Committees defer bill that shortens challenge window for environmental reviews after broad opposition

Legislative chairs announced they would defer HB1979 HD3—legislation that shortens timelines for challenging environmental assessments and impact statements—after extended testimony from agencies, environmental groups and affected communities.

Mary Alice Evans, director of the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, told committees the HD3 is an improvement in some respects and that the amendment deleting a proposed restriction on attorney's fees makes the proposal more reasonable. “We're very happy with the changes made in the HD3,” Evans said, adding that the bill aligns certain EIS timelines with longstanding EA practice.

But Office of Hawaiian Affairs representative Aloha Makuanani warned the shortened filing window from 120 to 30 days could “have a chilling effect on legitimate public interest claims,” singling out Native Hawaiian beneficiaries who use reviews to enforce environmental and cultural protections. “We do appreciate the prior amendments … but we do still have some concerns that this may have a chilling effect on legitimate public interest claims,” the witness said.

Environmental advocates pressed that the statute being blamed for permitting delays is not the central problem. “Earthjustice supports affordable housing,” said Isaac Moriwaki, “and 343 is not the issue. If there's no significant impacts to a clean energy project, by all means, go forth, exempt it.” Moriwaki urged proper application of environmental review rather than curtailing public access to challenge decisions.

Other witnesses, including Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, described the 30-day appeal window as unrealistic for many communities and argued that shortening the timeframe would not address permitting, financing, or infrastructure constraints that delay projects.

After noting the volume of opposing testimony and concerns about impacts on public participation and transparency, the chair said recorded testimony showed substantial opposition (the chair stated 43 opposed, 4 in support, and 4 comments during the hearing) and moved to defer the bill indefinitely.

The committee action pauses the measure; proponents said the bill aimed to speed construction of affordable housing and clean-energy projects, but committee leaders agreed more work is required before advancing any statutory change.