leaky gas pipelines risks ongoing GHG releases and should not be allowed.
̲𝙾̲̲𝚏̲̲𝚏̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚜̲: while the settlement thankfully does not advocate offsets or “net” zero approaches, these schemes are common, and often scuttle real reductions by claiming reductions elsewhere in the world, which are often illusory and unaccountable, if not outright fraudulent.
̲𝙽̲̲𝚞̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚛̲: the need to decarbonize the electricity sector to electrify transportation in a “zero GHG” way may lead to a push for nuclear power. Nuclear power, however, is far too expensive, risky, and slow to make sense for this purpose. Even the State Energy Office is critical of nuclear power, for good reasons outlined in their testimonies on 2025 bills to study nuclear power in our state: SB 1588 and SCR 136.
̲𝙶̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚘̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚑̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚛̲̲𝚖̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚕̲: Geothermal has consistently ranked among the most expensive forms of electric power production, right up there with trash and tree burning and nuclear power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Puna residents have been complaining for many years about air releases of hydrogen sulfide and other chemicals brought up in the process (toxic metals, radon, etc.), health impacts when the community has been exposed to these gases, drilling impacts (noise, well blowouts, underground fracturing, not plugging wells), reinjection of toxic chemicals into the ground, cultural concerns, and the challenges when a lava flow risked igniting 60,000 gallons of pentane stored on-site, which needed help from the governor’s emergency order to evacuate the chemicals from the danger zone. It’s possible that geothermal could be done in a more responsible (truly “closed-loop”) way, but doing so would make it even more expensive. The 100% clean energy plan by Earthjustice’s expert, Mark Jacobson, relies on a 16-fold increase in geothermal in the state.
̲𝚃̲̲𝚘̲̲𝚡̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚌̲ ̲𝙰̲̲𝚜̲̲𝚑̲ ̲𝚁̲̲𝚎̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚢̲̲𝚌̲̲𝚕̲̲𝚒̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚐̲ ̲𝚘̲̲𝚗̲̲𝚝̲̲𝚘̲ ̲𝚁̲̲𝚘̲̲𝚊̲̲𝚍̲̲𝚜̲: Honolulu is pursuing plans to take the toxic ash from the H-POWER trash incinerator and build roads with it all over the island. These would be basically unlined landfills, exposing people and the environment to the dioxins and toxic metals in the ash. If it’s too dangerous to have the same ash in a double-lined landfill over the aquifer, it’s surely too dangerous to be putting in roads, all over the aquifer with no liner systems. However, this will likely be misleadingly framed as a strategy for making “low carbon concrete,” which the scope of work for the GHG Reduction Plan says will be “piloted” by HDOT.
These are some of the very critical concerns that the Environmental Caucus has already raised regarding the settlement. However, the Plaintiffs’ representatives have not been responsive to our concerns so far. We will continue to ask critical questions about these false solutions, and to do all in our power to urge the Legislature and others to reject these schemes in any GHG Reduction Plan. We also call on Environmental Caucus members to object to future legislation that advances these technologies and to work to revise the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, phasing out existing uses of these harmful energy technologies and prevent any expansion of them as we work toward decarbonizing the electricity and transportation sectors by 2045.
Send a message to learn more
