Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. There are a number of agendas for this morning. We will begin with the Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:30am Joint Committee Agenda between the Senate committees on Commerce and Agriculture and Environment and Commerce and Consumer Protection.

I'll turn it over to the lead chair, Senator Gabbard.

Okay, thank you, Chair. We have one item on this 9:30 agenda. It's SB 252 relating to invasive species. Clarifies that the importation of any item or material infested or infected with an insect or other animal disease or other pest is prohibited.

Authorize the Department of Agriculture to inspect any item imported or moved into the state from another part of the continental US or between the Hawaiian Islands. Prohibits the sale of merchandise that the seller knows is infested or infected with a pest. And authorizes the Department of Agriculture to compel the quarantine, treatment or destruction of certain materials.

And also clarifies the penalties for these violations. So we have, we'll start off with the Department of Agriculture testifying. Okay, thank you. Chelsea Arnott from the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Chelsea Arnott, on behalf of the Hawaiian Invasive Species Council, we support this measure. We have some comments and just really appreciate the expansion of authorities so Department of Agriculture can look into non agricultural commodities.

This is a huge gap that was one of the highest priority actions identified in our interagency biosecurity plan when we did the planning process back in 2016. Things like red imported fire ant, those probably wouldn't necessarily be found on agricultural commodities. And this is a very high risk pest that we have a lot.

It's threatening our borders and we want to make sure things like that don't come in. And so this expansion of authorities is really important to improving biosecurity. Mahalo. And I'll be here for questions.

Thank you, Chelsea. Stephanie Easley from CGAPS. Pardon me.

I thought Christy Martin was going to be online providing my testimony.

No, I've got Stephanie Easley in person.

[Inaudible] I apologize.

Pardon me.

If. If you'd like to stand on your testimony.

you've got them both here, so.

Yeah, that'd be great. Apologize for that.

Okay, that's fine. That's fine. We'll wait for Chris to hear. Next is Hunter Heaivilin from the Farmers Union. In person, he usually is a Zoomer, but also that's in support, by the way. There's 59 testifiers in support. Zero opposed and one comment. Next is Nathan Dooby from the Oahu from OISC. In person. Is Nathan here.

Also in support, Wayne Tanaka from Sierra Club on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay. And support Christy Martin from CGAPS. Christy's here. There she is.

All right. Aloha chairs. Vice Chair. Members of the committees appreciate the opportunity. Christy Martin with the Coordinating Group on Alien Pest Species. Wish I could be there in person with you and Stephanie today. We're in strong support of this measure.

It continues our work to strengthen the authorities of the Department of Agriculture and some of the aspects of it, we wanted to make sure that it's clear that pests can't be imported and should be imported. The amendment makes it clear that pests imported either have to have a permit or.

That the Department of Agriculture has the authority to provide some way for something to get in if it's an intentional importation. There's also a provision for the authority to administratively inspect all importations. Now, that's a strange term to use. There's a lot of reasons why it is used in this.

And what we believe is that it clearly provides the Department the authority to inspect high risk materials like outdoor furniture, things that might be infested with pests on the outside of the commodity.

As we know, Department of Agriculture focuses on agricultural commodity inspection, yet they have to have the authority to inspect other items because that's how we're going to get red imported fire ants and other pests. It makes it clear that there's a prohibition on selling things that are infested with pests.

Now, we've paid a lot of attention to an administrative rule, Chapter 72, that was recently passed by the Board of Agriculture and signed by the Governor. This is different authority, though. That authority was to allow the chief of the Plant Quarantine Branch to stop the sale or quarantine pest infested merchandise on a case by case basis.

This particular authority shifts that further back to the seller, the vendor, to let them know that they're responsible for not selling. I'll stop there. Stephanie's available for questions. I have to lead another meeting in a few moments. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Christy. Okay. Matson Navigation Company submits comments and then I'll just go through. If anyone's here, that. I'll go through the list here. If you hear your name and like to testify, please step forward. As I said, these are all in support.

John and Rita Shockley from the Free Access Coalition, HCN Warrington from Kupuna for the Mopuna , Uilani Naipo, Kevin Facenda, Glenn Choi, Joan Hartfield, Peter Wilson, Kaukama, Christy Shaver, Danielle Espiritu, Mary True, Hanalore Aiwohi, Ella Aki, Barbara Best, Shay Chan Hodges, William Reese Liggett, Aaron Datloff, Sherry Pollack, Dylan Davis, Molly Mamarell, Ryan Chang, Patrice Choi, Kiana Otsuka, Joseph Watt, Liatte Portner, Helen Sofayer, Carmela Rizuma, Kristen Young, Uma Najendra, Talia Portner, Judith White, Julie Kuo, Brianne Fong, Sarah Delgadillo, Jean Fujikawa, Dilek Sakim, Matthew Sandrich, Mashuri Waite, Madison Owens, Paleka Chae, Blair Stahn, Timothy Sullivan, Kevin Armstrong, Patricia Blair, Jane Beachy, Marcia Kimball and late testimony from Koa Grabar, Megan Vin, Laura Loewenberger, Christina Linda, Elliot and Avalon.

Anyone else? Anyone else want to testify? Okay, we'll open it up to questions. Members? Yes.

Thank you. You know, with the expansion of your investigation of these containers and freight that comes in, you guys have the manpower for it?

No. I think if we use. Oh, sorry. Jonathan Ho, branch manager for the Plant Quarantine Branch. Sorry about that. So the Department, right. As has been stated, you know, we require inspection of agricultural, quote, unquote, agricultural material in 150A5. That's probably 10 to 15% of what's imported, at least for sea containers.

So you're talking 85% of the stuff is generally not subject to inspection. So.

So because I know, I mean everybody, you know, wants to prevent the spread of invasive species. And I know like when you guys have the trees come in for Christmas and stuff for, I mean you're talking 40, 45 foot containers, expanding containers.

I know when we go into port the line can like just back up all the way at Nimitz.

Correct.

And my challenge is, is that the connection from Moloka'i has then either misconnection and our freight gets held back. So what would it take, I mean, positions and stuff to inspect all these containers? Can you give me on price?

So I think so. I think one of the challenges that I have, I think with, I think putting a particular price tag is like you said, the inspection has to kind of manage, like you said, commerce. Right.

If you're going to inspect everything at the harbor and like you said, it's a 40 foot container, generally you're not going to. It's very cursory and you may find things. Other than that, you're going to have to essentially do all those inspections on premise and you know, what about.

What about collaborating you guys efforts with like DLE because we have fireworks issues to inspection. You guys can like cross-train or.

I, I'm all about collaboration because realistically we can't be everywhere and I don't know how I guess you would effectuate it, I guess from, I guess from a, from a job.

So John, how about, so how about we do this. So if there's one container that comes in, how many people on that one container?

Generally one person.

How long does it take that one person to inspect?

So it depends on the goods and their ability to offload. So, so for example, like if you're going to like a big box store, depending on which store it is, some of them are very fast. You can get a container done in 20 to 30 minutes.

You could have the same business on a different island and you know, they run on, you know, Hawaiian or Samoan time and that same container could take an hour and 45 minutes. But that's the stuff that we know now you're dealing with all these other commodities that we've never inspected. So like I don't know what it takes.

So John, wouldn't scanner help? Like, I mean if the manpower it would like the scanners like they have at customs, the border.

I think it could help facilitate specific types of inspections to flag. And I guess the way that I look at this Bill is, and I think what I think the intent is is that the intent is that you have for all intents and purposes, 85% of the containers that really aren't being inspected and they could have pests.

There's where nobody's contending that. So the way I look at it is how do you get information to determine which of these commodity classes are higher risk? And then you prioritize inspections on those like will use like aggregate or something, probably low risk. But has anyone ever done an inspection, determined it over time?

So how much manpower do you need to get that information over time and then prioritize those inspections or you require them in 150, like for example outdoor furniture, we always find goods or pests on it. Okay, we're going to require it in 150, the A5. And then every single time it imports, you have to inspect it.

And, and so that's the way I see this Bill being enacted. We're going to have to be, you know, we don't have unlimited resources. We're going to have to try to find a way. So you can list.

So actually because I know in the description on the BLs Right? Yes. They got to list the description. So should it be a requirement to list to help? So in other words, if I'm moving plants from the Big island and like, I don't know, coconut trees, the list on that would then like flag it. So you point towards that container versus container with canned goods. Does that help?

I mean absolutely, I think that would help in. And you know, we, the service vessel companies, they provide us with electronic manifest. So we are able to, we go through every boat and then you know, if it flags specific commodity types, we would obviously flag them for inspection. We don't get the same level of detail.

So like for example, they have FAK, the freight of all kind. You know.

That's right. I just figured out something about this. Okay, we'll take this offline. Yeah. Oh, sorry.

Can I ask a follow up? Sure.

Thanks, John.

So you, you guys are pursuing with the, with the money from last year our risk assessment, right? Yes. So my, my thinking on the risk assessment and correct me if I'm wrong, is that that's part of what the risk assessment is for is to figure out where you guys should really be focusing your efforts.

The same way the police do smart policing, right? Yeah. So use the data to kind of focus on which one. So it is true like maybe the Christmas trees, you have to put more energy in than less risk like canned goods.

Right. So what we're looking to do particularly with the 240,000 that was done for the risk assessment is we haven't really done it for a long time. So the existing goods that we regulate we want to do for all intents and purposes 100% inspection.

We want to check for a period of time on each island every commodity and determine the risk of the known stuff. Right. Because that's the stuff we guarantee can regulate and we need to prioritize those. And I think moving forward, expanding that same process to, to involve non agricultural goods.

You cannot do without the authority.

You know, I mean, I think we may be able to.

Would be better if you had clear authority.

I think the clear authority to do that would make that process a lot cleaner, at least for cargo. I mean obviously persons is a whole other kind of a beast with regards to this and particularly as it relates to inner island.

But I think from the, from a cargo standpoint, the legislative authority to administratively inspect and then obviously coming up with the standards and the procedures of how and when you're going to be doing the inspections which need to occur and what flags them could give us the ability to do that in the long term and obviously the people to do these assessments and the inspections, all that stuff.

So then maybe a conversation for later. But I agree with Senator DeCoite that at some point as these fireworks bills move a conversation with DLE, I don't disagree. We know which cans are being focused on so that it doesn't overly disrupt commerce, but that we're actually checking the stuff we should might be warranted. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, I don't think we need to recess, so we'll go right into decision making. The Chairs have conferred and the the recommendation will be to pass with the amendments from the Department of Ag. And also there are some tech amendments. Any discussion? So for AEN, let's see. Senator Rhoads, would you take the vote, please?

Chair's recommendation on SB252 is to pass with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Recommendations adopted.

Thank you Members.

CPN, same recommendation passing with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Your measure is adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. It's Wednesday, January 29, 2025. This is our 9:35am Agenda in room 229, it's a Joint Committee hearing with the Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee.

If we need to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, we will reconvene on Friday, January 31st at 9:35am and a notice will be posted on the Legislature's website. For those testifying remotely, please stand by. Gia from IT will cue you in when it is your turn.

Otherwise your audio will be muted and your video disabled until it's your turn. If there are glitches during your turn, we'll come back to you, but we might move on just to keep the the hearing going. And that's it. Let's get started.

SB148 relating to combat sports establishes a Combat Sports Commission employee and provides for the regulation of combat sports. Also prohibits null rules, combat or similar contests.

Now they're coming right now.

Let me see. First up, we have the Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs with comments. Good morning.

Good morning. Testimony offering comments.

Thank you, Deputy, for standing on your testimony offering comments. Next we have the Attorney General's Office with comments. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning. Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Kim, Deputy Paternity General. We submit our written comments concerning different effective dates for Section 3 and 4 of the bill.

If you have any questions, I'm available. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have the Hawaii Association of Professional Nurses in support. Do we have them online? zero, let me see if we can try again. Mr. Creekmore.

Mr. Creekmore is not present on Zoom.

Thank you. Next we have John no last name in opposition online.

Hi, can you hear me?

Hello? Yeah. Can you activate your video?

Hold on one second. Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. We have you. Good morning. Go ahead.

Recording. I'm actually in. In support of this bill. I actually selected the wrong, I guess, selection. There was no way of me changing that. So I'm in favor of this bill. I'm creating a combat Commission would change the dynamic of combat sports and actually revitalize combat sports in its entirety.

Me as a professional athlete who is fighting for a world title on the world scene, fighting for actual police gazette title, which is the world's oldest title. I'll be the first native Hawaiian to fight for a title, you know, and I wish it was in the island of Hawaii around my people and my family.

However it's in the mainland. I think this could have been changed and addressed if there was a Commission in Hawaii that could aid in bringing these large promotions to Hawaii. Since there is no Commission, it's very hard for us locals to stay active, to stay involved in this combat sports.

Keep us out of trouble and things of that nature. So I'm in favor of this Bill creating a Commission to where we can bring back what is a natural and, you know, aggressive preventative measure for the kids of, of this generation especially. So, yeah, I'm in favor of it.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience of selecting the wrong thing. Yeah, that's all.

That's okay. Mr. Barnard, thank you for testifying. We will note the change in the testimony record. So you're all good? Awesome. Thank you. Thank you again. Next we have Walter Carvalho online in support. Good morning.

Good morning, Senator and distinguished panel. You know, this is our third year at attempting to make this thing happen. And you know, first of all, I want to say that my testimony was not late. I'm not that type of person. I don't know how it got stamped late, but it went in before John Bernard's did.

But anyway, getting back to the whole thing is, you know, after three years, after the second year of going back and forth with the Department of Consumer affairs and reading their testimony, I have to shake my head.

I came up four or five times up there to meet in private with the Senator and several other people that from the DCCA and other people that were brought to attention to come to the meetings, and we just can't get it figured out.

Every time I go back to the dcca, they're just not taking the time to read the Bill, to read what needs to be happening. We are not asking for the ambulance to be taken away. We are not asking for $255,000. And I don't understand how they could add this as a cost.

If we separate the two commissions and have one focus on martial arts and one focus on boxing and still oversee the licensing part of it, how does it change anything to where they're asking for $258,000 to proceed forward to hire three full time. If we don't do that, they're still doing the same thing for nothing.

And all of us are volunteer. We are not getting paid to be a part of this Commission. We are all volunteered ex fighters, ex management coaches that are jumping in to try and save the sport. We have. The sport has almost diminished to zero. You know, we went from 144 shows to last year. There was none.

There's nothing scheduled this year. There's been talks of big shows, and that's only because I've been bringing the. The people to Hawaii to talk to Hawaii, to the DCCA.

But I spent two hours online last night with the former Commissioner of the Las Vegas, Nevada, and he told me that in Nevada they have the Athletic Commission that oversees the boxing Commission and oversees the mixed Martial Arts Commission. It's. They are. Yes.

Your two minutes are up. But if you would like to stay on for questions.

Yeah, I mean, I'm here till the end of the talk.

Thank you very much. Okay, next we have David Padilla in support. Okay, that's all the registered testimony we have. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Vice Chair, I guess it's for Department. Of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Good morning. You know, there was a. What is it? Audit report that came out previously, you know, looking at how the two spots should be regulated. And I believe that was done some time ago.

And when legislation came up during the prior sessions, there was some discussion about some of the injuries and potential issues that not having the same level of medical and health care available for these kinds of sports.

Has your department done any further study into you know, what models are being used in other jurisdictions and invited, you know, some of the advocates of a separate Commission to join in those discussions.

Good morning, Laurie Beth Van Canford. I'm one of the Executive officers that helps with the M and A program. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

When this legislation had come up previously, you know, I think there had been some discussion about visiting different jurisdictions and examining, you know, how other states were treating, you know, combat sports and what they were doing to ensure, you know, the safety of participants. And I know that we have talked about it in 2023.

I'm not sure whether anything else has happened since that time. I'm just asking for an update.

I don't believe that we've done, like, a full study or anything like that. The other Executive officer that is actually in charge of this program, he has communicated with other jurisdictions. I would need to get checked with him as far as what his conversations, you know, what he found out.

But, you know, as far as looking at it, it does look like the other jurisdictions does have a combat sports Commission that oversees both, which is something that, you know, if you're not going to be doing, continuing it as a program as it currently is, we would prefer doing something similar like that, having a Single Commission overlooking both boxing and mma, which it appears that the other states do it that way also.

Okay. Could you kind of help your staff summarize that and send it to us in writing? And I think that would help the Committee stand. Thank you.

Especially in regards to the safety aspects of it. Any other questions, Members?

So if you guys did have separate commissions, what is the cost to separate out those commissions?

Basically, yeah. You have to hire three positions, an Executive officer and two staff Members to man that Commission.

And how much is that?

Thank you, Senator McKelville. Thank you. Just along the lines of the previous question. I mean, if there's not. That's. I mean, it sounds like there's a lot of. Not a lot of activity happening. And couldn't these two commissions that were split have the support staff of the. The same support staff?

And the fact this is not like pbl, where it's constant every day. I mean, could you share support staff among these two split commissions if it were to be done like Las Vegas?

Well, the EOs already are. I mean, we, you know, we're kind of short on them, and they already share multiple commissions already, so it'd be kind of tough to split it apart. And we don't know whether one EO can actually handle all because they're kind of. They're really burdened right now with other commissions at this time, so.

Do you have any vacant positions in this area?

I think we have two for Executive officers. I believe there's. At this time, there's four. At least four.

And what's the plan to fill them?

They're looking. It's just my understanding is that we're having a hard time filling EO positions and secret positions. We're very short staff on secretary positions.

Thank you, Chair. Any other questions?

Okay, seeing none, we'll recess briefly for diem.

Okay. Reconvening on our 9:35am joint agenda with the CPN and EDT committees to make a recommendation on SB 148 relating to combat sports. The recommendation, after having conferred with a Co-Chair and the Members, is to pass with amendments. We will adopt the amendments proposed by the Attorney General's Office around the effective date.

We will adopt the APRN amendments that are proposed by the Hawai'I Association of Professional Nurses so that there are more healthcare professionals available to work the fights.

We will also adopt the proposed recommendation of the DCCA, which is at the bottom of page three of their testimony, which will combine regulation of mixed martial arts and boxing into a unified Commission. And we will also note if in the Committee report that there is a request from the testifiers that dual commissioners be initiated.

But I would like to get this Bill moving so that we can continue the discussion. And we'll also defect the effective date to, oh, actually, yeah, we'll defect the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Your measure is adopted.

Thank you.

Committee on Economic Development and Tourism, same request. Chair goes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you.

Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned. Okay. Good morning and welcome.

This is our Wednesday, January 2920259:40am agenda in the Senate CPN Committee Room 229 to take up several joint measures with the Senate Committee on Housing. The first is SB69 relating to deposits of public funds.

This measure requires the Director of Finance to consider before the selection of a depository for the state treasury, the beneficial effects to the State of using depositories within the state, including, but not limited to lending at favorable terms for the creation of certain affordable, affordable housing units.

First up, we have the Department of Budget and Finance offering comments and the Hawaii Bankers Association offering comments. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions for the bankers? Okay. If not, we'll move on. I yield to Ko. Chair Chang. Thank you.

Our next Bill is Senate Bill 24 relating to limited profit housing associations. It establishes an organizational tax and regulatory framework for limited profit housing associations and establishes the Limited Profit Housing Council to oversee limited profit housing associations. Our first testifier is Department of Taxation with comments.

[Inaudible]

Thank you. And we also have Galen Fox in support.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 24? If not, any questions? Okay.

Our next Bill is Senate Bill 76, relating to housing, which clarifies that the dwelling units eligible for the Rent to own program shall be units that are for sale in fee simple or leasehold on state or county land under a lease with an initial term of not less than 99 years.

It increases the time period that the sales price of dwelling units under the rent to own program shall remain fixed from five to 10 years after the rental agreement is executed. Our first testifier is HHFDC in support, followed by DLNR with comments.

Standing on our testimony. Offering comments and the proposed amendment.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB 76? Okay. Any questions for the testifiers? Okay. If not, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Should we recess or should we go straight into decision making?

Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Prepared to make recommendations. We can just go right into decision making. So, on the first measure, SB69, the recommendation is actually to defer decision making on this measure in the CPN Committee to Tuesday, January, February. Sorry, fourth at 9:30am.

And for the Committee on Housing, we'll be deferring DM to Tuesday, February 4th at 1:00pm in room 225. Okay. Our next Bill is SB 24 relating to limited profit housing associations. Chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendments. We have technical, non-substantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency.

And we'll also be changing the references of affordable housing to housing exclusively for qualified residents as defined in HRS 201-32. Any questions or discussions? Okay, so for SB24, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much. For CPN, same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Measure is adopted.

Thank you. For Senate Bill 76 relating to housing, the Chair's recommendation will be to pass with amendments to defect the date. And to be clear, we will not be adopting DLNR's proposed amendment. Any questions or discussion? Okay, so for SB 76, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Your Measure is adopted.

CPN. Same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you.

[ROLL CALL]

Measures adopted.

Thank you.

And we're adjourned.

Thank you for joining us for our joint committees with the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Affairs, our good friends in that Committee. And the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs for this 9:45 agenda. We have three items on this agenda. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube.

If there's any kind of catastrophic disasters, we will let you know when we're going to reconvene. And we're going to limit all testimony in this hearing to one minute. So with those ground rules laid, we'd like to jump into our first Bill, that is Senate Bill 587 relating to renewable energy.

First on our testifiers list we have Michelangelo.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Michelangelo. I'm the Executive Director of Division of Consumer Advocacy. We stand on our testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Leo Asuncion from the puc. Thank you. Leo Norelani Derrickson from Tesla has submitted testimony in support and suggested amendments. Charles Chaco has submitted testimony in support. Julian Kahumana, Alternative Hawaii Energy has submitted testimony in support. Wei Lian has submitted testimony support. David Bissell from KIUC has submitted testimony in opposition.

Rocky Moe from Solar Energy alliance, our Association.

Good morning, chairs. Thank you for hearing this bill. I'm Rocky Moe, the Executive Director of the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. This bill really is about setting up a streamlined, more efficient process for our system to accept the next generation of grid interactive technologies.

And it's really important because these technologies are going to allow for higher penetrations of renewables and bring costs down for all rate payers. So this bill really just sets up a process to get our system ready for the future that's coming with new innovative grid interactive technologies. I'm here for any questions if you have them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rocky. Sherry Pollack from 350 Hawaii has submitted testimonial support. William Giese from Solaray Corporation. Also in support, Jeff Long, Ako Akina Ela Aki, David Thompson, Tahan Bapna, all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 587? Yes. zero, Hiko. Zero, sorry. Yes, I got your lead testimony. Please join us.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, Members of the Committee. I'm Kailani Shinsato. I'm here on Hawaiian Electric. While we support the intent of this bill, we do respectfully oppose the bill. I just wanted to expand on 1.0 mentioned in my written testimony and that is to kind of challenge the underlying theme that's in the bill, that we're slow.

So the bill seems to assume that we are causing costly delays and putting up barriers in the interconnection process. I just wanted to mention that we have a performance incentive mechanism before the Commission that was designed specifically to incentivize us to speed up interconnections. And we have performed very well on that PIM for the past four years.

For example, on Oahu last year, we were down to 10.5 business days on average in intaking an application, giving it a technical review and giving the customer a green light to install. So thank you for hearing that additional point. I welcome your questions.

Thank you. Mr. Shinsato, is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure, if not Members? Any questions?

Question?

Yep.

Molokai. What have you folks done to streamline that process and allow for capacity?

Thank you for the question. Molokai has always been a bit of a challenge for us. There is already a lot of rooftop space, solar there. And that is part of the challenge because at this point we have system like reliability issues because there's so much PV that's exporting during the day.

To add more PV that's not controllable at this point in time can cause reliability issues for us. So we've always been challenged, we've been working hard at solutions.

At 1.0 we required additional PV to have controls just as a safety feature so that if there is an emergency and we need to turn things off, we would have that ability for the pv. Now we're still working on it. We're piloting a similar type of function.

It's not through the same equipment that we used before, but we're using a relay switch to give us that capability.

So you guys looking at expanding anytime capacity because, you know, you have the GEMS program that is in existence. You know, applications that want to expand upon. I think for you guys, the storage has been an issue because as applications go into you guys, they're literally left there because you guys don't have the capacity for it.

And you know, I know you guys have put at the top of your list renewable energy. And there are many that have been waiting. So is there anything in the works within Hawaiian Electric to expand that capacity?

Because within the past three months you guys have had outages which to today, and I can say I'm one of them, had blew my entire camera system. And then the response on that, on addressing that has taken a while. So, you know, it's not just me, but there's many that have Been okay. Reliability.

So if it's a capacity issue, what is your plan to address? Capacity on expansion of that within Hawaiian.

I'm sorry for your experience that you had. First of all, we definitely plan to expand. I assume you're talking about distributed energy resources. We definitely plan to expand distributed energy resources. They're a critical part of us reaching our very ambitious renewable goals.

So as a part of our climate action plan and our integrated grid plan, we set a goal. And this kind of pertains to the next Bill that I think this the committees are hearing. We set a goal of adding 50,000 more rooftop systems by 2030. We're actually on target towards reaching that goal. Is Molokai included in that?

Yes, it's all service territories.

And then the timeline would be in. In that as well. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair, can I ask a question of PUC?

Ask away.

Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Thank you for coming. What is a grid ready home interconnection process like?

Well, it would basically go through this, the typical interconnection process. It's just you're talking about a certain type basically grid ready. Right. So that's my understanding and I think what the Bill is trying to do is to shorten that timeframe for these types of renewable grid ready homes that are coming on.

So how much revenue does the electric, the electricity reliability surcharge generate?

Well, at this time, right. The HERA is just going to be funded by us. Right. We have the ability to have the surcharge, but we. But going forward, right.

We have already put out an RFP to secure or procure the services of an engineering firm or the like to be the Hawaii Administrative, the hero going forward after that contract is done. We have a position that we're asking for in our budget, which is in the budget to bring that program in house versus continually contracting. Right.

Because the cost of that, right. Over our estimate is half a million every year versus we hire an engineer to join our engineering team at the Commission, you know, at what, $167,000 a year. Right. Salary plus fringe.

So offhand you have to wait through that process before we can get an idea of the generating of that revenue.

Well, we wouldn't be generating revenue. Right. We just want to make sure that we do the duties of the HERA and we're doing it through a contract at first and then through staff. Right. We, the. The revenue part. Right. We haven't.

We would have to order that to become a surcharge which we are not contemplating at this time.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

Senator Fokella, I understand you're saying that I'm going to be implementing the surcharge, but the thing that I just asked, I got it here. So I'm just going to read the question. How are the 350 cost share fee service upgrades justify and the provisions of these or lower income household they struggle for, for these fees.

But there is going to be a fee, right? I mean maybe not now, but there will be a fee later on.

Yeah. I cannot say for certain. Right. That's something that the Commission would have to take up and determine. Right. With other parties and then looking at. Right. Is that a burden upon everyone? But at the same time we need reliability, right.

But at this time we don't have any plans to impose that surcharge or to consider that surcharge.

Second question that I got an answer. You can explain why Hawaiian Electric reliable surcharge would be monitored and report to ensure the transparency for the recovery of costs.

Well, if there is a surcharge, right. We would require reporting from Hawaiian Electric. Right. Just like we do for all the other surcharges that are currently being imposed. They do that on an annual basis or some periodic basis that we require them to do.

So what is the benefits of this grid ready homes going forward? What is the actual real benefits that's not going to cause the consumer? I'm more concerned about consumer that can barely pay the electric Bill right now and cannot afford to even turn on the lights. You know what I mean?

Because it's not electricity but similar to water. I mean basically we're having some people in my community struggle every day. They go to sleep at 6:00 because they cannot watch TV past that because the electric bills is just going to the roof.

So I just think know how in the long run is this going to benefit the consumer going forward without any more heartaches and heartbreaks going forward because we're getting surcharge fees here and the Commission going to have to come up with a, with a fee and how is it going to be managed and all of that.

So to me, how is this in the long run going to benefit day to day minimum wage hurting consumer they can barely leave on their legs.

So I do not have an answer for you, Senator Favela. I will say that as far as getting these renewable resources and homes that are ready to be connected to the grid overall, and I can't even predict when that will happen, but overall rates should go down for all consumers.

We're not at that point yet because we're still haggling over whether or not we should interconnect these grid ready homes and we're still not at the point where we do have 100% renewable energy or whatever our energy goals. So I, you know, respectfully, I cannot answer.

So even like right now, not all the homes are PV ready or whatever the situation is. So the cost, even that when they first came out with them PV was out. Outrageous. And they try to make it again convenient. A lot of people in my community still cannot afford PV.

And then we get a lifespan of 20 plus years depending if it's working on the PV. And that's another issue for us. I just thinking what would be the benefits of having this renewable long term sustainability for the environmental goals beyond 2025 on our renewable platform. I mean portfolio standards by 2045. You said 2045.

Yeah, I think like I said, I agree with you. I don't have a solar either. It's too expensive for me. Right. And let alone I live in a townhome. So it's right. The HOA is not providing it or if they provide it, there's a lot of upfront costs. Right. I would have to check. Right.

Structure integrity of the roof. Right. Because that is a HOA property. Right. And so there's things like that and. Yes, right. Those are all the different costs that go into bringing say solar to your home. And it's really a consumer choice at this point. If you can, you do it and you reap the benefit. Right.

What we want to make sure is that like you said, right, these types of programs do not have any kind of unintended consequence on those that cannot do these things. Right. It needs to be somehow looked at and said and say. Right. It needs to be equitable. Thank you.

Appreciate it, bro. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Sure.

Any other questions? Leo, I have a couple of questions. So you talked about Hira and you're going to take the approach of having a contractor first and then eventually hiring someone in house. How far along are you in the first step in getting a contractor to be here?

It's actually out for bid right now, so I think bids are due, I think either next month or March. We've gotten some interest. But then of course it's until those guys turn in their proposals. Right.

Okay. So if all goes well, would you have someone in office or in this capacity or not? You know you're gonna contract a contractor set up by July of this.

Yes, that is the intention.

Okay. So and to Senator Favela's point about this, the cost of electricity this Bill contemplates of $350 cost sharing fee. It's not clear like where that money goes and how did that number come up? I don't know where this number came up.

Yeah, I can't speak to that because we didn't propose a Bill. So you might want to ask that of the proponents of the bill.

Okay, so if we were to allow for any kind of fee structure, we could just leave that up to you. Right. You could decide it's zero or you could decide it's $1,000 or whatever, but we should leave it up to you rather than being prescriptive in the Bill to say it's 350.

And we would have to have all the parties to some docket or unless it's in it's an existing docket to take a look at what those fees would be.

Okay, and are you open to. There are some suggestions to make this Bill expandable for vehicle to grid opportunities as well.

Again, we would have to take a look at. Right. The impact of vehicle to grid and adding it on.

Okay, got it. Thanks. Members, any further questions? If not. Thank you, Leo. We're going to move on to the next measure that is Senate Bill 589 relating to renewable energy. For this measure we have Michael Angelo from DCCA.

Board Chair, Vice Chair, Members of Committee, stand on our written testimony.

Leo Asuncion. Thank you.

Kika Boski, stand on our written testimony in opposition.

Yes, sir.

How about Rocky Mountain?

Aloha Chairs Vice Chairs Rocky Mold Hawaii Solar Energy Association we stand in strong support of this bill. This bill sets an ambitious but achievable near term target for installing rooftop solar and energy storage across our islands.

We really are facing an emergency in terms of our energy adequacy and our, our grid and that's imposing significant costs on all of our repairs. By accelerating the the installation of distributed energy resources, particularly the new distributed energy resources that have rooftop solar energy storage.

We are bringing costs down for the entire island by getting us off of fossil fuel. The reason for our high electricity rates is our aging grid and the dependence on fossil fuel. So the faster we can get off of that, the more we can alleviate burden on ratepayers.

So this bill sets this ambitious target and then it has a bunch of different measures underneath that achieve that. So I'm here for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Rocky Kayolani Shinsato from Arnie Lecture.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee Kailani Shinsato, on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, we respectfully oppose the bill. I wanted to expand on 1.0 that I raised in my written testimony, and that is with respect to retail crediting for exported grid services. This is something that is actually a live issue before our puc. And.

And in fact, the parties just filed proposals this past Monday. We have a technical conference tomorrow where the parties are going to be talking about this exact issue and other potential improvements to our grid services program. So our strong recommendation is to leave the matter before the Puc.

They are the best body to oversee the issue and they're already on top of it for equity reasons that I think Senator Favela was just getting into in the hearing just prior. Expanding retail export crediting to all grid services programs would definitely raise an equity issue for us. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Chinsato. So I have. For the people who have indicated wanting to testify in person, is there anyone else here in the room that would like to testify on Senate Bill 589, if not Members? Any questions? Senator Fevella.

Just one quick one. I know you said comments. Can you just kind of give your reason for your opposition?

Our primary reason is that the PC currently has a docket open, and we're hoping that we can give the PUC some time to work through that docket and see their findings. And, you know, I mean, we just have. We're not quite sure how the interconnection would affect the safety of our workers and whatnot, so we're just looking.

We're hoping to see the end of the document.

So you recommend that this Bill just get hold until you can get work things out with the PUC or PUC work we like.

We'd like to see more information. Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, any further questions? Chair?

Zero, yep. Please. Why is this dill needed and how will it help the state achieve its renewable energy goal? Are we already on track?

We are on track according to what KICO and KIUC reports to us every year. I will say, you know, like the previous speakers. Right. We do have this item before the Commission right now. Right. And in our testimony. Right.

We offered to report back to the Legislature on the progress that docket has been going on for a while. Right. It's in different phases and we're nearing the completion. And, you know, we want to make sure that it gets concluded.

And at that time, I think, you know, it'd be a little clearer picture on how we handle all of these things around. Ders, thank you.

Thank You Chair, Chair Members. Any further questions? If not Leo, I have a couple questions for you. So this build contemplates a goal of 50,000 new PV installs in the next five years or so. At this point in our progress towards RPS, haven't we already picked all the low hanging fruit?

I mean, it's going to be hard to go and outpace what we've already put on to roofs in the past with this accelerated goal as outlined in this bill. Right.

I would agree with you, but at the same time, you know, I'm optimistic. Right. We, there is, there have been the argument that not every roof is solarized, if you want to use that term. At the same time, Right. There is the balance of not all homes really can benefit. Right.

Depending where you are, condos, etc, location of your home and the like. Right. And so, you know, it's an ambitious goal. I don't want to discount that you can't get there. Right. 50,000 more homes. But you know, I think you need that kind of, kind of goal. Right.

I mean, at some point, yes, I agree with you that you'll be over saturated. Right. But the thing is, to Ms. Shinsato's point around Molokai, that's the balance at Kat. Because at the same time, the Commission needs to make sure that we have a reliable system that you flip on the switch, that you get the lights.

Right, you get the power. Right. So all of this has to be really kind of balanced against each other, right? Yes, you want renewable resources and more of it, but then we got to make sure that the grid is reliable as well. Right.

Because at this point, at least in my personal opinion and my mind, it's not a one for one trade off that all renewable energy will provide us a reliable grid. It will make us meet our renewable goals. But getting to reliability is another issue, technical issue, if you will.

Right. And the community has benefited from a solar tax credit. I think it's been on the books like 12 years. Right. And the industry itself is cheaper to do solar today than it was 12 years ago. So there are economic factors that have played into getting us to where we are, which is admirable.

At 34% renewable, most of it is solar. So I'm just wondering like how much more effort do we have to put into getting more people? I mean, people are having bought solar by now on the rooftop then to have this expectation and this goal of 50,000 more, how real is that?

I don't want to even speculate on that. I think. Right. Part Of, I mean, everyone's going to have their opinion on whether or not we can meet a goal and how much the number should. Right. If you ask Mr. Mole, they might have a different perspective on that.

You ask Hawaiian Electric, they're going to have a different perspective on that. You know, at the same time, right? We do. Our main goal is the 100% RPS. Right. And there's a number of resources that are allowed at this time under that. Right. Solar being one of them. Right.

For me, until we definitely say and we send the signal to the market that we don't want X resource, that's when we're going to have to really look at what is the mix and have we overcome on solar? Have we Kaiden? But in my opinion, we're not there yet.

We're not at that point where we can really say, hey, we really need X more. Right. We need this more right now. Kind of like everything's on the table unless there is some signal to the market that we're not. Hawaii is not interested in X.

Got it. This Bill also contemplates fair compensation for those who export to the grid. And it contemplates that at the full retail rate, which from what I understand is like 44 cents per kilowatt hour. And from what I understand, utility solar comes in it with batteries, comes in at around 11 cents per kilowatt hour.

So if we were to give and force HECO or not force them, but HECO to take power from individuals at the retail rate versus the, you know, the 11 cents, ultimately the ratepayers of Hawaii are going to pay more. Right. Because of this. That contemplation of the full retail rate.

Correct.

Okay. Which goes to Senator Covella's desires of we got to go in the opposite direction of lowering rates. Not through this Bill. Increasing rates for.

Customers. Right. The RPS eventually. Right. It lowers the fuel cost like Mr. Mo said. Right. That. That portion of the Bill. Right. But as we take on more renewable energy. Right. That has a cost too. Right. And if you just use the simple retail versus what, an average solar price. Right. 1112 cents per kilowatt hour. Right.

That's what you're right. What you need is the fuel cost in there and it fluctuates, right. Depending on when fuel is purchased and used. But then that's. That's the formula. Right. It's not all reduce one Bill and then your whole Bill comes down because you still now got to add on, right.

This incremental cost of bringing on your renewables or whatever it is. Right.

Okay. So if we were to move this Bill forward, we could change that to allow you and the PUC to determine what the rate will be versus setting it at the retail rate.

You could.

Okay, remember, study for the questions. Yeah.

So I mean he already said that 50,000. So how much homes right now are 30,000. So how much homes we have over 30,000?

I'm not sure, I don't know throughout.

The state and we need about 50,000. The only reason why I bring this up and you know, I don't want to sound like a broken record but you know, technology and my, you know, Palovia, you know enlightened me on the technology moving when it comes to firm energy and waste to energy.

And you guys know I keep bringing this up in this square building and all these years as we've been going from 20 whatever to put all of this on the homes and then having all of these solar farm. The reason why is because on my side of the island we get the most solar farms.

And I never have one time I could eat anything off of that farm. Because why? Because you can't eat solar. And I heard the University of West Oahu has a picture that all of Baka Kilo Mountain is going to be renewable energy at one time in the future. So we're talking about 50,000 homes.

What is the less of what's going to happen there? Why are we not as the Puc, why are we not looking at outside? I said I want the windmill and again now let's say that was your guys choice windmills, solar farm.

Why did we not even on the dockets ever think on the futuristic on a clean waste to energy plant getting off of how h power is running, trying to fit the energy plant to the consumers here to have firm energy.

Because you said even though we go with the renewable energy, it's not going to be Molokai still going to be having issues. We're going to still have issues on the grid not having power.

So if we all go solar on this island and then we don't want sunk for 30 days or the time we had the 70 days or 40 days and 40 nights of rain, then everybody be bringing out the generators. I mean, you see what I'm saying?

So I just don't understand with this day and age now, with all the technology all over the world that is using wave energy, you know, stream water energy turbines, all these kinds of. Why are we not really trying to dissect that not just so much the waste of energy Because I'm biased.

I want waste to energy if we could have them yesterday. But why are we not entertaining them? Because we keep going back to these kinds of things. And I will tell you this right now, my family that lives across the street, multi generation, another day transplant. They have five different families, all minimum wage, above minimum wage jobs.

They bought their home in a group. They will never be able to put solar and PV on their home no matter how much people work in a house. Some of them get three jobs, maybe some of them get two jobs. They never be able to put that on there.

And the electric bills are going higher and I understand that. But I just want to know from you, I mean you don't have to answer it now, maybe later on you can go check this out.

Why are we not looking at a bigger world scope of products that can come to Hawaii, benefit the people, benefit the workers, benefit everybody and really trying to lower the cost instead of we're going to put pv, they will lower the oil rate and then we will still have a surcharge.

Why don't we just grab everything like how like Senator Makai said yesterday. Why don't we put more stuff, more tools in a toolbox so that we can go out and bust out the tools and see which we can use today. Because I keep hearing not so much wind anymore, thank God.

I keep hearing more solar farm or those kinds of things going in and really it's not helping the consumer. That's the part that really bothers me. And like I said, it's not equally about just saying can we start thinking that outside the box, try to be a little bit more broad. Sorry, sorry Chair. Sorry.

So go off the. Please, you don't need to answer if you don't want to me we will.

We will provide a response to the Committee.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate you. Thank you Chair.

Thank you. And just for your edification, Senator Favela, the Governor issued a Executive order just yesterday with regard to energy and he's going up trying to push more LNG geothermal and what was the third one there was hydrogen geothermal and I can't remember if it will. It was LNG towards hydrogen and then.

No, but we're going to talk about that later. So the Governor and HSEO put that together, has contemplated all of the opportunities currently out there and has put bets on those three opportunities for us in the future. Thank you. Any other questions?

If not, we're going to move on to the last Bill and I'm going to hand it over to my Trusted pal Senokoli to take us to the ED.

Thank you, Chair. The next measure is SB976, relating to intoxicating liquor. This measure allows direct shipment of beer and distilled spirits by certain licensees and requires the Liquor Commission of each county to adopt rules and regulations. First up, we have Koloa Rum Company online in support. Mr. Gunter.

We had him on earlier and I just pivoted real fast. Hello, Mr. Gunter, good morning. Please proceed.

Yes. Aloha. Thank you. When I helped start Koloa Rum Co. In Kauai in 2009, there were fewer than 75 distilleries in the entire country. In the years since, consumer interest in locally made spirits has boomed, with craft distilleries now numbering more than 3,000 nationwide.

But the laws unfortunately governing our industry here have yet to catch up with this explosive growth. Among the most damaging examples has been our inability to sell bottles online and ship them directly to customers. This is particularly frustrating given that the laws don't apply to other alcohol producers.

For example, winemakers have managed alcohol shipments responsibly with ample compliance safeguards to prevent alcohol from falling into the hands of minors for the past 30 years. Today, 47 states plus the Washington, D.C. allow direct shipments of wine. But only nine states plus D.C. permit direct shipping of distilled spirits.

This is because at the time DTC shipping was made legal for winemakers, there were hardly any craft distillers. The laws simply haven't caught up. It's time to modernize laws to meet the growth of the craft distilling industry.

Laws that give consumers the right to choose the spirits they want, purchase them at their convenience, and have them shipped to their homes. This will boost our local economy, help preserve jobs, and we will do so in full compliance. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Maui Brewing Company and support online. Good morning.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the time to test. My good friend and colleague Bob Gunter there said it best. And so I'll stand on our testimony. Adding on that if you took his testimony and substitute beer where it says spirits, you know, we have very, very much the same struggles.

I think too that beer is the beverage of moderation and has been in history far lower alcohol per volume than wine or spirits. Your rights as wine.

I do find interesting that the only opposition are the wholesalers who In 2000, I thought I was reading a letter from like the 99 session because they're talking about how the world will end if we're allowed to sell direct to consumer.

However, it was the same testimony they gave to the wine industry when that right was afforded to them in 2001 in our State of Hawaii, you know, in that same period of time, the number of wholesalers has decreased from around 5,000 beer wholesalers to around 3,000 beer wholesalers. So the access to distribution just isn't there.

And it's why we should be afforded the same right. And the idea of underage minors accessing alcohol. It's already been proven that our system in Hawaii works. We have the system in place, and the liquor departments are fully aware of how that operates. The legislation sits there in 281. We just simply need to add beer and spirits.

And I'll stand on the rest of my testimony for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Sam Dewitt for the Brewers Association in support online.

Good morning. Aloha. Thank you for taking my testimony today on Senate Bill 976. My name is Sam DeWitt, State Government Affairs Director for the Brewers Association, a 501C6 National Trade Association dedicated to promoting and protecting America's craft brewers. I join you today to respectfully ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 976.

Wine's direct consumer successes have informed what we feel is a great opportunity within craft beer.

My written testimony gets into detail about polls showing strong support for direct to consumer beer shipping, how customers are very likely to spend upwards of 50 to $100 per month on direct shipped beer, how likely they are to join beer clubs as they have with wine clubs. But I want to discuss opposition to this legislation.

We at the BA understand and appreciate the opposition from wholesale partners on this issue, but would like to remind them and the Members of this Committee that customers choosing to seek out direct beer shipping, who are willing to be patient and wait for the product, willing to pay a premium to receive it, are highly unlikely to do any of those things if the same product is available through normal wholesale channels like liquor stores, bars, or restaurants in their area.

Ultimately, Senate Bill 976 supports small businesses by letting them connect long term with customers, helps customers get the choice they crave, and long term will even help wholesalers move more and different products in new territories. Senate Bill 976 is a win for everyone and we urge a yes vote.

Thank you for your time and your service to the people of Hawaii. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. I'd like to note written testimony in opposition from Kenneth Hu of the Hawaii Liquor Wholesalers Association and supporting testimony from the following organizations: Kuleana Rum Works, Na Pali Brewing Company, Ko'olau Distillery, Kauai Island Brewing Company, Hanakoa Brewing Company, Kauai Beer Company and Paula Hegel. Opposition testimony from the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance and David Hunt.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Oh, please, if you could just note your name for the record.

Morning, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, My name is Rick Collins. I'm with the Hawai'i Alcohol Policy Alliance. We stand in opposition of SB976 and I just want to highlight a few areas of opposition. The first is around this issue of underage drinking.

One of the reasons that the industry brings up around the wine shipping and that there is no issue is because young people don't drink wine. Over 93% of young people surveyed in our state over the last couple of years shows that, yeah, they're not drinking wine. 93% are drinking beer and spirits. So we're concerned about that.

The other implication here that's often overlooked is the immense tax burden that this creates. So currently in our three tiered system, we have the wholesalers that are a tried and true way to collect our excise tax and we have retailers that are a way to collect our sales tax.

If something like this were to go through, this would put an immense tax burden on our local county commissions because they would have to not only get the reports from the, from the manufacturers, but they would then need to require all of the shippers to provide them their report on what they shipped because there'd be no way to reconcile the report from the manufacturer.

So that would probably be thousands, if not tens of thousands. So I think you're going to be talking about an entire audit Department within each of the county commissions. And lastly, is alcohol tainting.

So we don't talk about this because we have a three tiered system where at the wholesale level we can test alcohol and ensure that any tainted alcohol gets off our shelves. When we get rid of this, that goes away. And it's much harder to track and get tainted alcohol out of our, out of our system.

And if you taint spirits even a little bit, that can cause immense harm to people. So for that reason, we're asking for your no vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members questions? I have Vice Chair and followed by Senator Fevella.

I'm not sure who I should direct the question to since liquor wholesalers are not available. So I guess the gentleman from Alcohol Policy Alliance.

Do you have statistics on, I guess, underage drinking in Hawaii and the extent to which, you know whether the Liquor Commission or Department of Health or any of the other agencies that are responsible for tracking this type of activity?

Yeah, that's a great question. I could get you the answer to that, I think. I think you have to go county by county to see if they're doing things like compliance checks at shipping. I can get you rates of underage drinking. I'd be happy to. I don't know them off the top of my head, but yes.

Thank you.

Senator Favela. Maybe Garrett, if you're online, Mr. Marrero.

Yes, sir. Yeah, aloha. I'm still here.

So the amount of, maybe you don't know this number, but you guys talk about wine being shipped in to, I guess the consumers in Hawaii. Do you guys know the volume. He's frozen.

Being a winery ourselves, we don't have that information. I'm sure Paula Hadley from Maui Wine could give us an idea. But, but a great place to look would be within our own system. You know, the gentleman from APA mentions this huge burden to the system.

The Liquor Department and all the tax departments already have this system in place and they do it every single month. So there is no additional need. So we could simply go to the state tax department and they could give us the amount of direct to consumer wine shipping that occurs.

Adding also that the idea of tainted alcohol is a 30s-era issue. That certainly wouldn't occur. You see all the positive testimonies from every local business, local producer. I find it very almost a joke that we would be talking about tainting our own alcohol from a production level. So be that what it may.

Thank you.

While I have Mr. Marrero on, I have a question and we'll go back.

Yes, sir.

So the Bill notes requirement that the label indicate that the 21 year, you know, no one 21 years of age or I mean you have to be 21 years of age or older to receive a shipment.

I'm wondering whether that's perhaps too ambiguous and maybe the measure should require the signature. Oh, this is to sign to take delivery of a shipment. And I'm wondering whether there would be problem with instead requiring the signature of the person who completed the transaction before completing delivery rather than just any random 21 year old.

Sure. I would say that the current system works very well for the wine industry and for our liquor departments that would not be such an issue other than maybe a bit more cumbersome for the consumer.

But you know, the every shipper that's approved to sell alcohol has these controls in place to ensure that the alcohol does not get left behind with anyone under 21. So it's not like I think our the opposition would contend that it's simply left on the doorstep. This certainly does not happen.

And also pointing to that the states that have gone direct to consumer for beer and spirits have actually shown a decrease in underage drinking. Further, underage drinkers are not going to be buying the, I would, you know, premium priced, premium beverages that would be sold through DTC.

These are the ones that are inaccessible through the normal supply chain. And as far as the three tier system goes, many of these wholesalers, because they're, you know, what are we talking a 40% reduction in the amount of wholesalers since 2000.

These are products that are just going to be sold that are more esoteric limited-release that the wholesalers simply don't have a system to distribute. So going back to your question on the 21, that system, that label, it already exists.

The IDs are swiped, FedEx, UPS, you know, these are the types of common carriers that is this, this has been done this way for more than 20 years. And it's a proven system that is locked tight.

Thank you, Senator Fevella.

I was just talking about the shipping know, is it going to be regular? Is it FedEx and okay, so as long as they have safety parameters around the shipping and the mailing because we don't like just you know, firecrackers getting sent to an inmate, you know, triple C and you know, that kind of stuff.

So we just want to make sure no liquor go there too. But anyway just want to.

Kids don't want to be lumped in on a comment like that. Any other questions, Members?

Okay, we'll recess for decision making. Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience.

We're reconvening the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection for 9:45 agenda. We had three bills on this agenda and the two chairs have conferred. We want to make a number of changes to Senate Bill 587 relating to renewable energy.

And those changes are first technical, non-substantive amendments. We are going to take KIUC suggestions about taking out the meter socket adapters out of the measure.

We are also going to take the Hawaii Solar Energy Association suggested amendments about vehicle-to-grid and grid-to-vehicle and use all of the languages suggested amendments to allow for that in this measure. And we're going to defect the date to, how about, January 1, 2050? Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

For Senate Bill 587. The recommendation from the chair is to pass with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Recommendation is adopted.

CPN committees, same recommendation. Any comments?

Yes, I have a comment. I appreciate the Bill and totally off of this. However, I have a hard hard time voting for something that could potentially increase rates on average citizens when large corporate oligarch entities will be making quite a bit of money out of this. I don't think we should be subsidizing things for entities like that. So I'm going with serious reservations for now. Thank you.

So noted. Any other comments?

Reservations.

Okay. Noting reservations for the Vice Chair and Senator McKelvey. The recommendation on the measure is the same. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Measure is adopted.

Thank you.

We're going to move on to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 589 relating to renewable energy. We're going to make a few changes to this measure as well. Technical, non substantive amendments. We're going to take out the entire section about goals. That's section two of the Bill.

And we're going to remove the full retail rate and allow the PUC to be the entity to set any kind of compensation to the producer of energy. And we're also going to take KIUC suggested amendments to have them taken out from this measure. And we're going to defect the date to January 1, 2050. Any discussion?

If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

for Senate Bill 589. The chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. CPN Committee, Same recommendation. Any comments? Vice Chair?

Reservations.

So noted.

Same.

Okay. Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Your measure is adopted.

Thank you. And for the last measure on the agenda, SB976, the chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Will defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Vice Chair.

Since former, I guess. Senator Rhodes and I have represented Chinatown, where we often deal with many instances of underage drinking. I have a hard time with the notion of direct shipment, partly because I'm not clear as to how that would be managed and implemented.

And typically in the street festivals we've had in Chinatown, you know, there have been methods for identifying the attendees who have to purchase wristbands to be able to access areas.

But when the streets are not constrained and you have thousands of people, I've often wondered how we can place additional burdens on our liquor commission and our law enforcement. So I will be voting in opposition.

So noted. Any other discussion? Seeing none. Chair, passing with amendments, Chair votes aye.

[ROLL CALL]

Oh, Measure is not adopted.

Two yes's and one no.

Sorry.

Okay. For EIG seeing recommendation. Any discussion? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

For Senate Bill 976. Recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[ROLL CALL]

Recommendation is adopted.

Cheers. We adjourn.