House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We are convening the Committee on Commerce and Consumer. Consumer Protection and Commerce always got those mixed up. It is Thursday, February 1320252:00pm in Conference Room 329. Couple items on the agenda today. First up, we've. zero, let me read the script first.

In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a 2 minute time limit per testifier. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only.

Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end.

In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. Please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Your exits are located behind your seats. We should really have just like a automated thing like they do on airplanes to just do this. Anyway, we'll deal with that later. First up on the agenda, HB818HD1 relating to the Wakea Community Development District.

First up, we've got Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General, Kevin Tongg. We submitted comments because we have concerns that this Bill may not comply with the requirements to establish a Special Fund, and we included a recommendation in our written testimony. I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you. Next up, DLNR with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Dawn Chang, Chair of the Board of Land and Natural Resources. We have provided comments. We have appreciated HD 1, where you did delete the transfer. We would ask that there be further amendments to the Bill.

On Section 1, it is Page 7, that the revenues from DLNR leases remain with DLNR. We have an outstanding for the Uncle Billy's Demolition, an outstanding $11 million of the $14 million for reimbursable GEO bonds. And we now have a new property, Banyan Drive, Banyan Country Club, where we are going to take possession on February 25th.

And we will probably have to have DOE care officers do it 24/7. So, that's our comment to this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, HCDA in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, and Members of the Committee. Craig Nakamoto, Executive Director of the Hawaii Community Development Authority. We stand in support of this. The general idea for this Bill is to create a new community development district within HCD of the Waiakea Peninsula area.

This has been an idea that came from Representative Nakashima maybe a session or so ago. The HD 1 takes out the land transfer and conveyance portion.

And this was suggested in consultation with Chair Chang, Director Tokioka, to just address some of the concerns about the impacts of that kind of land transfer on DLNR and to allow us time to work through some of those issues.

With respect to DLNR's comments, I agree with Chair Chang's comments that until—as long as DLNR is managing the lands there, any revenues derived therefrom should go to DLNR. So, I'm okay with that.

Other comment I believe she had was that she was suggesting a—that DLNR have sort of a presence on the seat on the, on the Board, the YCAP Community Development District Board, and I'm also okay with that. We also have a DLNR representative, or the chair, sitting on our Pulehonui Board. And I think it's appropriate because DLNR owns most or if most of the land in the Waiakea Peninsula.

So, supportive. And I'm open for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have scheduled to testify today. Anyone else here to provide any testimony? Members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Chair Chang. Thank you. You mentioned there was some outstanding monies regarding Uncle Billy's.

Yes.

Is that monies that should be owed to you or money that you're paying out? What is that money?

I also have staff of Ian Hirokawa who could—I don't want to misspeak, but we paid $14 million to demolish the surface and the subsurface of Uncle Billy's. And so, we did have to take out—it cost us $14 million. But I'll have Ian specifically answer your question.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair and Members of the committees. So, just to explain, the total demolition cost for the Uncle Billy's project was $14 million.

And $11 million of that $14 million was general obligation reimbursable bonds that DLNR will have to pay back through the land fund, the Special Land Development Fund, which basically were the lease rent revenue goes. So, we're kind of paying for, you know that, that debt service. DLNR is paying for it.

So, so, just to clarify, when a private person gets a lease for DLNR land, they build a structure. They—are they responsible for demolishing when they give up the lease? I mean, shouldn't they be putting money aside or what is? I mean, because they left you with—it's like somebody using your property and then leaving all their mess for you to clean up and it costs 11.

That—oh, yeah, that. No, that's true. And I think currently, our current practice is to be more, you know, aware. We've become aware of that where, you know, we were, you know, we clearly state that improvements are the property of the lessee in the lease.

And at the end of the lease, either at the Board's discretion or the DLNR, the Board's discretion, it can either assume ownership of the improvements or require the lessee to remove them at the end of the lease. And now, we're going as far as requiring like a security, like a removal bond.

You know, go do that as part of the lease. However, you know, these leases were so old. Like, the Uncle Billy's Lease was executed at a time where the leases were just silent, or they just said the state assumes ownership, you know, or were just silent about it. So, you know, there are, I guess these—this situation is a result of, I would say, a different time. Things were done differently, and we do them differently now, so, yeah.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

I have a question for Dawn, too.

Yes, please, go ahead.

If we take out the—if we take out the leases, what's left for, for, in terms of revenue for this thing?

There—you're correct, because currently, all of the lands that are under Waikia Peninsula, I think they all, all of them are under DLNR leases. Or is there a few that may be under a county?

I believe there are—like, within the boundaries of the district, there are some, there's one or two county parks in there, too. I don't know if there's any privately owned lands. I don't want to say it's all government land, but I know the county has, I believe, some parks within the boundaries, the proposed district boundaries.

So, your point is correct, that most of the revenue, because the county parks are not generating any revenue, so all the revenues that are being generated are probably all off of the state leases or revocable permits, and those go onto our Special Land Development Fund, and we generate about a million dollars a year off of those revenues.

Okay. So, if we take all the revenue from the leases and we put it to DLNR, we're basically going to defund this Bill, though. That's, that's my concern.

There may be other, because I think when I read that section, there were other funds that could be deposited.

There were a couple other funding mechanisms, but they didn't seem significant at all. It seemed like the main purpose of this was to take the lease rent to fund this development district.

And I think DLNR's position is until that transfer occurs, DLNR should continue to be able to use those funds to maintain the properties that we're managing.

So, if at some point in time the legislation does decide to transfer the Waiakea Peninsula to HCDA, including the management, then we, at that point in time, believe that funds should be transferred. But until then, so long as DLNR continues to manage those lands, these funds are critical for our operations.

Is there anyone here who could speak to how much money the, I guess HCDA, how much money would they need to operate this? You said you're okay with them taking the lease rent, though? Yeah. Okay, come up to the mic. Thank you.

Chair, thanks. Thank you. So, I am okay with the lease rent from the leases that DLNR currently has going, staying with DLNR, so long as they're managing those leases. At a future time, if it's contemplated that the lands and the leases would be transferred to HCDA, then that's another story.

I think we would look at, you know, where those revenues should go. I, I don't—to your question about this Bill being defunded, I just want you to know that from the last legislative session, there was $1 million appropriated to master plan the Waiakea Peninsula. It didn't come to our program ID, HCDA.

Instead, it went to OPSD, the Office of Planning. I don't know why it went there, but it's there right now. And so, we would, if this Bill passes, just as creating a community development district, we would use that $1 million, after it's transferred to us from OPSD, and we'll use that to master plan the district.

Does that transfer of a million dollars have to be in this Bill, though? Does that need to be done legislatively, or can you do that?

No, I think, I think the transfer of the $1 million can be done between agencies, like a, like a JV.

Okay. And then for—so, is it fair to say that for leases wherein DLNR is the landlord, the lease rent should go to them, but if there are any subsequent leases that would, where, or I guess in a lease transfer situation where HCDA becomes the landlord, then the lease rent should go to you?

I, I think that's fair to say.

I think we would agree with that, Representative. Yeah. So, I think it's all we're saying is whoever's managing the land, because they have operational costs and liabilities, that that entity should be given whatever leases—revenues—are generated.

Okay, that sounds fair and reasonable. Thank you both.

Thank you very much.

All right. Members, any other questions? Okay, let's move on to HB 338, HD 1, relating to renewable energy. First up, we've got DCCA with comments.

Afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Angelo, Executive Director, Division of Consumer Advocacy. Stand on our testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii State Energy Office in support. Thank you. Next up, we have PUC in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Leo Asuncion, Chair of the PUC. We'll stand on a written testimony supporting the measure and providing some comments for consideration.

Thank you. Next up, HECO with comments.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima, Vice President of Resource Procurement for Hawaiian Electric. We'll stand in our written testimony with comments.

Okay, that looks like all the testifiers we have here today on this measure. Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Nonie Toledo, on behalf of Ameresco. You do have our written testimony. Standing in support.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions on this measure? Okay, let's move on. HB339HD1. First up, we have DCCA Consumer Advocate in with comments. Sorry.

Stand on our testimony, providing comments. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. PUC with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members will stand on our written testimony providing comments.

Thank you. IBW Local 1260 in support.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Kiko Bukowski, on behalf of IBEW 1260, we stand under written testimony in support and ask for your consideration of additional amendments to strengthen language in the bill regarding labor. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Ulupono in support.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members Mariah Yoshizu, on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. We'll stand on our written testimony and support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, Life of the Land with comments.

Aoja Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. The idea that the utility should negotiate with another party after they have signed an NDA with whoever wants to acquire them or merge with them seems to be the wrong way to go.

It seems to me that in a merger proceeding, you would first have HECO and somebody agree to some kind of merger. Then there would be a public announcement period before the PUC opens a proceeding which somebody else could jump into.

And if somebody else jumped into it, then The PUC would consider both concurrently and that way somebody jumping in would not be imposing on either the utility or the PUC. They would be doing it in that window.

The other point is that when Nextera proposed To take over Hico, NextEra agreed to pay $90 million to cover various costs if the sale did not go through.

So if another entity jumps in and causes a lot of cost to the utility and it fails to be the acquirer, then there needs to be a mechanism on how any payment would be resolved. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here testifying this measure? Members, any questions.

For PUC? Just responding to what Mr. Curtis just said. I think that was sort of how the original bill was crafted and then based on PUC testimony, we changed it to what's in the current version. So how do you respond?

What Mr. Curtis is alluding to is trying to do it in a PUC process. So there would be like an intervener in there, but say it is a non investor owned utility. I go back to co ops. If you're going to have that, you got to have a willing seller and a willing buyer.

So those discussions should be before it even gets to the PUC. That's why we said instead of the PUC stopping a proceeding to entertain another offer from a non investor utility that just knowing that people are going to get dissuaded, that's what we feel.

That's why we said put it upon the utility if they are, if they get an offer from an investor owned utility that they also seek, if there are any, and then after the utility actually evaluates that comes to the QC with the offer that they want to move forward.

Okay, all right, thanks. Can I ask same question of consumer advocate? Just based on the idea that multiple bids could be in a customer's favor? I mean what's the best way to go about sort of opening that process up? In your opinion?

You mean ahead of coming before the Commission getting those bids ahead of the Commission that time?

Right. Should it be because I think what we changed it to was a requirement on the electric utility to demonstrate that they had entertained multiple bids, including from non investor owned utilities.

The original version of the bill was when a proposal is put before the PUC, then there's a pause and an opportunity for non investor owned utilities to also bid in. So which makes more sense to you.

I would have to scrutinize the language. A little bit more. Conceptually. There should be, we would support a process for interveners to be able to weigh in on any of those bids. As well.

So you don't think it's inappropriate for the PUC to be involved in the way it was in the original version.

I would have to look at the language more closely. But I can get back to you.

Thanks.

Any other questions on this measure? Zero, I have a question.

Thank you. For the PUC, just the very nature of the Public Utilities Commission. I would imagine for a lot of government, when there's government review, it feels like that's the time for the public to get signaled, to get involved. So having other parties.

So people are like you said, a willing buyer, willing seller and then they kind of go along and everyone's like they're just sniffing each other out. It isn't until they get to the PUC that zero, so wait a minute, what's going on here? Let's let the public and whoever interested parties, consumer advocates.

That's when I would imagine things get triggered. Like that sniffing session actually led to something and now it's before the public and now different parties can. So would it. You mentioned that you think it might hurt.

It might hurt others who are thinking about. Right. I mean, and it depends upon the scenario, right? You have different ways of. Either someone can come with an offer to Hei, right. And then Hai would have to determine if it's worth. They would probably do tHeir due diligence similar to what they did with Nextera.

Or you could have the utility saying. Or Hai saying the utility is up for sale. Right. So at that point, if it's that scenario, the point of entry is actually when they are offering, they're looking for offers versus the other way where it's unsolicited offer. So those are differences.

But what we're trying to say is either if we go to the old way, we're in a process, we're going to stop the process to allow someone else to come in and to offer. Right. But the offer is to the PUC, right? The offer is not to kind.

We're stopping it to consider the PUC is considering the offer. Right. And now we're impacting that business. Right. And if that's the process, right. Who's to say, right in the future? Because you know, if you can apply it to other utilities, et cetera.

I know this one just looks at the electric utility, that's fine, but that's what we're looking out for.

Right. This chair. May I call up Mr. Curtis to provide. Is there a concrete example of this happening? I mean you mentioned nxterra. But if something else were to come up in the future, can you identify a situation where you would go with the original language of the split versus the amendment?

I don't think this has been tried anywhere. I know. For example, JIRA is in talks with HEI about making an investment, but neither side can talk about it because there's an NDA. And if until the board would actually approve something, it would all be under an NDA.

So they would not be able to publicly announce that we're considering something. That's not what they do. They wait until it's actually signed and then they present it and then it's kind of if no other party can intervene at that point, we just don't see the mechanism. Got it.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to HB 1467 HD 1, relating to housing resiliency. First up, OIP with comments. Okay, not present. Next up, B&F with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. We will stand on our written comments. Be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Next up, HGIA in support. Okay, thank you. Oh, please try to come to the mic too. Just they can't hear you in the online. She stands on her testimony in support. State Office of Planning and Sustainable... Yeah, Planning and Sustainable Development in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. Committee. My name is Danielle Bass, State Sustainability Coordinator from OPSD. We would like to stand on our testimony in support of this measure. We really do appreciate the amendments provided by the previous Committee in the HD 1 specific to the definition of disaster and taking, deleting the reference of historically vulnerable areas. So thank you. I'm available for questions.

Hawaii Emergency Management Agency in support.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Ethann Oki for Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. We stand on our testimony of support. Available for any questions or concerns.

Thank you. Gwen. I got you twice. You want to go? Hawaii Climate Advisory Team in support.

Sorry, Gwen Yamamoto Lau representing the CAT. We stand on a written testimony in support. I also wanted to mention that Ben Franklin once said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And there is no more, the sage advice comes in no more relevant than in HB 1467. We have more than 50%, more than half of our rooftops are not connected to the rest of the roofs. They were built before 1994 when hurricane clips became mandatory.

And so we think this is important because while I know there is concern about public funds being used to help fix private rooftops, in the event of a hurricane, these homeowners on Oahu itself, just 125,000 of them, will need to shelter in a publicly available shelter because they won't be able to shelter in place during the hurricane. And following the hurricane, it would be a drain on public funds because now we will have to find housing, temporary housing for these tens of thousands of people. So we hope that you support HB 1467. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Realtors in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Lyndsey Garcia on behalf of Hawaii Realtors, and we stand on our testimony in support.

That's all the testifiers we have. Any other, anyone else here to testify?

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs, Committee Members. Kika Bukoski on behalf of IBEW 1260. I wasn't planning on testifying on this measure, but it just sparked some recollection from a previous bill that was just passed on the floor today, House Bill 745, which actually in our opinion, allows for counties to go under building codes and standards.

And it just runs contrary to adopt a code that or a bill that allows counties to circumvent minimum codes and standards and then pass a measure. Although we don't oppose this measure. We have a saying in the construction industry, build it right the first time so that we don't have to retrofit and bring housing up to par after the fact.

What this does, and in fact, it passes the buck, so to speak, onto the homeowner of having to retrofit and bring their homes up to current minimum codes and standards, as opposed to the developer doing so when they're building the home. So I'd like you to consider that while you're considering all the measures that are related to this particular measure. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Go ahead, Vice Chair.

Question is for Budget and Finance.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair.

Good afternoon. So you know, in, in your testimony, there's a concern about the inclusion of federal funds into the SHHPSF.

Yes.

Do you have any recommendations if it's not going to be, if you, if you...

We just leave it as a federal fund appropriation. You know, depending, if it's a grant, there's two different types of federal fund categories. You have N funds, which are usually formulaic recurring federal funds that we get on a regular basis. And we have P funds. P funds are essentially federal grant awards that we get that the state can execute. I think the concern that we have, especially with the creation of any new special fund, one, it needs to meet the criteria of 35 in terms of being self sustaining, having a nexus, and all that.

But the issue with federal funds too as well is that, you know, federal funds are subject to single audit, and any organization that essentially exceeds $1 million in appropriations from the feds is going to be subject to single audit. By taking those federal funds and depositing it into a special fund, there is a level of, you know, transparency that's lost as well as accountability.

So to ensure that we are compliant with our single audit procedures, as well as, you know, making sure that, you know, we do not get penalized with the utilization of federal funds going forward, we would recommend that, that it just remain as a P fund and not be deposited into the special fund.

Thank you. So to follow up on that, if we don't deposit the federal funds into the special fund, would that still be accessible? Would those funds still be accessible by the program?

Yes.

Okay. So it's just a matter of where the funds are located?

Correct. Commingling different types of funds always does create a little bit of problem. So it's something that, again, however the Legislature does decide to proceed with this going forward, we would just recommend that those funds be held separately.

So was there some advantage of putting the federal funds into the special fund at all? Ease of access?

It makes the special fund bigger, I mean, but essentially it's, you know, two non-General Funds versus one big General Fund. I mean, it really becomes kind of a... It becomes more of an accounting issue and, again, a tracking issue and a compliance issue.

Okay, thank you.

Chair, I have a question.

Yep. Rep. Iwamoto.

For B&F. Sorry. Thank you. This feels... So the State of Hawaii cannot tax real property. Right? And people's homes and stuff like that. That's state can't do that. That's a city and county. So we're taking state funds though to help people preserve their investment and obviously stay safe. Right. So is this a proper funding source? I mean, would, it feels like the city and county can actually raise the revenue?

Yeah. And you know, please don't, don't misconstrue our testimony as, you know, having any concerns with regards to the efficacy of this program. But I think, you know, Gwen talked about it more, talked about it as well, is that, you know, when you do have disasters and when you do have, you know, infrastructure that is, you know, destroyed and, you know, you go through a process, it does become a state problem.

Right. Okay, thank you. My other question is regarding the pot of money that's going to be allocated. Is it just going to be open to anyone, like say an investor just arrives to Hawaii and buys his house and the roof needs to be secured. Can they get access to the fund and then they're going to flip it or can... Is it just for people who like, should you apply for it? Is it needs based?

This might be more of a Gwen question or...

Yes. I think the issue in terms of access is, one, how it's structured, but you'd probably need a legal opinion on whether or not you can preclude certain individuals from accessing public funds.

Can you make it needs based? Meaning, well, maybe it's for somebody...

That's possible. I think in terms of, you know, however the program is going to be crafted, which I'm not... I'm at this point in time, I think it's still in its infancy stage. So I defer to the introducers of the bill and...

You want to answer? This is going to be under you. Yeah.

Yes. Actually, in the bill is language to say that it has to meet like less than 140 AMI, which is low and moderate income households. So yeah, it will be, it's not for everyone.

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

Gwen, if we take out federal funds from the special fund, is there anything left in there? I mean that seems to be the main method of funding.

Or state funds if there's state funds available. I think when the bill was drafted, the situation in our federal government was a little bit different, and so right now it's just a little dicey.

Okay, so could we, if we got rid of the special fund but the program still had access to federal funds in a different account, would it matter? I mean, could this program still work? Can we just get rid of the special fund, I guess?

Yeah. Whether, I mean whichever funding it is, it could still work. As long as the funds doesn't... What is that word? Lapse? Yes.

Okay. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, Rep. Tam.

So I want to go back to that question on the needs based level. The primary focus of this was also to lower insurance costs. But you know, let's say some homes decides to go for this grant money and fix their roofs, but other homes don't. Do their insurance costs really go down if like their neighbor's roof flies apart and their debris falls on the other person's property that damages their home?

Yeah, I think it's a little bit different. So like wildfires, right. If you, if you're the only home in your neighborhood that makes yourself fire safe or whatever that term is, it really might not protect your home because everybody else's home might burn. But in the case of a hurricane, I'm not, I'm no expert, but you know, fortifying your, your home, while yes, debris might fall from your neighbor's home, at least your home stays intact. In Alabama, where this program is modeled, 95% of the fortified homes survived with little or no damage Hurricane Sally.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any further questions on this matter? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to the last measure of the day: HB 750 HD1, relating to the environment. First up we have Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, in support.

Aloha. Leah Laramee with the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony in support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, HECA Solid Waste Task Force, in support. That's all the testifiers. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll take a recess. Recess.

Reconvening. All right, first item on first up is HB 818 HD1 relating to the Waiakea Community Development District. Thank you to all the testifiers for a good discussion on this measure. Chair's recommendation is to adopt DLNR's proposed change to give DLNR a board seat.

Also amend the Bill such that lease rent will go to whatever entity is the landlord and is responsible for managing the property. We also have some technical amendments to make. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Members voting on House Bill 818, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair will vote aye. Representative Ilagan.

Aye.

Representative Ichiyama.

Aye.

Representative Iwamoto.

Representative Kong.

Aye.

Aye.

Representative Lowen.

Aye.

Representative Marten.

Aye.

Representative Tam.

Aye.

And Representative Pierick is excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, Next up is HB 338 HD1 relating to renewable energy. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 338, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended, noting the excused absence of Representative Pierick. Are there any Members who wish to vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HB 339 HD1 relating to electric utilities. Chair's recommendation is to delete subsections B and C starting on page four as there are constitutional concerns limiting free speech for those sections.

We will also be adding language for GO bonds of $1 billion for acquiring ownership at HECO, depositing, deposited into the Electric Utility Conversion Special Fund to establish an Electric Utility Conversion Special Fund to create an electric utility conversion charge and to authorize expenditures accordingly. Members, any comments?

Sorry. Thank you Chair. There was mention about going back to the original language regarding the, the timing of intervening regarding when it gets to the PUC. I, I'm, you're not change, you didn't change that, right? That's-

No, we did not change that language.

Okay, so I'm going to vote W.R. because I would favor that version. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other comments?

This is news to me.

Oh. Sorry, recess.

Okay, reconvening. Members, any comments? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 339, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excuse absence of Representative Pierick and the reservations from Representative Iwamoto. Are there any other Members who wish to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HB 1467 HD1 relating to housing resiliency. Chair's recommendation is to place in the Committee report a recommendation for the subsequent Committee to determine whether these should be grants or low to-no-interest loans. We will be deleting subsection H on page seven and removing the Special Fund. Members, any comments? Vice Chair with the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 1467, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Pierick. Are there any Members who wish to vote no? Any reservations? seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, last up we've got HB 750 HD1 one relating to the environment. Chair's recommendation is to blank the appropriations amounts. We will be including in the Committee report for the next committee that it should be $1 million total for the entirety not per year.

Also to add a new section to amend Section 342G-104 subsections B3 to add evaluate instead, so it reads "evaluate and promote recyclable market development activities." We'll also be changing the appropriation in Section 3 of the Bill which is already blanked.

So we'll just put it in the Committee report so that the funding comes from the Deposit Beverage Container Special Fund instead of general funds. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 750, House Draft 1. Chairs recommendation is to pass with amendments noting the excused absence of Representative Pierick. Are there any Members who wish to vote-

Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay, let's do that again. Noting the presence of all Members. Are there any Members who wish to vote no? Or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. We're adjourned.