Honolulu committee presses city on heat preparedness; annex resolution postponed, cooling-centers plan advanced

The City and County of Honolulu committee on Energy, Environment and Sustainability on Wednesday advanced a resolution asking the city and the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission to study the feasibility of establishing cooling centers, while deferring a separate resolution that would ask the administration to create a dedicated heat-hazard annex to the city’s emergency operations plan. The resolutions grew out of Action 12.4 of the city’s Climate Action Plan, which recommends planning for extreme heat. Committee members and witnesses said heat risks are increasing and identified older residents and people without air conditioning as populations of concern. The committee postponed Resolution 25‑201, which would have requested that the administration develop a separate heat-hazard annex to the city’s emergency operations plan, and instead asked the chair to set a future date for additional information and discussion. The committee then recommended Resolution 25‑202 for adoption, asking the administration and the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission to investigate cooling centers in Honolulu. Department of Emergency Management staff told the committee their planning is intentionally “hazard agnostic” and that existing emergency‑operations frameworks can cover heat incidents. Molly Pierce, public information and education officer for the Department of Emergency Management, said the department “supports … preparedness” but expressed concerns that, based on National Weather Service forecasts, a heat emergency threshold that would automatically trigger an annex is not likely to be met on Oahu in the near term. Pierce said DEM is open to public‑education campaigns and to working with other offices on where heat planning best fits. Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency Director Ben Sullivan told the committee his office supports having a heat‑hazard annex in principle and emphasized the different roles of his office and DEM: CCSR focuses on long‑range preparedness while DEM handles operational activations. Sullivan said his office is launching a heat action planning and awareness campaign and expects to continue coordinating with DEM. Public testimony supported planning and cooling centers. Angela Young, testifying for the community group CARES, urged the committee to review model annexes such as Sacramento County’s and to take steps that would help agriculture and vulnerable residents. Committee members asked DEM about triggers and notification systems; DEM staff described two alert systems — the federally regulated Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA), reserved for immediate life‑safety incidents, and HNL Alert (an opt‑in Everbridge platform) used for broader preparedness messaging. DEM staff said HNL Alert can carry more detailed guidance and that the city can send messages to subscribers without using the WEA “squawk.” Committee discussion also addressed host responsibilities for cooling centers and city support for community partners. Director Sullivan said CCSR has drafted materials to help community entities stand up cooling centers — including suggested resources, potential liabilities and operational guidance — and that the city could encourage community partners to open designated locations on hot days even if those locations are not operated as part of DEM’s emergency response. Outcome: Resolution 25‑201 (heat‑hazard annex) was postponed to a future date determined by the chair. Resolution 25‑202 (cooling centers feasibility) was reported out of committee for adoption. What’s next: The committee expects additional information from DEM and CCSR on thresholds, notification triggers, public education and an implementation plan for cooling centers before final adoption of any annex or program. Council members signaled interest in follow‑up briefings and written responses from the administration.