Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate. This is our Tuesday, February 11, 2025 9:30am Joint Committee hearing in Conference Room 229 between the Hawaii State Senate Committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs. For everyone watching, this meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

And in the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end this hearing, we will reconvene to address any outstanding business before 11am today. This is a deadline week and we need to move these measures out as quickly as possible.

So if there is an abrupt cancellation of the hearing, we will please stand by and we will try to reconvene as soon as we get back online. There are a number of different agendas that we will be hearing bills on today. So I do encourage you to stand on your testimony if you've submitted it in writing already.

We have reviewed all the testimony, so there. There's no need to read verbatim. But if you'd like to come up and make comments, please do so and identify yourself. The first measure on Today's agenda is SB 1201 relating to wildfires. This measure establishes a wildfire recovery fund and allows securitization for electric utilities. First up, DCCA with comments.

Good morning. Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee here as Director of the DCCA, stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. DCCA, Consumer Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members Committee. Michel Angelo, Executive Director with DCCA, Stand on. Our testimony for Brian.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Rami Shiyama, you submitted our written comments. In our daily questions.

Thank you. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Hawaiian Electric in support.

Vice Chair Senator Richards. Good morning. Jason Ben, Vice Senior Vice President for Hawaiian Electric, testifying in strong support of SB 1201 with proposed amendments. The bill is in the public interest. It protects both the people of Hawaii and our economy from the risk of future catastrophic wildfires.

I want to emphasize that the bill is forward looking and I want to make clear our company's commitment to pay its share of the global settlement with no contribution from customers, despite immense and continuing efforts. Sorry about that, Senator. You gotta pause on my timer.

Including our own work, no one should assume the risk is zero and we must act now. So the bill creates a wildfire recovery fund. It reasonably balances the interests of many stakeholders and it achieves three key objectives.

First, it protects property owners, renters, insurers and the economy by creating a speedy and fair compensation process while preserving individuals rights to pursue litigation. Secondly, it protects customers from cost increases caused by the utilities exposure to unlimited wildfire liability utilities must serve despite risk factors that are not all within their control.

Simply put, unbounded wildfire liability risks results in bad credit and high cost of capital, which in turn leads to high cost to customers at a time when we need to make critical infrastructure improvements to address safety, reliability, resiliency and meet the energy policy objectives of the state.

I'll note that prior to August 8, the utilities credit rating was as high as a minus. Its current rating is non investment grade speculative and the lowest in the US amongst regulated utilities. The bill is critical to begin the process of returning to investment grade and reducing cost to customers and includes a unique give back feature.

My time is short. The third objective is that it preserves accountability. Thank you. Please pass Mahalo and I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Ulupono Initiative and support thank you.

Chairs on behalf of Ulupono Initiative will stand on our testimony in support with. Some comments for consideration.

Thank you very much. Clearway Energy group in support. Thank you very much. IBEW Local 1260 in support.

Good morning Members. Kika Bukowski on behalf of IBEW 1260 we just wanted to make a few, emphasize a few points. We feel compelled to come forward as the union, as the single exclusive union that represents the employees of HICO and we understand that there are some other labor unions that have expressed concerns about the bill.

We have spoken with the carpenters union and we've asked them if they would be willing to sit down and help us to understand where their concerns are coming from and to see if we can somehow express to them why this bill is so important to our Members. To emphasize this bill will directly impact our Members.

And we feel that, you know, there are a number of a myriad of mandates that are placed upon the utility and this bill is a tool to allow the utility to fulfill those mandates at lower cost to the to the ratepayers.

We understand that it may come with an upfront cost, but we strongly believe that if this bill should pass and their ability to access capital at lower, lower interest that the net result would be beneficial to the ratepayer. So we strong, we stand in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Par Hawaii in support.

Good morning chairs, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Eric Wright. I'm with Par Hawaii. We're in support of the bill. One of the underappreciated aspects of this bill is the benefits it would have to a lot of companies In Hawaii, including ours, we're the fuel supplier to Hawaiian Electric.

It's a very capital intensive business. And so we rely on timely payments from Hawaiian Electric in order to run our business, pay our employees, and we're making a very large investment in renewable fuels. Likewise, there's a lot of independent power producers that generate power and sell to Hawaiian Electric.

Getting paid on time is critical for their businesses as well as for a lot of contractors in our economy. So we think this bill is good for the people of Hawaii and the companies of Hawaii and urge you to pass. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in support.

Online not available on Zoom, Chair. thank you.

Hawaii Association for justice in opposition. Good morning.

Hello, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oy, on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. You have a written testimony, so we'll stand on that.

But we did want to emphasize just our main points, which, which is our concerns with the liability cap that this has on, you know, victims who reject offers from the ed and as well as the, you know, there's a lot of lack of clarity around the parameters for the ED and what they can offer, and there's not a lot of guidelines in regards to the timing in which these offers can need to come out.

So, you know, we, for those reasons, we do respectfully oppose the bill, but are working, you know, looking to work with the utilities on this measure. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Kauai Island Utility Cooperative in support. Good morning.

Yes. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. I'm Beth Amaro with KIUC. We do offer testimony in support. We stand on that testimony. We're also asking for two amendments and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Paulo.

Thank you, Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii and support.

Good morning. Chair Sharing.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. That's all the registered testimony we have. Yes, please. Good morning.

Good morning. Henry Curtis with Life Land. Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee Members. We support in General the principle of having a fund, but I'd like to point out two things in our testimony.

First, if this bill had been law before the Lahaina fire, and if the Lahaina fire killed 102 people and burned down 499 structures, it would not have been considered catastrophic. Second, the PUC has not ruled on prudency of HICO during that time, so the fund would be now empty. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Maybe I should go to written testimony because we do have your Written testimony Henry Office of the Governor submitted testimony of comments the Climate Advisory Team Chris Benjamin testified in support. We have the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in opposition Hawaii Insurance Council in opposition. Plus Power and support.

NAMEK in opposition AES Hawaii in support.

The following individuals, all in support Donna Munn, Joanna Markle, Mark Wong, Joanne Williamson, Faith Duenas, Leslie Melasa, William Chang, Kristen Okinaka, Kelsey Ito, Anna Arase, Judy Hiroshima, Keith Kopuke, Leslie Kwok, Ken Fong, Thurston Wong, Don Wong, Fabio Billart, Leanne Hiromoto, Darren Ishimura, Terry Thuri, Tane Sekimura, Scott Kramer, Sharon Suzuki, Robert Young, Jamie Lee, Lori Nagata, Chad Asato, Warren Hall, Laurie Iwanaga, Patsy Nanbu, Lyle Matsunaga, Janine Villanueva, Gloria Fuso, Matthew McNeff and late testimony from the Hawaii Cattleman's Council in support.

The Retail Merchants of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Farm Bureau in support. PRP with comments the Maui Chamber of Commerce and support Land Use Research foundation of Hawaii in support and Michelle Zambetti in support. Is there anyone else?

Sorry, Chair. Another testifier on Zoom from PLUS Power.

So we'll take the gentleman in the room and then the gentleman online.

Hi.

Being a part on behalf of the public.

I'm sorry, I did miss you. Yes, Public Utility Commission with comments. Thank you. Okay, we'll take the gentleman online. Please identify yourself and go ahead.

Hi. Thank you. Good morning, chairs, Vice chairs and Committee Members. I'm Brian Duncan with PLUS Power Senior Vice President. Apologize for not being on the registered list this morning. A brief comment that PLUS Power develops, owns and operates battery storage projects.

We own and operate the Kapolei Energy Storage or KES project on Oahu and have an energy storage agreement with Hawaiian Electric. Plus Tower continues to invest more time and resources to develop subsequent projects to continue to help Hawaii meet its energy and reliability needs for the future.

For the success of potential future assets and the continued success of kes. We do believe the credit stability of Hawaiian Electric is incredibly important both to us and our investors.

We are committed to supporting the ambitious goals set by the State of Hawaii and support the legislation, help provide necessary tools to maintain our KES contract and continue to do business in Hawaii.

So we strongly support SB 1201 relating to wildfires as a critical tool to help Hawaiian Electric work to get back to an investment grade credit rating and stabilize their outlook. This bill is critical for financing parties for all existing projects and to ensure financing is available for future investments in Hawaii energy projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay, Members, questions? Co Chair, what kind?

Jason Bentley. Morning, Chair. Morning. I know one of the rationales for introducing this Wildfire Recovery Fund is to help you and HICO get to investment grade. But we've seen California created a similar wildfire fund in 2019. It's been on the books and being filled for the past six years and they are still below investment grade.

How is your fund going to get you to investment grade?

Thank you, Senator, that's a great question. A couple of things. There's multiple utilities in California. Two of the three, and I'll fact check this and double check later, two of the three remain investment grade, including Southern California Edison. PG&E had a number of other difficult circumstances that affected their credit rating.

Just this morning, the LA Times ran an article basically stipulating that the fund will allow Southern California Edison to avoid a fatal blow to their financials. So we're speculating if they're found to be liable, according to the Times at least, and just hot off the press.

But the fund seems to be operating as designed and helping those utilities who is more than one factor. Senator, I would say to. It's really easy to go from A to 0. It takes a number of events to bring it back up. This bill is one critical step, in our opinion, to get there.

And our credit rating analysts have said the same. So, yeah, I think it can be effective. I think it is effective for SDG and E and for Southern Cal. In California, though, as you said, PG and E has not seen a restoration of their credit rating.

So there's no guarantee if we were to establish this fund that you're going to become investment grade in the next few years.

I think, Senator, I respect the question. As the PU said, it's not dispositive that the bill will get our credit rating. I think it is dispositive that without the bill we will not. It's a process to go back.

It starts with making sure we can reduce the physical risks and then this bill which covers the sort of unmitigated liability, but it also has to do with finalizing the settlement. All three things have to happen, at least that's our understanding from talking to financial analysts to get back to investment grade. And it will be stepwise.

Senator, thank you.

This fund, the number we're chasing is $1.0 billion. That's correct. How did you come up with that?

Across this bill, we're trying to balance the interests of many stakeholders. You know, it didn't seem reasonable to go more than that to put it on customers. But I'll tell you that the CATS report their actuary study, which we haven't seen, but they quote as 1.4 billion for all hazards annually in Hawaii. Right.

So we have to start somewhere. We're trying to balance the interests of the impact on affordability, but also the need to provide some coverage to our financials. Does that make sense?

You know, the California Wildfire Bill, or law, accumulates $21 billion, half of it paid for by the waypayers and half of it paid for by the utility.

Right.

Could we do the same for this bill?

So thank you for the question. I would say the California Bill is vastly different from what we're proposing here. We've looked at that and said, what is the best thing for us? I think it would be extraordinarily difficult for shareholders to find another 500 million, if not impossible at this point.

There's a vast difference in the California Bill. The California Bill doesn't have an admin process. You. You must still sue first to get compensated. So there's no speedy recovery. There's still one third going to attorneys. And it is true, as you said, customers pay 5050.

But in California, customers are still paying claims on the bill for all fires prior to the fund creation. So just two weeks ago, the CPUC authorized a dollar increase across all SCE customers for the 2017 Thomas Fire. The Woosley Fire is three times as large, and that docket's in front of them.

And in California, customers pay for every fire under the $1 billion threshold. So there's a attachment point at 1 billion. So it's not apples to apples. Customers are paying claims on top of the fund in California. Does that make sense?

This bill is really contemplating having the ratepayers really provide this backstop for you. And part of me thinks that that's unfair, but you should have some skin in the game. As the bill is outlined right now, you put in $5 million and the ratepayers pay in the $1.0 billion. Right. Your $5 million.

You should set up the operations to administer this. You don't feel that that's inherently unfair for the ratepayers to bear 95% of the cost of this. Of this fund?

Respect the question. But shareholders are already paying $2 billion. And like I mentioned earlier, in California, they recovered that in rates. Our shareholders are covering that whole $2 billion to finance our part of a global settlement that is going to bring speedy relief and not fight it out in court. And we've all agreed.

Let's help those people move forward and our community move forward. So it's not really 90x percent, right? Shareholders are bearing as much burden as they can right now. The amount we have to raise is greater than our market cap, asking shareholders to put up another 500. Shareholders also have to approve the issuance of stock.

And I think it would be really difficult. I think it would put us in a more precarious position. And finally, if I may, Senator, we believe that the stepwise improvement of our credit rating will more than offset the $4 charge over the life.

And we intend to give that back if we can all work together and reduce the wildfire risk in Hawaii.

One last question on page 27. This fund is allowing for the paying of consulting fees and a lot of premiums relating to kind of shareholder processing and operations. Do you mind if we take that out? I don't think the ratepayers, if this goes forward, should be paying for consultants and people who help with your shareholder operations.

Can you give me one second, Senator? Sure.

It's on page 27, line 17, and it goes on to page 20.

Cent. Our proposed amendment does propose taking that out.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Members, other questions?

Vice Chair, maybe to follow up on the government side, so not so much with Hiko at this point. But, Mr. Nish.

Sorry.

You know what, Jason? Maybe just stay.

Okay. You outlined in the Attorney General's testimony some areas where you believe adjustments need to be made. And in Hiko's testimony, they did note a number of areas in which they seem to be acknowledging your office's recommendations. Are you satisfied with the amendments that HECO is proposing at this point, or do you have further amendments?

We have further amendments. We believe that the matter needs to be further discussed to flesh out the proposal.

Okay. One thing that is kind of disparate between your Department and Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs was where the fund or where this should reside. And have your departments come to another recommendation at this point?

No, we haven't.

Okay. So still a work in progress?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Ben, would you like to comment on this? Specifically the DCCA's position that they shouldn't be in charge of this thing?

I think our position is that's the appropriate place for it, but we're open to discussing alternatives.

Okay. Any other questions, Members? Okay, I have. I have one. Would you. I think. Randall, you're okay. Okay. Thanks. Randall, would you care to comment on the catastrophe definition, as was mentioned by Mr. Curtis.

Thank you, Senator. I'd like to clarify that. So we are trying to find a reasonable takeoff point. If it's below the 500 structures and the fund doesn't activate, that's another place where shareholders are already going to take care of it.

So we have insurance up to 150 and we're somewhat exposed, if you will, self insured up to the 500 structure amount. So we think it's appropriate so that there is still accountability up to that threshold. But we're not exposed to necessarily devastating losses.

Do you contemplate the ability to insure the risk with the, with these proposed liability caps?

No. Right now we would. It would cost us 350,000 for every million of insurance premiums. But it's a great point. Point. This is an alternative to that Insurance is what is called a cost of service and is normally included in rates. We've gotten quotes to get up to 500 million.

The additional coverage over what we have is 350,000 in annual premiums for a million.

So your position is that even with these caps on liability, which exists only in, in one state in the country currently, that there's still going to be excess risk that you can't account for and that's the reason for the fun.

Yes.

And that's the reason why the fund is only $1.0 billion instead of, I mean your, your wildfire settlement amount is 2 billion. Yeah. This is contemplating a catastrophe larger than the wildfire. Right.

Certainly we think the cap is fair, Senator, in that we're not asking for like a free pass on all accountability and we not make sure we take care of property owners. When I said in the beginning, the bill is designed to balance the interests of many, so. But there is no unlimited pot of money. Right.

So there is still an event could happen that could. We cannot anticipate. I will say experts have said we've reduced wildfire risk by 60% in the last 18 months. So our mission is really, you know, let's put this in place now to cover that liability.

Let's work together as a state and drive down wildfire risks over the next 10 years with the hope that we can avoid never happen another laha in another tragedy like that. Yeah.

Thank you. Sure. Senator Richards.

Okay.

Just a follow up. I'm listening to the conversation about the. $1.0 billion and $1.0 billion be at 5% money, that's 50 million a year. What happens to that funds? Is that going to be building on it or. Yes. What are we doing with that?

Thank you, Senator. So as contemplated, the bill, the fund would accrue interest. And just hypothetically, if it was 5%, that would be 1.6 billion at the end. If it goes untapped, the Legislature at that time can assess the risk and return it to customers. It will all go back to customers at the time with interest.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair Members, Any other questions?

So, you know what? So. So if the. If it's overage, how would you try to get the refund back to the customer?

If the. I'm sorry, if the. If there's. If there's residual funds, first of all, the Legislature would decide what, if any, any or all of it returning, and we would return it on the bill to offset the financing charge. And it would more than offset it at that point.

So they would see it as a credit on the bill going forward until it was flushed. It would be amortized over whatever remaining financing term we have.

So if the fund is exhausted, what alternative funding mechanisms would a utility propose?

So if the fund does become exhausted, there's a replenishment clause. There's also the opportunity for the fund administrator to call for what's called supplemental contributions. So if the Executive Director. Two things. One, if there is a fire and if it pays out, we have to submit a prudency review at the PUC.

If the PUC finds us imprudent, we're accountable to reimburse the fund up to the same as California. 20% of what's called our transmission distribution rate base, equity rate base. It's about 400 million.

The second part of it is the Executive Director at any time can assess that the risk requires supplemental contributions, and any contributor, including HIHO, can elect then, if they still want the liability coverage, they have to elect to add additional funds to the fund at that time.

So that supplemental contributions plan on getting those supplemental contributions from where?

I mean, we'll have to figure that out at the time. Like right now, we're just trying to make sure we can cover the settlement. I mean, we envision being in better financial standing at that time, Senator.

So I'm assuming one of those options will be taxpayers.

Not taxpayers. It would probably. I mean, one of the options could be further securitization. You're correct. One at the time. If that's the only available option.

Thank you.

Another option would be we don't participate because we can't get it. So.

Thank you. So if I might follow up, I mean, that refund back provision assumes that there's been no catastrophe during the period, but it also assumes that you've completed hardening. Right.

That the Wildfire mitigation plan has been that we are, they're compliant, effectively implemented.

Which means we have a hardened grid basically for the rate pair. That means the grid is sufficiently hardened that the reasonable amount of risk to the system that exists now have been.

Removed through your retrofit of in so much that we have to have the PUC accept our plan and stay updated on that. That's true. We have to have a submitted, accepted plan.

So that plan is underway right now.

We've submitted it with the PUC.

Right, but what if you don't? I mean, what if you get the plan, you get the financing order put in place, you borrow the money 7812 years from now, the plan isn't complete, what happens then?

It's a fair point. I think that's where the Legislature would have to judge the residual risk at that time. Okay, yeah, sure.

Vice Chair could make one follow up. Question with respect to the allocation between ratepayers and shareholders. The House companion to this bill has a slightly different allocation. Is HECO willing to look at a number between that House Bill 982hd1 version and what you have in this bill?

I think we're still trying to figure out how. I think we don't see a way for our shareholders to contribute, you know, in the amounts that the House Bill is suggesting. So. But we're hard at work to see, I think essentially we don't see a path to that. Senator. Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions? Jason? I'm looking at just generally and how Hico processes, you know, claims. Yes. You look at the Chinatown incident from I think last summer, they voiced lots of frustration with the way the claims are processed by Heco.

So if we were to put together this wildfire fund for you, I mean in heaven forbid there's some type of catastrophe that allows you to access these funds. Are we going to have the same issues where businesses are frustrated with HECO in processing their claims due to damages incurred because of hecos?

I appreciate the extraordinary frustration that happened with Downtown. My own family lives downtown. My family's business is downtown. So I really appreciate the question. I think the claims in this case, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, would not be handled by Hico. They would be handled by an independent Executive Director.

So it shouldn't be an issue there. I think in downtown we did take extraordinary steps outside the definition to try to provide our customers in Downtown with compensation that was due to the extraordinary circumstances and not within the letter of what we're required to compensate for. But I appreciate the question.

So you're saying that if we had claims processed through the Wildfire Recovery Fund, it would be obvious you guys processing your own claims?

Not necessarily. I'm merely stating that it wouldn't be heal processing the claims. The point of the bill is to set up an independent arbiter of those claims who can be fair and impartial. And that's the point of funding the Executive Director right out of the gates. Yeah.

Senator Decoy. Thank you, PUC Senator. Yeah, you should stay. Hi. Good morning. Hi. So, you know, kind of want your guys take on this. Does this. Does this benefit the Hawaii taxpayers?

Taxpayers are ratepayers. Sorry, I mean ratepayers. Ratepayers. Ah, yes. So I think it's important to keep in mind that utility does have significant capital needs, including potentially capitalizing this insurance fund.

And as we pointed out in our testimony, we have to keep in mind that when the Legislature is sort of thinking about what is the appropriate share between shareholders and ratepayers, that you have to keep in mind that the shareholder contribution, the utility needs to come up with those funds somehow.

And right now, as the companies have pointed out, it is extremely difficult for them to access the capital market markets. They do have some limited ability. For instance, I believe the companies have filed two applications with the Commission to issue new debt and new equity. So it does seem like they have some capacity to do so.

The question is at what rate? And at this point in time, it's looking like it could potentially be extremely expensive for the companies to go out to the capital markets and, you know, raise whatever capital they can at this point in time.

And the advantage of the securitization that's presented in the bill is that it would potentially be a lower rate to ratepayers, as opposed to any sort of rate that the companies would be able to raise on their own.

So lower rate, but it would still be a rate not the same as today. They would be paying an increase. And if that's not the case, you guys would come to the Legislature and then the taxpayers would pay that rate.

I mean, if that were to happen, I mean, I can't speculate as to, you know, whether we would go to the Legislature or whether Hawaiian Electric could come to the Legislature, anything like that.

So I guess so. How often would the PUC audit the Wildfire Recovery Fund to ensure proper usage?

I don't believe that this bill would permit the PUC to audit the fund because the fund is separately administered from the PUC, the duties to PUC would involve things like conducting the prudency review of the utilities action should a fire or wildfire occur. And, you know, it looks like the utilities infrastructure was responsible for that.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? Okay, that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will move to the next measure, SB 1220 relating to renewable gas tariff.

This measure requires gas utility companies to submit proposed renewable gas tariffs to the PUC by August 31st, 2025, and requires the PUC to establish a renewable gas tariff within six months of receiving a proposed renewable gas tariff. DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy, with comments.

Stand on our written testimony.

Thank you very much. PUC with comments. Thank you. Hawaii State Energy Office in support. Thank you. Hawaii Gas in support.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. I just want to provide some context around this Bill and to take a step back for a second and what we're trying to solve for.

The existing process, currently, in order to file a new tariff requires a rate case and that takes about 18 to 24 months in order to prosecute, and it takes about 2 to 3 million dollars. And all of those costs are recovered from customers.

We're in a rate case right now, which means that the next time that we would likely file for a new tariff, or could file for a new tariff, because of the economics of just finishing a rate case, is probably five to six years down the road. That's important.

So, what are we trying to solve for here, if we're really serious about addressing the state's climate issues? This is about providing an expedited process. It's not about picking winners and losers. It's merely a process. And the expedited process is intended to remove some of those regulatory barriers that get in the way.

So, our solution is to require an expedited decision-making time frame. And that's where the six months come from. If we file it for renewable tariff, we want the Public Utilities Commission to be fast in terms of its approval.

The second piece is that it's not fair to ask the Public Utilities Commission to move fast if Hawaii Gas isn't willing to move fast at all as well, and so that's why we've included a provision that requires us to file by August 31st, 2025.

So, this expedited process needs to have conditions in place to make sure that it's not abused. And what are those conditions? First, the renewable tariff has to be voluntary. You can't slam it down a customer's throat that doesn't want it. Two, it can't increase rates for other customers.

And that's something that's important that gets decided in rate cases usually. And the third point is that the approval standard is the same. We're not asking for a change in the approval standard. It's exactly the same thing that any tariff would be approved by. With that, I'm available for any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much. Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in support.

Not available online.

Thank you. Aloha Carbon, in support, online. Okay. We have written testimony from the Ulupono Initiative in support. Life of the Land in opposition. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Committee Members. As Hawaii Gas pointed out, they're in the middle of a rate case right now and Life of Land is also in it. And they say that a rate case is a great place to put this. So, the question is, why isn't it in the current rate case?

Second, if existing renewable energy gas can be marketed to those willing to pay more, then will Hawaii Gas inform its other customers they're buying only 100% fossil fuel gas? And if Hawaii Gas can charge extra for a tariff for renewable gas, should HECO then follow suit and offer higher rates for their renewable electricity?

It seems odd that the gas company would be the only ones who would get this. Thank you.

Thank you. And the last testifier we have, who submitted testimony, was Naomi Kukich for Simonpietri Enterprises, in support.

Hi, this is Joelle Simonpietri testifying.

Please go ahead.

Just want to briefly say that we support this measure. It a relatively simple way to reduce cost and go faster. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay, oh.

PUC.

Good morning.

Morning. In your testimony is pretty much in opposition to this measure. But as was really just a moment ago from the Hawaii Gas, the process is long and cumbersome. And I read your PUC 2024 inclinations on the future of energy in Hawaii, and this document readily admits that not just for the Hawaii Gas, but just all of your processes are long, cumbersome. Ultimately, the ratepayers, whether they're buying gas or electricity, pay for that long and cumbersome process.

You talk about in here saying that the status quo is just unsustainable. So if you already know that it's like molasses moving rate case through the PUC, all this bill does is kind of just nudge you to do what you say you want to do anyway?

Correct. So I think that it's important to point out that in our testimony, I wouldn't characterize it as necessarily opposition. There were just certain parts of the bill as it's written that we had some questions about in terms of like how we were supposed to implement this renewable gas tariff, for example. Like the definition of about the therm usage or whether or not we have, we would have to set up a tariff for each particular customer that was interested versus setting up, you know, a general renewable gas tariff that any customer could elect into, that sort of thing.

So it was just more providing comments to clarify, you know, how we could potentially make this bill work. And as for the actual, the cumbersome process, the reason why we had suggested utilizing the sort of same statutory deadlines that the rate case has is because for the rate case process, we do have a hard deadline in terms of when we have to issue a decision. And if we were to have something like that similar with this bill, then you know, that would provide some certainty about a Commission decision within a specific amount of time.

But still, two to three years for a rate case is, I just think it's just far too long. Even if you have hard deadlines within the rate case process, it seems like it's a lengthy period of time.

Well, it's just we really are trying to get these decisions out as expeditiously as possible. We just need to, as we're doing our rate case process or any other process, we have to weigh the interest of everybody, all of the stakeholders involved, whether it's the applicant or the ratepayers or any of the potential interveners or participants.

And doing so, unfortunately, does require time because we have to ensure that everybody's process rights are respected. And we also have to ensure that, on our end, that we're examining everything thoroughly and making sure that whatever decision that the Commission makes is a just and reasonable one. And we do appreciate the desire for timely and speedy decision.

And we have always been trying to get those decisions out as quickly as possible. I think it's also worth pointing out that oftentimes the applicants, the utilities, they will request a specific deadline for a Commission decision. And generally speaking, we do try to honor that decision deadline. So that is something with that, if a utility were to come forth with a request for a renewable gas tariff, they are free to ask for Commission decision by a certain deadline.

Members, any other questions? Vice Chair.

For Consumer Advocate. You raise a number of additional concerns with respect to the proposal. Can you elaborate on why you believe that a rate case would be a more appropriate vehicle than what's being proposed?

There's always costs that are incurred and we want to make sure that the cost... There's a principle and regulation that's called cost cause or cost payer, and that's fundamental component of cost of service based regulation. So part of this would be, any costs that are incurred, we want to make sure that those are recovered appropriately from the customers that are causing those costs. And that would happen through a rate case. So if we start developing rates of one off, it doesn't necessarily recover all the cost to provide that service or the customer might be overcharged on the other side of that.

Okay, so with respect to Hawaii Gas proposal, is just changing the timeframe sufficient to adequately address those concerns or would it be more appropriate in a rate case where you identify, you know, the demand as well as the actual supply, availability, etc. Is that?

That's correct. It would be... It is more conducive to being able to holistically look at that across all customers. We did propose, I would note, that they could approach a pilot program because that could be an alternative to addressing sort of a chicken and egg problem for customers who might have this need for renewable gas. And then we could, it wouldn't be as risky to the rest of the customers.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Members? Okay, we'll move on to the next measure, SB 1500, relating to electric utilities. This measure provides the PUC with the authority to appoint a receiver to take temporary action necessary to assure continued adequate electric services from regulated investor owned electric utilities and appropriates funds. DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocacy in support. Got you. Thank you. PUC with comments. Thank you. That's all the registered testimony we've received. Is there anyone else who would like to tell testify? Members, any questions? All right, I will yield to the co-chair for the next bill.

Okay, Members, we are moving on to Senate Bill 1501, and this bill is relating to energy. First in our testifiers list we have Luis Salaveria from Department of Budget and Finance who submitted commentary. Randall Nishiyama, AG. Thank you. Leo Asuncion from PUC. Thank you. Michael Angelo from DCCA.

Stand on our testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Mariah Yoshizu, Ulupono.

Thank you, Chair. Ulupono will stand on its written testimony in support.

Brian Duncan from Plus Power might be joining us via Zoom.

Yes, hi. Thank you. Yep. Plus Power supports 1501. The step in legislation really is a critical need to help unlock the financing required for future reliability projects in Hawaii. This will provide necessary stopgap to Hawaiian Electric while they work to get their investment grade credit rating back.

Because Hawaiian Electric does not have an investment credit rating, it's important to note that without the payment assurance provided by something like step in legislation, lenders will charge higher interest rates to finance large infrastructure projects on the island if they're willing to finance them at all, which then leads to higher cost for rate payers to ensure reliability on the island for these projects. Thank you again for the opportunity.

Thank you, Brian. Wren Wescoatt from Longroad has submitted testimony in support. Oh, you're here. Lori Long from Clearway. Thank you, Lori. Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima.

Good morning Chairs, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima. I'm Vice President of Resource Procurement for Hawaiian Electric and we're testifying in strong support of SB 1501. This bill is crucial for our customers and for the ability to develop new renewable energy projects in Hawaii.

I want to note that we've submitted written amendments with our testimony. These were done in order to strengthen the protection to the state as well as assure payments to the independent power producers. We also understand that AES Hawaii has submitted written comments amendments and we support those amendments from AES Hawaii as well.

SB 1501 provides a step in agreement to mitigate risk to independent power producers based on the company's current credit rating, which you just heard from Plus Power developers depend on the company's credit rating in order to obtain financing at favorable rates.

And without a favorable credit rating, they may not be able to obtain financing at favorable rates or at all which could Increase cost to our customers or just stop renewable energy development in Hawaii until our credit rating improves. So this bill will. Okay, thank you. I'm here to answer any questions. Thanks for sticking around.

Sandra Larson, A. Yes.

Morning, chairs, vice chairs, and Members of the Committee. Sandra Larson. We have submitted testimony in support with proposed amendments. I'm here just to emphasize the critical importance of this bill, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Sandra. Nicole, Allen Bulgarino from Ameresco might be joining us via Zoom. Oh, there's Nicole.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to strong support of this bill. I'm Nicole Bulgarino, President of Federal Solutions and Utility Infrastructure at Ameresco.

We've been doing energy projects in Hawaii for the past 15 years and currently have three large projects in the stage three under the HECOS procurement. We have provided written testimony, but just to highlight a few key areas. With the pending retirement of the fossil fuel generators, insufficient energy production.

This increases the risk of backouts as seen last year. So new renewable energy projects are critical for reliable, affordable and continued energy supply. We, however, given Hawaiian Electric's financial challenges, make project financing extremely difficult.

Without certainty, lenders are hesitant, which could result in project termination, something we've already seen with some of the other projects under the stage three. To secure financing, the state must establish this mechanism definitively. If the bill makes this framework optional, it is effectively the equivalent of ask, taking no action at all. So we remain committed to delivering.

Oh, sorry, your time is up.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. We have your written testimony.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Ryan Sakuda from the General Contractors Association has submitted testimony and support. That's all I have for those indicating they'd like to testify. Is there anyone in the room that would like to testify in Senate Bill 1501, if not Members? Any questions? Other questions for Hiko? Rebecca, this bill is super complicated.

I mean, we're setting up an entire new process for the state to help collect revenues and then dispense the revenues to the IPP. So I'm just trying to.

In layman's terms, is this kind of like when the government, like, garnishes someone's wages to take it from them and then to pay someone else for child support or what have you. It's similar, right? In the way we're setting up this. This process.

It is similar. And I would note that, you know, it does take the payments we would normally receive. From customers, allow the state to use those to pay developers. But the bill also provides that Hawaiian Electric could act as agent for the state.

So in terms of like actually having to have someone at the state function on those tasks, that wouldn't be necessary. So from the way the payments are currently made today, Hawaiian Electric would continue as the agent to collect the money, pay the ipp.

So there wouldn't be a need to stand up like a whole Department to do these functions.

So in an average month, how much does Hawaiian Electric pay to all your IPPS?

On a yearly basis it's around a half $1.0 billion. So monthly it's about 50 million.

Okay, and then you. The bill contemplates this Reserve fee and I understand that that's helping with like cash flow, but I'm still not understanding how you came to some of the numbers there. The Reserve fee is based on 15% of, I guess your appropriations to these IPPS. Like how did you come up with 15%?

Is it Reserve Fund?

Sure. It's 15% of one month, of just one month of the covered PPA payments or power purchase agreement payments. So the amount that we pay the covered projects, which is we're proposing a stage three under the Bill as well as our next procurement IGP RFP. Currently we recover payments to pay the IPPS as a strict pass through.

If the IPPS charge us $5, we charge our customers $5. We take that $5 and we pay the IPPS. The utility does not make any money off of power purchase agreements. We collect that revenue from customers on a monthly basis.

Sometimes that can be under recovered based on different factors, but largely based on if our sales forecast is accurate. So we looked at our historical sales forecasts over recent years to determine, you know, how high could under recovery be to ensure that there's enough payments to make the IPPS.

On an average it's around 2-3% a year, but on a monthly basis it can go as high as 6% in some months. So we took that number and we, you know, multiplied that by three to cover a quarter period because in a quarter, usually these rates are then chewed up.

And that's how we came up with the 15%. It's a relatively nominal amount for just the stage 3 projects. We anticipate that it would cost customers about 6 to, I think $0.16 depending on the island for 29 months only.

That would be better than the alternative where if, you know, we're hearing from IPPs cost could increase as much as 20 to 30%. That would be per month, 20-30% higher customers are paying per month.

And so we're seeking the Fund as a way to limit the cost to customers, but also provide protection to the ipps to ensure there's enough money.

Also adding the Reserve Fund allowed us to take out language that was originally in the Bill that required the state to use state treasury funds to back if there was an under recovery. So this, you know, protects the state as well.

Okay. In the language of the bill on page 18, it says that the ratepayers are going to be the ones to put in this Reserve fee. And based on your numbers of maybe half $1.0 billion a year for IPPS divided by 12 comes out to about $41 million. Multiply that by 15%.

You're asking the ratepayers to put in $6.25 million just to help with this Reserve fee?

No. So the Reserve fee is only going to be for the covered power purchase agreements, which is just the stage three projects and the IGP RFP projects which we've yet to select. So it wouldn't cover the monies that were, you know, there wouldn't be 15% of what we're already paying. It's just for these two sets of procurements.

For stage three, we estimate that amount to be, I think it's roughly like $4 million.

Okay, so $4 million, but still you're asking for the ratepayers to pay that. Right?

And the alternative is that they'll pay higher prices in the amount of 20 to 30% per month, which would be, you know, multimillion dollars over a 30 year contract because we would set the rates when we execute and the customers would be responsible for paying that higher rate over 30 years versus a pretty nominal amount of just cents on their bill for 29 months to cover their Reserve.

Right.

That's what I find frustrating is PICO always says, zero, it's just a few cents, it's just four blocks. It's just this after a while, all the just, just, just add up to a lot of money for the ultimate rate payer.

I mean couldn't we change the language here so that that $4 million is going to be needed for the Reservo Fund really comes off the back of HECO.

So I understand your concern and we are cognizant of trying to limit the costs that are added to the bill. As I noted, Hawaiian Electric doesn't make any money from power purchase contracts.

So if we were to rent pay for the Reserve Fund, in essence we would be Paying ipps to produce power, you know, in addition to the cost that they're already paying on the invoice, we'd be losing money.

We would be disincentivized to enter into power purchase agreements and to further renewable energy because it would cost, it would literally cost us money to do that. And our customers, our ratepayers, as Jason pointed out, our shareholders, as Jason pointed out, are paying $2 billion already in the settlement.

The bills we're introducing are to address our credit rating and to address liquidity concerns. And having money tying up additional money at this time is not, it's just going to exasperate the problems that we're trying to actually resolve with these two bills.

And in the testimony from I think it's Budget and Finance, they want to change the language from Shell to May. And if we were to do that, there'd be no reason to even have this bill. Right. Because then that doesn't give any of the ipps any assurance that this entire mechanism will ever be implemented.

Correct. The IPPs wouldn't be able to rely on the bill until those step in agreements were actually entered into, which would make the next procurement extremely difficult. The developers would still have to assume they're not going to have one and they would have to bid the higher prices when they bid their PPE prices.

Thank you.

Sorry. Any, any other questions or—on—SB 1501. If not, thank you, Members. We're going to move on to the last measure on this agenda that is Senate Bill 897, SD 1, relating to energy. On our testifiers list we have Randall Nishiyama from the Attorney General's Office.

We've submitted our written comments and are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nishiyama.

Leo Asuncion from the PUC.

We stand on our written testimony and are available for questions.

Thank you. Michael Angelo from DCCA.

Stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima from Eco.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We stand—Hawaiian Electric is in opposition to SB 897 in its current form, though we do recognize, Chair, that you had made in a prior decision-making hearing a note that we would remove references to the Wildfire Relief Fund and expansion of the HERA role.

If that's not the case, we do oppose those inclusion of these topics in this Bill and believe that the bills heard earlier today, SB 1201 and SB 1501, are better suited to address those concerns. And we would also note that the PUC already is implementing an RFP for HERA.

So, we're not sure that any further changes to HERA are necessary at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Rebecca. Nicole Allen Bulgarino from Ameresco might be joining us via Zoom.

Thank you. So, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed Bill. As testified in SB 5091, the state establishing a step in agreements is critical to finance for the renewable projects under development. This Bill is the result of many meetings with stakeholders, consultants, bankruptcy, and financing advisors.

That Bill provides the necessary mechanisms and details to provide certainty to the financial institutions. While SB—the 897 one—has elements pertaining to power purchase agreements and cost recovery, the structure that SB 1501 has more details.

Therefore, we recommend removing any of this elements in the 897 and utilize the SB1501 as a vehicle, for this is important for legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Thank you, Nicole. Evan Oy. Thank you. Henry Curtis.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Committee Members. Henry Curtis with Life of the Land. We found Section 4 of the Bill to be somewhat confusing. I know there were a few words missing from it, but even with that, it appears that a HECO could own 59% of a company and it would be an independent power producer.

The company could be a fossil fuel company and yet be called non fossil fuel. It would use HERA rather than PUC. It would bypass the structure of the PUC, which does not exist within the HERA, and it would give powers to HERA that are beyond what the procurement currently underway, the PUC is seeking to get a HERA administrator in.

So, for all those reasons we oppose Section 4. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Curtis. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 897? If not, Members, any questions? Yeah, Chair Keohokalole.

Yeah. PUC. What is a low carbon fuel?

The PUC typically looks at carbon emissions on a life cycle basis, as defined in our statutes. Fuels have a variety of their life cycle of fuel amounts and intensities. This also amounts—affects the heat rates of those fuels when they get burned and combusted. I don't know, I'd have to double check if there's a definition in this Bill, but if you'd like, I can provide you one in a separate written form.

Is there a definition for "low carbon fuel" in the statute now?

I'd have to double check. I'd be happy to do so for you, but to my knowledge it look—we are...

Does the CA know?

Okay, thank you.

Okay. Members, any further questions? If not, we're going to break briefly.

Recess.

Okay. And we're back. This is our 9:30am agenda. It's February 11,2025, in room 229. This is Joint Committee hearing between the Senate CPN and EIG committees to make decisions on the following items. The first is SB 1201 relating to wildfires. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments.

I'd just like to say briefly, quickly, that this measure implicates hundreds of millions of dollars in ratepayer contributions for this Fund, in part to address hundreds of millions of dollars will pay as ratepayers in higher interest premiums on HECO's debt if their credit rating remains subpar.

This is at least how it appears to be and also implicates billions of dollars in liability if there is another disaster before HECO's grid hardening plan is completed.

It's a complicated Bill, made more complicated at this juncture by yesterday's Hawaii Supreme Court ruling on subrogation of insurance claims related to the Maui wildfires, and further complicated by the Administration the governor's proposed SB 1320; which proposes to appropriate over $800 million in taxpayer General Funds to settle those same wildfire lawsuits.

As noted in the discussion, we're also watching a similar wildfire Fund to this one roll out in real time in California in response to the LA wildfires, and we will continue to learn more about that as the session proceeds.

So I'm proposing that we pass this measure out with a number of changes and I ask for some latitude from the committees to keep the vehicle moving so that we can continue to work with all the stakeholders to try to find a way for this to all make sense for all of us who have to pay electric bills every month.

So the brief summary of the amendments which have been provided, I'll just read off.

The first thing we're going to do is add a definition to section A1, creating a wildfire mitigation plan compliance report, and make a utility that is pursuing securitization. Submit an annual report, reviewed and approved by the PUC, that documents utility compliance with an approved wildfire mitigation plan.

That compliance report shall include quantitative analysis of wildfire risk reduction implemented by the electric utility each year. On page 10, section A3B, subsection B 1 and 2 will blank the contribution amounts to the Fund for both ratepayer and shareholder contributions.

We're also going to remove language in A3B subsection 2 that designates funding for the Executive Director and implementation of the Fund. So we're just going to blank the amounts for the initial ratepayer contributions and blank them for the initial shareholder contributions.

On page 15, we're going to strike the last sentence of Section A6, subsection B, which says a qualified claimant who fails to file a claim by the deadline shall be ineligible to receive payment from the Wildfire Recovery Fund and shall be barred from instituting or maintaining a qualifying action. We're going to strike that sentence.

On page 17, we're going to strike section A8 in its entirety. We're going to remove the caps on aggregate liability. We're going to adopt the proposed PUC amendments, including section B1 changes, which narrow the definition of wildfire recovery costs. In response to the testimony, we're going to adopt the KIUC proposed amendments.

The co-op would like the ability to participate in the Fund.

We will adopt a definition of Executive Officer and propose amendments that condition the approval of Executive pay raises at a utility that is approved for a financing order upon five consecutive years of PUC approvals of Wildfire Mitigation Plan compliance reports. So no Executive pay raises unless the mitigation plan is approved by the PUC five years in a row.

We'll also adopt an amendment to allow the PUC an option to consider a symmetric performance incentive mechanism as a replacement to the compliance reporting mechanism, if deemed appropriate. There are also a number of technical, non substantive amendments and we will defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050 to keep the conversation moving.

Members, thank you for that. Any discussion? Senator Fevella.

Yeah, no. Thank you for all that long amendments and all that, but I was willing to vote no because of the rate pairs and you know, we're already paying high utility bills. But I agree with you on amendments, so I'm going to vote up on this Bill. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. [calls roll]

Thank you, your measure is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, for Members of EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

For SB 1201 for the EIG Committee. Recommendation is to pass with amendments.[ calls roll]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next measure is SB 1220, relating to renewable gas tariff. The recommendation is to keep the conversation moving on this measure by passing with a defective effective date of 07 01, 2050 Members, any discussion? Vice Chair?

I appreciated the discussion in today's hearing. I am still a little concerned about what seems to be lack of clarity. So I won't be voting with reservations. Thank you.

So noted. Any other comments or questions? Okay. If not passing with amendments, Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair votes with reservations. [calls roll] Thank you, your measure is adopted.

Thank you. For EIG1, Same recommendation, pass this measure with amendments. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

SB 1220 recommendation for EIG is to pass with amendments. [calls roll]. Recommendation is adopted. Than you.

Thank you. Next measure is SB 1500 relating to electric utilities. This measure provides- oh, we already said the description. Pass with amendments. Defect date July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. Passing with amendments, Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Your measure is adopted.

For Members of EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

For SB 1500, EIG's recommendation is to pass with amendments. With all five Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

The next Bill is Senate Bill 1501 relating to energy. This is the Bill that's going to give assurances to the independent power producers; that they will be paid no matter what the future might be for HECO. The two chairs have conferred. We'd like to pass this measure out with a few amendments.

One being just taking into account the AG's, as well as budget and finance concerns that somehow this Bill cannot impact the state at all. So we're going to put in language, so noting that if the Fund, this trust Fund, is ever depleted, the state will have no obligations to make payments to the IPPS.

We will take AES's suggested amendments and we appreciate the fact that AES has worked diligently with HECO, and HECO approves of this as well.

So it's both AES and HECO suggested amendments. We're going to add language to specify that if the PPA is terminated by HECO during bankruptcy, a step in agreement will obligate the Department to make payments under the PPAs. as if the PPA is still in effect. Or pay the IPP's damage claim arising from such termination.

Another added amendment will be to add language that if the PPAS provides for payment of a termination payment after a HECO Default, the state statute should expressly provide that any termination payment due under PPA is covered by the Step In Agreement.

Also include language specifying that other terms and conditions imposed under the Step In Agreement will not impede full and prompt payment of obligations under the agreement. And include language specifying that in the event of a bankruptcy filing by the electric utility, title to the revenues does not divest from the Department and vest in the electric utility.

We also defect the date to May 13, 2040. Members, any discussion on the proposed amendments? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Okay for SB 1501. Chair's recommendation for EIG is to pass with amendments. Of the five Members present, do we have any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Same recommendation on the measure. Any discussion? Seeing none, Chair votes aye.

Thank you, of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? [no] Thank you. Your measure is adopted.

Members, we're going on to the last Bill on this agenda. That is Senate Bill 897-SD1, relating to energy. I want to make a number of amendments to this measure. We'd like to change Wildfire Recovery Fund to Wildfire Liability Fund.

This is to ensure that our intent is clear and this Fund cannot be used to pay out liability claims or other expenditures. We are going to take the AG's suggested amendment to explicitly state this is a liability Fund. That this liability Fund is a trust Fund, not a special Fund.

Going to remove any reference to the Reliability Administrator as it relates to the IPPS, which are sections 3, 4, 5, and 7, and amend the preamble to reflect this change.

We're also going to have technical, non substantive amendments and as the PUC stated in their testimony, we are going to help them define what low carbon fuel is and also defective date to May 13, 2040. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

for SB897, SD1 Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Of the five Members present, do we have any objections or reservations? Carrying on ,the recommendation is adopted.

CPN, same recommendation, passing with amendments. Any discussion? Seeing none. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, any voting with reservations or objections? [No.] Thank you. Your objection is noted. Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Okay. Good morning and welcome back. This is our Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 10:01am agenda in Conference Room 229 to consider SB 999 which was a joint referred measure that was heard last week with the PSM Committee.

Members, the recommendation, after having conferred with the Co-Chair is to pass this measure with amendments, removing Section 2 of the measure. Also noting that section 132D-5, subsection C is no longer being repealed for section 132D-5, subsection B.

Remove the added word use and restore the statutory language more than five calendar days before the time periods for permissible use under Section 132D-3. Remove sections 4,6, and 7 of the measure. Change the amounts in HRS Section 132D-14, A6B, and 132D-14B from $500 to 1000.

Under HRS Section 132D-14 C1, change 20% to 50% and change 80% to 50%. Under Section 132D-14 C2, change the reference to the Firework Forfeiture Special Fund to the General Fund and change the percentage of forfeited assets going into the General Fund to 100%. Adopt the Attorney General's proposed amendment provided in their testimony to 132D-14. Remove section 15.

Add a section appropriating a blank amount of the General revenues for the next two fiscal years to provide for community safety education programs to be expended by the DLE. Defect the date to July 1, 2077 and to adopt any technical and conforming amendments that are needed to the to the measure. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none.

Vice Chair, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes Aye. [calls roll] Measure is adopted.

Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.

Hey, good morning and welcome. This is our Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 9:45 am. Joint Committee Agenda in Conference Room 2 to 9 between the Senate Committee's Senate CPN Committee and Senate HHS Committee to consider. Well, up first is SB 463 relating to consumer protection.

This measure requires, beginning January 1st of next year, Kratom products to be registered with the Department of Health and imposes labor requirements. Department of Health in opposition.

Good morning. Good morning, Senator. Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs. Matthew Carano, Department of Health, Environmental Health Services. We provide a written testimony. We'll stand on it. And we just want to provide a little bit of extra context that Kratom is not something that we really understand well yet know what safe levels are.

So a regulatory program we feel is premature at this time. Available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Wade Hargrove.

I'm the Deputy Attorney General and I'm here for the Attorney General and I made some observations in the testimony concerning the definitional aspect of one of the terms that's used throughout or in select places in the bill that is problematic simply because the Department doesn't currently license it. So the bill doesn't provide for that.

So that would be something that would assist the Committee in remedying by way of amendments. Also, just would it suggest that the term not include a prerequisite for compliance with the law?

So, for example, when you say a licensed entity and that person is not in fact licensed and it falls outside of the regulatory scope that the bill would otherwise seek to provide.

So there's that in the due process aspects of just trying to create some procedure and again, process for the person who is subject to forfeiture to contest that. And currently, as written, bill does not do that. So we would ask for an opportunity to try and help you guys with that.

There's, it's not clear whether they're in direct conflict or that they necessarily contradict each other, but there's a variety of enforcement mechanisms and penalties. And since this part is being placed into an existing structure, the architecture of Chapter 328 already has much of that enforcement capability.

We would suggest maybe working with the Committee to try and incorporate the ideas or the substance of the enforcement into the architecture that's already there, so there are no unnecessary conflicts or inconsistencies. And I'll be here if you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd just like to note very quickly for everyone who has been waiting very patiently for this agenda because our earlier agenda ran long, we are time constrained. We're going to adopt the HHS Committee practice of a one minute cap on testimony.

We need to leave this proceeding at 11:15 in order to head down to floor for our regular Senate session. And I would really like to allow everyone who came today the opportunity to testify on the record so that you don't have to come back tomorrow.

If we are required to defer action on this, if we can at least take everyone's testimony, we can vote later and make sure that the bills move beyond the deadline. But I don't want to rush people.

I just want to warn you that if we go too long, then we might have to ask you to come back tomorrow, which is really junk. So we'll just keep going. Next is Hawaii Association of Professional Nurses not on Zoom Chair. Thank you. Global Kratom Coalition in opposition hi.

The Global Kratom Coalition has submitted testimony in opposition to SB463, which we stand on. However, I'd like to highlight a few key points. Specifically, while we largely support what's in the bill, we are opposed to the bill due to the inclusion of two provisions.

First, there is a provision that creates a loophole that excludes products from the 2% 7 hydroxy mitragynine limit set forth in this bill so long as those products don't market themselves as Kratom. Second, there is also provision that would prohibit combining Kratom with another compound that is known to inhibit P450 enzymes.

This provision is overly broad and creates a costly bureaucracy to determine the safety of products. This requirement would be unprecedented in the dietary supplements industry and there is no reasonable scientific or logical basis to include this provision. We urge the Committee to remove these provisions and respectfully remain opposed to SB 463 until it's amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The American Kratom Association in support.

Thank you. My name is Matt Kado, Senior Fellow in Public Policy. I have submitted testimony, but I would emphasize a couple of things. Hawaii knows firsthand how the FDA can treat botanical substances like Kava. For example, requiring the Department of Health last year to designate Kava as a grass substance.

The FDA simply is being unfair to these botanical products. Today, Hawaii is positioned to become a major supplier of Kratom raw materials. You have plantations growing right now. But the FDA refuses to regulate kratom. They won't regulate 70 they won't regulate adulterated products or potentially dangerous product mixtures. We are not against product mixtures.

We want the regulatory agency in Hawaii to simply review them and approve them. Along the way, we need Hawaii to join 13 other states that have product formulation limits, labeling and age restrictions.

We hope this Committee will help move forward and we're willing to talk to all the stakeholders in order to move this forward to make amendments that are necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. Kratom Danger Awareness in opposition not available online soon. Thank you. Venus Usher in support online. Christopher Dini. Hi.

I'm sorry, I'm here. Okay. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Venus Usher and I'd like to share my story and urge you to keep kratom legal. In 2000, my life was turned upside down by an FDA.

Can you enable your video please?

I'm not sure. I don't think it works. Okay, go ahead. Okay, thank you. In 2000, my life was turned upside down by an FDA approved medication that caused kidney stones and unrelated. For 17 years, I fought to prove my pain was real.

I was labeled a drug addict, subjected to unnecessary surgeries, including a hysterectomy, and even placed in rehab. No one believed me and no one would help me. Then eight years ago, I discovered Kratom tea. A simple tea that changed everything.

I found a responsible vendor and when my first package arrived, I didn't expect much, but the relief was almost immediate. Better than anything I'd experienced almost two decades. The Kratom. I was finally able to see my Doctor and surgeon and undergo a three hour surgery that proved my pain was real.

Severe adhesions had caused my internal organs to fuse together. Even after surgery, it was Kratom, not prescription medication, that allowed me to heal even while still in the hospital. I had them remove my iv. I drank my tea and it worked better.

I got up out of bed and spent the rest of my time talking about Kratom with the nurses.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Christopher Dini with comments online. Please unmute yourself and proceed. Good morning.

Good morning. How are you today? I didn't submit my written testimony, but I am almost 50 years old. I was hit by a car at 8 years old and prescribed opiates for 15 years. It was pretty rough growing up, being in pain and dealing with what I had to deal with.

I found kratom about 10 years ago and just making a cup of tea a couple times a day really improved my quality of life. And I just want to encourage everybody to really look into this plant and see how beneficial it can be. Thank you very Much.

Jennifer Gillis in support online yes, hi, my name is Jennifer Gillis. I am a 5 and a half years kratom consumer and advocate and I just want to say that I do support this bill. Regulation is very important to making sure everybody receives a safe product.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? In total we had seven in support, five in opposition and five with comments Members questions. Kate Singnan will move on and I yield to the co chair.

Sorry Chair, one more testifier on Zoom.

Aloha. Go ahead. Hey, sorry, I wasn't actually going to. I wasn't aware of this bill until just recently. So thank you for hearing me at the last minute. I'm a big supporter of Kratom. I have. I grew up in a neighborhood devastated by the opioid crisis and I've lost friends to opioid addiction.

And it's one of the only things that has saved some of those friends and prevented them from going down that road, enabling them to stop without the addictive consequences. I've seen people whose whose entire medical situations have been transformed by Kratom. It should be legal. In fact, it already is legal.

In the absence of a law prohibiting it, it should be legal. But the abuse of policies and regulations, the overzealous desire to regulate everything, has an attitude that everything is illegal until this body says it's legal. That's a problem.

I, as the Libertarian Party Chairman and as a Libertarian, I totally oppose any regulatory framework which would remove free market choices from market participants and from consumers. There's just no reason to regulate it. There's no data showing that it's dangerous. Aloha. Thank you.

Thank you very much. For SB 953, relating to hospitals. First up, we have Health Care Association of Hawaii in opposition.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Hilton Raethel from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii. We appreciate the intent of this bill. However, we are concerned about its duplicative nature. There are already federal rules requiring hospitals to post machine readable files of standard charge and provider consumer information. This measure would add an additional layer of bureaucracy and costs, and if the state regulations differ from evolving federal standards, hospitals may be caught between conflicting mandates. We would ask that the committees defer this measure, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Next we have SHPDA in support. Dr. Lewin.

Aloha, Chair San Buenaventura, Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chairs, Members. SHPDA also supports the intent of this bill. There's a lot of pressure nationally to create transparency across hospital crisis and there's also pressure growing from medical debt. It's a complicated bill, so we support the intent with comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify in SB 953? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Yeah, I do, but I'm gonna be told because I'm looking at we only have seven more minutes left. So first up, I mean, moving on. SB 1040, relating to medical debt. First up, we have Office of Wellness and Resiliency in support.

Thank you very much. Jacce Mikulanec, Queen’s Health Systems, in support. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support. Holomua Collaborative in support. Joshua Wisch, are you present? Okay, moving on. Healthcare Association of Hawaii in support. Thank you. American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support. Jun Shin in support. Holomua Collaborative in support.

Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 1040? Seeing none. Moving on. Next up, SB 1064, relating to medical cannabis. Attorney General providing comments. Are you present?

Aloha. Alana Bryant for the Department of the Attorney General. Our testimony offers recommended amendments and comments. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Health providing comments. Thank you very much. Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association in support. Ty Cheng, are you present?

Yes, present. We'll just stand on our written testimony. Thank you, Chair.

Akamai Cannabis Consulting providing comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committees. You have my written testimony. I just wanted to emphasize this potential conflict between operations that might be prohibited by the bill and the usable supply of medical cannabis that patients require. I've submitted a potential amendment to address this. Thank you for considering my testimony.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, Jaclyn Moore of Big Island Grown in support. Karlyn Laulusa, Noa Botanicals, in support. Karlyn, are you present on Zoom?

Yes, Chair. Stand in strong support and stand on written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Cure Oahu in support. Mihoko Ito.

Cure stands on its testimony in support requesting amendments.

Thank you. Dara Yatsushiro in support. Jeffrey Hong in support.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jeff Hong. I'm the CEO of Techmana cybersecurity company. I bring additional perspectives as the Board Chair of Hawaiian Ethos and as the Chair of the Honolulu Liquor Commission. I testify today in a personal capacity.

After joining the Liquor Commission, I was surprised that we could not shut down illegal bars. There was an illegal bar operating for years across from our office. The Commission can easily enforce violations of licensees, but illegal bars don't have a license to withhold and may require better law enforcement resources.

Regulation and jurisdiction lay between HPD and the Liquor Commission with criminal enterprises filling the gap. Within a mile of this building, there are vape shops and mini marts that sell illegal cannabis products. The liquor commissions have clear authority to sanction liquor license like mini marts to break the law by selling cannabis. By providing authorization for liquor inspectors to investigate these sales, we can help close the gap, resourcing gap for enforcing this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, be aware, folks, that I have read your testimony. If you're just going to reread it, you're just going to irritate us. So especially since we only have four minutes. So moving on. Next up, we have Jeffrey Hong again in support. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify on SB 1064? And next up, we have SB 1150. Excuse me, can we just deal with the rest?

Okay. We'll just keep going. SB 1150 relating to healthcare. First up, we have Deputy Attorney General in support. Again, if you can rest on your written testimony, we get it.

I know we're not allowed to, technically.

No, you can.

Yes, well, we, we, this—my name is Angela Takua, Deputy Attorney General. The Department supports this Bill and offers comments and I'll be around for any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Next, Judiciary providing comments. Okay, next. Carlotta Amarino, Office of Information Practices providing comments. Jen Kagiwata in support. Bronson Silva, Democratic Party Hawaii, in support. Carolyn Martinez, Goloyo Family—Rainbow Family 808—in support. Carolyn, are you present on Zoom?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Crystal Joy Beal, QueerDoc, in support. Michael Golojuch, Jr., LGBTQ Commission, in support.

The Hawaii State LGBTQ-Plus Commission stands in strong support of this Bill. Please do not let the opposition...

Thank you very much. Diana Vandikar, Indivisible Hawaii, in support. Pride at Work Hawaii in support. Are you present? Pride at Work.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Randy Perreira, Hawaii State AFL-CIO, in support. Junghe Overly, AUW, in support. Jeremy Kleitmore, Hawaii Association of Professional Networks, in support. Dean Hamer, in support. Dean, are you present on Zoom?

Yes, I am.

Please proceed. You have one minute.

Thank you. My name is Dean Hamer. I'd like to support this Bill and I'd like to talk about the medical aspects. I do so as a graduate of Harvard Medical School and Scientist Emeritus at the National Institutes of Health. Gender-affirming treatments are now considered the standard for medical care.

And that's endorsed by the American Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and many other organizations. And the reason it's standard of care is because over 2,000 peer-reviewed studies have shown that gender-affirming care is beneficial.

It improves mental health outcomes by as much as 80% and it also substantially reduces the rates of suicide ideation. This is important because adults who have transitioned and wanted to have puberty treatment, but didn't, have had a very high rate of such ideation. So, I support this Bill because it is the standard for medical care.

And of course, Hawaii has always been a leader in providing the best medical care to all of its citizens. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Abby Simmons, I see you on Zoom. Please proceed. Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

We stand on our written testimony in strong support, and we support the amendments by the EAD's office. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Nikos Leverenz, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction, in support. Nikos, you have one minute.

Aloha, Chair. Nikos Leverenz, on behalf of Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, in strong support. Let's join the 17 other states in D.C. in supporting those providing and accessing gende- affirming care. Mahalo.

So, it's 11:15, Co-Chair.

Let's just go as long as we can.

Okay. Until, until we're kicked out. Let's see what happens. Okay. Libertarian Party of Hawaii in opposition. Austin Shiloh Martin, Liberty Party of Hawaii, in opposition. Austin, are you present on Zoom?

I am, and I'd like to object to the rushed testimony on this important issue. This Bill is not about gender-affirming care access. This Bill is about stealing children from states that do not have that access.

Buried in this Bill is a provision that would legalize interstate kidnapping by requiring judges to issue custody orders in cases where the plaintiff merely alleges that the reason for the abduction was to obtain gender-affirming care.

It is so broad that a non-parent or even an NGO could steal a child and come to Hawaii and the judge's hands would be tied to issue custody orders against children that are literally being abducted and spirited away across state lines. This is not a health care Bill. This is a kidnapping Bill.

This is a declaration of war against the red states. It deserves public comment, and it was put to the end on purpose, I feel. I am very, very disappointed that there's not better discussion about this. This is not about access. This is about protecting people who are engaged in what would otherwise be considered a criminal act.

Forget about the whole gender-affirming care issue. That's political sand in our eyes. We don't need to legalize kidnapping. It's wrong.

Thank you. Thank you. There are a lot of people who echo your views. Next, we have Beatrice Dirrego, Democratic Party Hawaii Education, in support. Amy Zhao, Imbua Alliance, in support. Jill Uehara in support. Doris Segum Matsunaga, Save Medicaid Hawaii, in support. American Academy of Pediatrics, Hawaii Chapter, in support. Nate Hicks in support.

Rick Ramirez, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, in support. Rick Ramirez.

Aloha. My name is Dr. Rick Ramirez, and I am a Nurse Practitioner at Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. I was also asked on the Mayor's Office to consult with the Medical Examiner's Office on the identity of gender for legal documentation at the point of death.

I stand on my testimony but just would like to add in a couple of things. The medications that are noted in this Bill are used for many other disease processes including precocious puberty, delayed puberty, cancer, and endometriosis.

I would like to also point out the Hawaii State Department of Health 2024 Minority and Sexual Gender Update Report noted that over one third of our children, one third of our transgender children, who we're sworn to protect have tried to commit suicide. And so, Committee Members, I urge you to pass this Bill.

If we can deliver safe, effective, affirming evidence-based care, then we have done our job. I also want to point out that starting at Section 453, not to eliminate language supporting nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, as we are integral to the pace and place in our care initiatives.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Camaron Miyamoto, People at Oahu, in support. Jen Wilbur, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, in support. Rosalie Agasu, Hawaii Nurses Association Local 50, in support. Ivan Grade, Hawaii Family Forum, in opposition. Derek Turbin, Democratic Party for Hawaii, in support. Derek, are you present?

Derek's not here, but I stand on our written testimony.

Thank you very much. Carrie Ann Chirota, ACLU Hawaii, in support. Are you present, Carrie Ann, on Zoom?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, moving on. Izzy Osborne, Lambda Law, Hawaii Law Student Association, in support. Izzy Osborne, are you present? Okay, thank you very much. Ivan Ho, Unite Here Local Pride, in support. Sarah Simmons in support. Sarah, are you present on zoom?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Committee Members. My name is Sarah Simmons from Hawaii Island.

The protections outlined in this Bill only seek to uphold our rights here at home and protect families like mine and allow us to use the health care we are currently allowed by law in Hawaii. Protecting these rights we already have in our state should not be controversial.

This Bill authorizes no procedures and will not prevent any parent in Hawaii from making health care decisions for their minor children. This Bill will allow current—access to currently allowed health care in our state—and ensure that Hawaii law is followed and not relinquish our state rights to any state on the continent.

I ask you today to safeguard our current rights and prevent overreach from other states on the continent by passing this Bill. Health care should be a right for all our residents, and misinformation should not be used to attack our vulnerable communities. Please help us in passing the protections outlined in this Bill for our residents and healthcare providers.

Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Tuice Camelon, Democratic Party for White Labor Caucus, in support, Sarah Rice in support. Sarah, you're present on Zoom. Please proceed. You have one minute.

Sarah Rice not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, next up, we have Dr. Casandra Simonson on Zoom and support. Are you present, Dr. Simonson?

Yes, Chair, thank you. My name is Dr. Casandra Simonson. I'm testifying on my own behalf, and not representing anyone out, in support of SB 1150. I do transgender medicine for children, and there's a lot of misconceptions out there in the media.

I've heard that we're mutilating children and that we take them away at school and do surgeries on them and bring them back.

So, I just wanted to kind of let you know, when we're doing transgender care, it can involve anything from just talking about it, to learning about it, to trying out a new nickname, to wearing different clothes, to cutting your hair, but we would never, and we don't—we're not allowed to do anything without the consent of both parents.

And so, most of the time, transgender care is about safety—planning for safety. Are they in a safe space? Are they around safe people? Are they hiding and not able to be themselves?

We know that kids with gender dysphoria are at a much higher likelihood of hurting themselves, and some only find escape from this by suicide, you know? So, we're urging you to support SB 1150. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Nicole Ryan, Evolve Hawaii, in support. Are you present, Nicole?

You have one minute.

I am.

Honorable Chairperson and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Nicole Ryan. I'm a gender-affirming care provider, in Honolulu, with my practice, Evolve Health. I urge you to support this legislation that protects access to gender-affirming care for transgender individuals.

For years, our medical system has safely provided hormone therapies, surgeries, and other forms of personalized care to help people lead healthier, more authentic lives.

In fact, many treatments once considered innovative for transgender patients have long been normalized for cisgender individuals, even encouraged, whether it's through hormone replacement, therapies for age-related or endocrine conditions, or surgical procedures that improve their quality of life.

To now single out transgender people by denying them access to the same evidence-based care not only undermines established medical practices but also enacts a discriminatory double standard. By protecting gender-affirming care, we can affirm the dignity and well-being of all our citizens and uphold our commitment to equal treatment under the law.

I respectfully ask you to stand with science, fairness, and human decency by supporting essential legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have to Scanlon Ayatzi in support. Kumakahi health and witness—Health and Wellness—in support. And we have 430 other individuals both in support and opposition. Those are registered, are Gina Thielen in support. Are you present on Zoom, Gina?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Sarah Harris Udal, in person, in support. Are you present? Okay, seeing none. Moving on, we have T. Chang in support. Are you present on Zoom? We have Isabelle Renfield in support. Are you present on Zoom?

Sorry, Chair. T. Chang on Zoom.

Okay, T. Chang, you have one minute.

Aloha. My name is Celine Chang and I strongly support SB 1150. I stand on my written testimony and I'm here today to speak for...the trans kids who cannot be and for the parents and allies who are afraid—afraid of outing their children, afraid of backlash, but unwavering in their love and support.

The data and science are clear. Gender-affirming care is safe, evidence-based and lifesaving. For minors, it's not about surgeries and it's not irreversible. It gives kids the time, support, and medical guidance they need to thrive. Denying this care puts our most vulnerable youth at risk. We cannot let fear and misinformation dictate policy.

We must protect these kids and support the families who love them. Their lives depend on it. Mahalo.

Okay. Maya Maxym in support. Are you present on Zoom?

I'm here. Good morning, Dr. Maya Maxym. I'm a Pediatric Hospitalist, meaning I take care of kids who are sick enough to be admitted to the hospital. I wanted to share with you that one of the main reasons why transgender kids attempt suicide is because of being scapegoated, being bullied, being treated badly by family, by their community.

And that if we don't put in these protections for them, we're going to put them at increased risk, knowing that they are already an extremely vulnerable population. I have seen a child who literally injected herself with silicone from Home Depot in an attempt to achieve the body that she was being denied. A teenager—nearly 18.

And I've seen too many to count who have attempted suicide and who I've cared for in the hospital. So, please protect our children. That's all we're asking for. Protect folks who need lifesaving, gender-affirming care, and don't let them be scapegoated. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Gerald Montano on Zoom. Are you present, Gerald? You have one minute.

Yes, I am. Thank you, Chairs, for allowing me to speak today. I'm Gerald Montano. I'm a Community Pediatrician on Maui. I stand by my written comprehensive testimony in support of this Bill. Please, Chairs, please take the time to disregard the inflammatory language meant to scare and intimidate you from doing the right thing.

This is an opportunity to not only recruit and retain healthcare professionals, but to practice aloha. While the rest of the world reject compassion, science, and rights of—for—parents to get lifesaving health care for their children, Hawaii could be a haven for those who hold those values.

So, please, do what is pono, do what is kind, and pass SB 1150. Mahalo for your time and consideration. I will stand by for any questions you might have. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Renee Rabb in support. Are you present on Zoom? You have one minute.

Yes, I am present, and I will stand on my written testimony and urge you all to pass this Bill, in the name of compassion and fairness.

Okay, thank you very much. Maddalynn Sesepasara, in support. Are you present?

I'm here. I stand by my testimony in support, and I also want to say I come from this community, and I've been doing this work since '98.

If you're gonna go beyond standing, then we'd ask you to come sit down so that people on YouTube can hear your testimony.

Aloha. Maddalynn Sesepasara here. I stand by my testimony as submitted. I just want to say someone had, someone from the—who also comes from the transgender community—this has been our life, hearing people telling us that we're trying to mutilate people, that we're trying to—what is it?

Trafficking kids or we want to kidnap kids is absurd. I've been doing this work since '98, and we've progressed so much. But when we have colonizers coming to Hawaii telling us that our ways is wrong, it's, it's ludicrous. Hawaii is the planting state. We are Hawaii, the Pacifica.

We all know that all our people, no matter what we are, have a place in this society. Do not let the influences of these others.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. Excuse me, we have like one minute, otherwise we won't be able to hear everyone. Ayman El Sawifa in opposition. Are you present, Ayman? Okay, next up, we have Haylin Dennison in support. Aloha.

I'm Haylin Dennison. I am the Executive Director of Spill the Tea Cafe, which is an affirming mental health clinic for 600 youth, 500 of them being queer. Hawaii has the largest transgender population per capita in the nation, yet we also have the highest suicide rate. 50% of trans youth attempted suicide last year.

And that means we have a responsibility not just to protect our kids, but to set the example for the rest of the country. We should not be debating whether these kids deserve the right to exist. Only 2% of people experience being trans. For the 98% of everyone else, this issue is foreign to them.

So, this is exactly why it's so important to listen to those who actually live it. It took me eight years to understand that my job as a parent wasn't to change my child. It was to love and affirm him. And because he received gender affirming care, he is now thriving at one of the best schools in Hawaii.

He is focused on being a teenager because being trans is no longer an issue for him, and being trans should not be an issue for anyone. Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but he would never understand true wealth. Like so many trans youth, his child went no contact and left the country to escape him.

My kid is not perfect, but he trusts me, calls me when he needs me, and above all, he knows he is loved. And that is why I will always be wealthier than Musk. Hawaii is built on our.

Thank you very much much, I'm sorry. Okay, next up. I'm sorry, if you want us to pass this, you gotta let us do our job. Jacob Lee in support. Are you present, Jacob Lee?

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Sheeren Masifi in support. We have Eric in opposition. Are you present?

Alisa Nelson.

Hello.

She hasn't test—she hasn't registered.

Sorry, Chair. Shereen on Zoom.

Okay, go ahead. You have one minute. Well, we're supposed to.

Hi, thank you. This is Dr. Masifi. I practice family medicine. I essentially do gender-affirming care on the side because I believe it's the right thing to do and it's an area of great need. Please don't let this issue be politicized and please don't be distracted by that.

Because of taking the Hippocratic Oath pretty much, I consider that this is my duty to continue providing this kind of care, and I think it would be great to have protections for both providers and for people who need this care.

I'm sorry, we're supposed to be done.

Thank you very much. So, we will defer decision making on this measure until tomorrow, February 12th, at 9:34 AM in Room 229. If you have registered to submit testimony, then we will take your testimony and then make a recommendation thereafter. Thank you very much for your understanding.

No further testimony will be allowed except for oral testimony.

If you're registered, then we will take you.

Yes.