What did the most recent bills look like and why did they die in committee?

(1) 2023-2024 Bills (air pollution)

Senate Bill (SB) 54, and its companion (HB) 575, proposed to ban the sale, offer of sale, and use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers in any urban land use district because the ‘exhaust and sound emissions from gasoline-powered leaf blowers are a great concern for the State's public health and welfare’.

Government entities were not to be exempted.

Why did these bills die?

2023-2024 Testimony: SB 54 and companion bill HB 575

In short:

State Attorney General Lopez advised the committee against an appeal to ‘exhaust emissions’ citing a potential conflict with the federal government, as a ban on sale and operation 'could be deemed an emissions standard, which is preempted by the CAA’ (SB 54). Further, ‘[a] restriction banning all gasoline powered engines in favor of electric may also be deemed an emission standard: ‘“[A] mandate requiring a specified percentage of manufacturers in state sales to be of "zero-emission vehicles" was found to be a preempted "standard" under CAA § 209)”’ (HB 575). The AG recommended ‘creating an objective standard to restrict use of equipment creating noise over a certain decibel level in certain circumstances’ (e.g. ANSI certification and the 65 decibel limit) (bold added).

The AG comments have implied that air pollution (or anything to do with exhaust emissions) could not be used to justify a ban. The bill was rewritten to apply to noise pollution alone, construed only as excessive decibels.

On this the health department cited an inability to properly regulate noise from leaf blowers because they are mobile sources of pollution, as opposed to stationary. Enforcement of any ban would also require funds and staff that the health department did not have.

Direct opposition to the bills came from the Retail Merchants of Hawaii and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), with both claiming economic harm and the inefficiency of commercial battery or electric leaf blowers.

The Director of Facility Maintenance and the Director of Parks and Rec. jointly opposed HB 575 on the grounds that the use of gas leaf blowers, regardless of pollution, is nonetheless ‘critical for proper maintenance of City-owned properties throughout the island of Oʻahu’, and claimed that ‘[b]attery-powered leaf blower operability usually lasts 20-40 minutes on a full charge, which would drastically hamper our operations, and impede our ability to effectively and efficiently provide services and perform maintenance actions’.

The Superintendent of Education, while recognising the harmful impacts of gas leaf blowers, likewise appealed to the cost and inefficiency of battery operated leaf blowers, especially for the maintenance of schools with large acreage (HB 575).

The Major of District 7 of the Honolulu Police department (HPD) deferred to the Supremacy Clause put forward by the AG, and directly opposed the bill citing issues with forfeiture of equipment on a third violation (enforcement). HPD’s evidence room or other spaces would not be equipped to store gas leaf blowers because their oil and gas mix is hazardous and storage is costly. Another reason is that HPD would be forced to destroy the equipment, since it could not be auctioned in the face of a ban, and ‘disposal of hazardous materials’ is costly.

From the standpoint of enforcement, HPD opposes the bill because time of use restrictions would be ‘far more reasonable’. (HB 575).

Is any of this right?

The long read:

(i) Conflict with federal government regarding emission standards

Attorney General Lopez advised the committee that ‘[r]egarding exhaust emissions from gasoline-powered leaf blowers, Congress has explicitly preempted regulation’:

‘No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions from . . . new nonroad engines . . .’. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(e)(1).

According to the AG (SB 54), the preemption is explicit: ‘Preemption exists when federal law so thoroughly occupies a legislative field "as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it.”’ (All emphases added).

'"Field preemption" occurs when Congress indicates in some manner an intent to occupy a given field to the exclusion of state law”’. The field being emission standards.

Put simply, as OPEI (cite) likes to argue, ‘the U.S. EPA has sole jurisdiction for small engine emission regulations’.

With regard to HB 575, the AG argues that ‘a mandate requiring a specified percentage of manufacturers in state sales to be of "zero-emission vehicles" was found to be a preempted "standard" under CAA § 209’.

The state is not at liberty to create its own regulations regarding gas leaf blower exhaust emissions, where zero emissions is also considered a ‘standard’. Hawaii is at liberty, however, to regulate ‘noise concerns’ because they are not federally regulated.

⁉️ Is this right?

How does a state’s ban on the sale and use of gas leaf blowers equate to regulation of an EPA emission standard on new nonroad engines?

The EPA’s ‘emission standard’ ‘limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants’ in the manufacture of new engines.  For mobile sources of air pollution; standards are set for the ‘specific pollutants being emitted’ (six exhaust and evaporative pollutants).

EPA regulations for non road engines ‘address only the permissible emission rates from new, certified products’. Thus, ‘State and local governments have limited authority to set emission standards for new products’ (Heavily polluted (non attainment) states can adopt California’s emissions standards, but Hawaii’s air pollution is considered to be in attainment). In attainment, Hawaii cannot make its own, stricter emission standard for the manufacture of new equipment by further limiting, or controlling the amount of carbon monoxide emitted for example.

However, states and local governments are permitted to ‘adopt regulations that restrict the use and operation of most products that are no longer new’.

‘Most’ appears to preclude `new locomotives'' and `new engines used in a locomotive’ (section 209 e 1B).

‘New’ means that the equipment has not been sold to an end user and ‘placed into service’. That is, it is still on the shelf, ‘brand new’, at the retail store; it has not been used or operated. Once the equipment is placed into service, and no longer ‘new’, States and local governments are at liberty to regulate such use and operation.

‘A nonroad engine, vehicle, or equipment is placed into service when it is used for its functional purposes’: leaf blowers are used to blow leaves, dust, and debris. To do this the ignition must be turned on and the equipment moved about by an operator, i.e. operated. What can be regulated then is the use and operation of the machine, that is, leaf blowing, in and of itself.

When use and operation is banned, air pollution is necessarily reduced. The EPA cannot mean to say that states must endure unnecessary air pollution, or that gas leaf blowers are required by law.

It seems clear that ‘room’ has been left for states to supplement the emission standard for small non road engines by regulating use and operation of the equipment, that is ‘leaf blowing’ as such.

In the letter of advice, Attorney General Lopez acknowledges that ‘Hawaii is not precluded from regulating the use and operation of leaf blowers, including hours of operation, altogether’. Here, ‘use and operation’ is taken to mean ‘time of use’ (where, when, and for how long the equipment is operated).

On this interpretation, and given the presupposed field preemption, it seems to be inferred that control of gas leaf blower engines with regard to noise pollution e.g. decibel ratings, or time of use (which is not federally preempted), can be grounds for restrictions, but air pollution cannot.

Justifying a ban (in part) intent on reducing the serious and unnecessary health effects caused by the use and operation of leaf blowers is not suppression of criteria pollutants during manufacture. The intention of the ban is to protect the health of Hawaii’s residents and future generations; the health of the environment; and the health of the climate, an exercise of the police powers of the state.

How does a state’s ‘favoring’ of zero emissions (battery/electric leaf blowers) equate to violation of section CAA 209?

In response to HB 575, the AG argues that ‘a mandate requiring a specified percentage of manufacturers in state sales to be of "zero-emission vehicles" was found to be a preempted "standard" under CAA § 209)’ (HB 575).

Note that the mandate relates to ‘vehicles’, i.e. new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Gas leaf blowers are not vehicles, they are classified as small, non road engines. Further, there is no text in Section 209 relating to sale. CAA Section 177, regards the ‘sale of a new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine that is certified in California as meeting California standards’.

Presumably, ‘zero’ is a quantifiable amount with regard to exhaust emissions. Obviously, there can be no such thing as a zero emissions gas leaf blower. This is why they are regulated in the first place.

But, could it be the case that a ban on the sale of new gas leaf blowers is an emission standard, given that ‘new’ engines are preempted from regulation by the state, and a new engine is new as long as it has not be put into service?

It doesn’t matter. A complete ban of the use and operation of gas leaf blowers (i.e. gas powered leaf blowing) would automatically pre-empt the sale.

Zero-emissions does not mean zero pollution. Electric/battery equipment nonetheless pollutes the air with particulate matter and noise that harms.

It is not the case that ‘[a]restriction banning all gasoline powered engines in favor of electric may also be deemed an emission standard’; rather, a ban may be deemed a provision of the legal right of all of us to a clean, healthful environment. This is obviously within the state’s police powers. Leaf blowing violates this right. What is regulated with a ban is not the engine’s emissions, but leaf blowing in and of itself, i.e. use and operation.

The 2027 bill would also be regulating/restricting the decibels and time of use of electric/battery leaf blowing.

because this too (obviously to a much lesser degree), causes adverse health effects. Zero-emissions does not mean zero pollution. Electric/battery equipment nonetheless pollutes the air with particulate matter and noise that harms.

The point is, the EPA does not limit control new leaf blower engines as far as decibels and low frequency noise. And because the engine itself does not emit criteria pollutants it surely does not come under the CAA section 9 or any vehicle mandates.

✅ Legal validation for a ban on gas leaf blowers as it relates to exhaust emission standards (including zero-emssions):

In June, 2026 the US district court of New Jersey found that a ban on ‘the use of gas-powered leaf blowers year-round on both private and public property’:

‘does not impose a quantifiable emissions limit, require pollution-limiting equipment or after-treatment specification, or dictate engine-emissions criteria” and therefore does not impose a “standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions” in violation of the Clean Air Act’. 

On appeal, the court found that plaintiffs (residents and landscape companies) failed to show economic harm.

(ii) Retail Merchants of Hawaii: cost, inefficiency, and economic harm

The Retail Merchants of Hawaii opposed SB 54 for the following reasons:

• Electric leaf blowers are almost double the cost of gas leaf blowers and thus ‘cost prohibitive for many landscape companies as well as those who take care of their own lawn’.

• ‘Retailers listen to what their customers want’: ‘There is not a large call for electric leaf blowers’.

• ‘Technology still needs to be worked on as the equipment has performance issues’.

• ‘The batteries need constant charging, and some leaf blowers are not as powerful to truly be useful’.

• ‘[l]ocal businesses would either have to sell these types of gasoline powered blowers at a loss or trash them’.

❗️Is this right?

See response to OPEI testimony immediately below, and response to the Retail Merchants of Hawaii 2024-2025 testimony in the next section.

But consider briefly that ‘burning gas all day long is expensive’.

Research indicates that gas leaf blowers are more expensive in the long run.

(iii) OPEI: no legislation necessary, no authority, economic harm, and ineffiency

⁉️ Is this right?

In defense of pollution as a short term problem

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), a private, members only trade association, presents itself as the industry ‘Leader in Power Technology and Innovation: In agreement with the Retail merchants of Hawaii, who claim that some electric powered equipment is essentially useless; OPEI argues that gasoline powered equipment has more power and is cheaper for commercial purposes because power, technology, and innovation with regard to batteries is currently lacking.

In a seeming contradiction to the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, who claim that there is no ‘large call for electric blowers’, OPEI argues that zero-emissions equipment (ZEE):

• ‘is the number one driver of OPE demand and future industry growth’

• ‘Electric “handheld” leaf blowers and electric hedge trimmers represented approximately 80% of all handheld leaf blower and hedge trimmers shipments in 2022.

The purpose of the inadvertent contradiction is to argue that ‘the majority of “handheld” products shipped are already ZEE’. Gas leaf blowers will die out on their own (eventually), so legislation is unnecessary. Nonethless, it will still be a while because technology needs ‘further advancements’ for commercial landscapers to be able to get as much efficiency (profit) out of them.

OPEI seems to have forgotten that the problem is chronic air and noise pollution, now, that is, the public’s health, and the climate’s health right this moment. Is it feasible to get rid of something that creates widespread health harms unnecessarily? It is not feasible to those who profit from it. Why should people continue to suffer air and noise pollution until technology, that will allow commercial landscapers to make the same amount of profit with electric, evolves?

No one wants to argue that gas leaf blowers are the only culprits, but their unnecessary contribution to poor health outcomes for people, environment , and climate, is nonetheless widely undisputed.

What are the standard arguments from OPEI in opposition to bans around the nation?

OPEI argues that ‘“Facts” comparing outdoor power equipment emissions to automobiles are not rooted in sound data and are false’.

This relates to long-established claims against gasoline powered leaf blowers, used by our own legislators, for example, that ‘use of a commercial gasoline-powered leaf blower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as a 2016 Toyota Camry being driven one thousand one hundred miles, and more than three times as much pollution as a commercial gasoline-powered lawn mower’ (from HB 575).

It is not quite clear why OPEI thinks the claims are false.

Perhaps, the reason is that gas leaf blowers cannot be regulated in the same way as car as trucks because they are not conducive to catalysts or particulate filters. They are not vehicles. But this only confirms that emissions from gas leaf blowers are necessarily worse regardless of comparisons with cars and trucks. They are incapable of meaningful regulation short of a ban.

(1) Regarding what regulation there is, OPEI argues that ‘the EPA is on its third phase of pollutant controls for small engine-powered equipment, resulting in up to 90% reductions in exhaust gas and evaporative emissions from previously unregulated machines’.

While there is no doubt that OPEI has had a significant impact on the reduction of small engine pollution over the past 30 years, and we are appreciative, the third phase alone does not account for the 90%, nor does it specifically apply to gas leaf blowers or string trimmers, it applies to all kinds of small engine equipment, e.g. ‘lawn and garden equipment, utility vehicles, generators, and a variety of other construction, farm, and industrial equipment’.

Further, according to the EPA final rule announcement for the third phase: ‘[w]e are not adopting new exhaust emission standards for handheld emissions’. ‘Handheld’ presumably meaning gas leaf blowers and string trimmers (bold added). No new exhaust standards this equipment have been put in place since 2010-2011.

What was adopted with phase 3 was new evaporative emission standard of 45% reduction concerning specific fuel emissions (for all small non road spark ignition engines). This is good news regarding the gag-inducing stink of toxic gasoline fumes at dinner time, but gas leaf blowers still emit particulates and exhaust, which are difficult to contain given the incomplete combustion of two stroke engines (cite). Thus, they are difficult to regulate, as demonstrated by the lack of a new exhaust standard with phase 3 (circa 2011-212).

OPIE member’s own testing contradicts scientific studies on battery life (cite).

One wonders why battery technology has advanced with residential equipment, but not commercial.

(2) OPEI, on its website, and in testimony around the nation, also appeals to Attorney General Lopez’s comments regarding field exemption and attainment and claims that ‘[t]he U.S. EPA Has Sole Jurisdiction for Small Engine Emission Regulations’. (See response above).

Unburned fuel is inefficient

(iv) Department of Health: leaf blowers are mobile sources of pollution; enforcement is not feasible:

The Department of Health , responsible for ‘public health and welfare’ as it relates to ‘noise control’, deferred to the legality of a ban on sale and use, per the AG. They then argued that ‘[e]nforcement against gasoline-powered leaf blowers would be extremely difficult due to their mobility and duration of use. In addition: '[a]ny new mandate will require additional resources for the amendment of rules and serious enforcement’ which is not in the budget. ‘Proposed requirements will require additional staff time and effort’.

Further, ‘[t]he intent of 342F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (the statute to be revised) was to regulate noise sources that are either fairly constant in nature, stationary, or restricted to a certain location, and can feasibly be enforced’ [italics added].

⁉️ Is this right?

It seems that catching leaf blower operators in the act of polluting and (unintentionally) harming would require constant boots on the ground and money to fund them. Enforcement can’t be everywhere at once (unlike leaf blowers). But anyway, by the very fact of their mobile nature, the landscape crew would be gone before enforcement could arrive. As such, only stationary sources of noise pollution come under the health department jurisdiction with regard to Community Noise Control. This seems to be why it is only time of use that can be regulated at, i.e. where, when and for how long a leaf blower can operate.

With stationary polluters (e.g. a generator), an enforcement officer can literally go to the stationary property (certain location), measure the noise with a decibel meter, verify the duration, and issue a citation to the owner of the stationary property because the property the generator sits on will not be gone by the time they get there, just like the generator itself (as opposed to a mobile property, such as an RV). It is not the generator that gets a citation, it is the property owner.

It seems that gas leaf blowers are for all intents and purposes no better than car stereos in terms of what can be done about mobile noise pollution.

But, non-road gas leaf blower noise is not like the momentary, literally mobile stereo blasting ‘excessive noise’ from a mobile property (car), on the road. Just like the generator on a business property, the property (e.g. school, park, business, home, library etc.) on which a gas leaf blower is used and operated is itself stationary, that is, immobile, fixed in place.

Gas leaf blower operators turn on the noise anywhere from 15-120 minutes plus at certain locations (unlike the car stereo). Moreover, leaf blowing usually occurs during and after string trimming and clearing. The weed whacking and leaf blowing is restricted to the certain stationary house on the corner, for example, or, very often, restricted to all the houses on one certain street on a certain day and certain week. We can be certain that the street won’t move.

Moreover, the day and time of the leaf blower’s operation is generally known, either by a property owner, neighbor, landscape company, government agency, or public entity.

On this, the usual schedule of a landscape or maintenance crew, who indirectly and inadvertently violate the health of children at a school, or the health of people in 90 nearby homes, is ‘fairly constant in nature’ and the use and operation of their gas leaf blowers ‘restricted to certain locations’ for a significant amount of time. Gas leaf blowing is generally constant and predictable. It is not mobile in the sense that a car stereo is.

✅ Funds and feasible enforcement

This means that gas leaf blowers are not mobile, unenforceable sources of pollution. Enforcement is feasible.

Funds collected from a properly supported community reporting system with strictly enforced, and legitimate fines, would provide the ‘additional resources for the amendment of rules and serious enforcement’ currently lacked by the health department.

Gas leaf blower day and times are fairly constant, restricted to a certain location, and the appearance of gas leaf blowers (the equipment) easily identifiable. This suggests that, once a ban is enacted, a community reporting system, perhaps incorporated into the one already in place (i.e. 311), which is effectively and graciously managed, will be the foremost means of enforcement.

Community reporting has been successful in enforcing bans around the nation (cite). These are the boots on the ground. People, who have not become complacent, want quiet, clean communities; we can collectively care for each other, with the right, working tools in place, in spirit of reciprocal duty. This would be in tandem with a public awareness campaign, another invaluable aid to self-enforcement; one also grounded in the ‘The Aloha Spirit Law’.

(v) Directors of Facility Maintenance and the Director of Parks and Rec.: inefficiency

The Directors claimed that battery operated equipment would ‘drastically hamper our operations, and impede our ability to effectively and efficiently provide services and perform maintenance actions’. They would not be able to do their job (HB 575).

⁉️ Is this right?

How did Hawaii’s ancestors manage the land?

What seems to be the case here is that gas leaf blowers and string trimmers are way cheaper and faster than additional employees with rakes, metal trimmers, or mulchers.

Is the use of this high-powered, high decibel, high-vibration, toxic fume exposing, gasoline equipment not hazardous to maintenance and parks and rec workers? Are they compensated for this direct and prolonged exposure day in and day out? It doesn’t seem that ear muffs and goggles are quite enough (cite the undervaluing of harm by OSHA). Do they receive hazard pay? Instead of compensating workers for this social injustice, why not take the extra money and hire additional workers who will instead ‘steward the land’ instead of skewering it?

The normalisation, over-importance, and chronic over-use of gas leaf blowing, resulting from its cheap, powerful ability to save time and money, has created a blandscape across the state. How much of this land denuding, in a state where lush greenery is critical to its land management, is actually necessary? (cite the greenery).

Why not lead by example?

In a state that has declared a 50% reduced emissions goal for 2030, why are our government entities not already leading by example? (Noticing that the Aloha+ Challenge could be deemed an emission standard). They could commit to not buying anymore gas-powered equipment instead of praising its misconceived virtues.

Instead of electrifying our government fleets at some point in the future; it is only logical that we would first electrify the toxic gasoline powered equipment that these (significantly less polluting) vehicles carry to roads and parks around the state.

Working with the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA), several municipalities around the nation have fully transitioned their maintenance operations to electric equipment. (see Gov. Programs).

(vi) The Department of Education: cost and inefficiency

According to the Superintendent of Schools (HB 575) the Department of Education ‘recognizes that gasoline-powered leaf blowers have a harmful impact on health and the environment’. One problem is the ‘cost to replace inventory’ (with battery equipment). The other problem is that ‘battery-operated handheld equipment technology does not have the power needed for large areas’, for example: ‘James Campbell HighSchool is 38 acres, and Hilo High School is 24 acres.some of the school grounds are as much as 38 acres’ (sic).

Further, ‘Principals have found that battery-operated equipment operates at homeowner strength and not the commercial strength needed for a larger school campus’.

⁉️ Is this right?

What about the cost to children’s health of this cheap equipment that for no right or good reason harms their health and impacts the environment that they are supposed to be learning in?

Following the Directors, here is another example of the popular notion that cheap, powerful, even more deafening than ‘homeowner strength’ equipment is more efficient because the job is done quicker. Blow all the junk away, and then come back and do it again, after it all blows back. What is this? Job creation?

Lead by example

In support of the probably dead Environmentally Friendly School’s Act, why not have children come out and rake the leaves, learn how to identify plants as they pull weeds, and pick up the plastic for recycle? Why not roll this stewardship learning into a high school graduation requirement of community service, as other states and local districts have done.

Regarding acreage, Smithsonian Gardens manages 180 acres of gardens, landscapes and grounds by making ‘use of electric tools to complete daily grounds maintenance tasks’ (‘including electric blowers, trimmers, mowers, edgers, tillers, and even a chainsaw’). They are not the only major institution leading by example (cite).

ꜜThe Department of Education also opposed a ban in the 2024-2025 testimony, again, completely overlooking the harms to children, which is addressed in the next section.

(vii) Honolulu Police Department (HPD): hazardous waste preempts enforcement

After deferring to the AG’s Supremacy Clause warning, HPD argued that forfeiture of equipment on a third citation would be costly and otherwise problematic due to the hazardous nature of the equipment. The Department also opposed the bill on the grounds that time of use restrictions (where, when, and for how long) would be ‘far more reasonable’ (HB 575).

⁉️ Is this right?

This opposition from HPD truly highlights the inadequacy of current and proposed fines and the subsequent impotence of enforcement. It also underscores the absurdity and injustice of current time of use restrictions.

If the fines are so weak that a violator has reached the forfeiture stage of enforcement, the violator should be required to drain any gasoline on the spot before surrender. The evidence is the machine, not the fuel. The leaf blower can then be taken to recycling by the violator (within 24 hours), instead of it being put in HPD storage or taken to an auction house. At which point the violator would be required to upload a receipt (within 48 hours) from the recycling center to a reporting system. Failing this, the violator would lose their business licence.

Non compliance is an act of polluting; an environmental crime.

A simpler way to address this is to impose serious fines beginning with the first violation, along with (not instead of) mandatory (environmentally conscious) community service. Community service might include giving a presentation to schoolchildren on stewardship of the land (see the probably dead Environmentally Friendly School’s Act). This would be followed by the uploading of a receipt showing that the community service was honored and the equipment recycled, or face loss of business licence as well as a $10,000 fine (the amount applied to environmental polluters by the Department of Health’s Clean Air Branch). The money would then be used to fund an ongoing public awareness campaign as well an effective, supportive reporting system, and rebates etc. to offset the cost of transition.

!!!given the deleterious effects on the public’s health and welfare, injunctive relief should be allowed in the case of persistent abusers.

Unjust fines

Nominal fines provide no incentive for businesses to comply. These are simply figured into overhead, i.e. the cost of doing business (the business of polluting). If we are to be serious about protecting the health and well-being of Hawaii, we have to be serious about fines and use them to support the overall intention of a clean, healthful environment, not to inadvertently make a mockery of it. Instead of laughable fines that do not even slap a wrist and then make a leap to forfeiture; the fines must be severe, and continued non compliance must result in suspension or loss of business licence. Mandator community service must accompany the fines.

Unjust time of use

How long does it take for daily exposure to exhaust and evaporative gases, dangerous decibels, widespread low frequency noise, acute stress response, inability to function productively, powerlessness to peacefully enjoy one’s property etc.; to cause irreparable harm?

Current time of use restrictions allow for all day leaf blowing, non-stop, 7 days a week, multiple times a day, including Sundays and holidays.

Simply amending the time of use of gasoline powered equipment would be a further nod to state sanctioned pollution, it would be to continue allowing acknowledged and unnecessary harms to the people, children, and low wage workers of Hawaii. The harms will still harm. Harmful impacts occur on a continuum of dosage. No amount of harm is justified.