House Standing Committee on Housing

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the joint public hearing with the Committees on Housing and Transportation for Thursday, January 30th. It is 9:50am and we're in conference room 430. We have two items on the agenda for this joint hearing which we're going to blaze through here.

Before I open up the agenda, some quick housekeeping notes is we have a two minute time limit for testimony and please refrain from using profanity. If you're on Zoom and you get cut off, we'll try our best to get you back on, but there's no guarantee that we can make it work.

Also, please keep yourself muted if you're on Zoom until it's your and your video off until it's your time to testify. All right. The first item on the agenda is. Oh, sorry. In our joint hearing, we have our Vice Chair, Representative Miyake, and we also have Chair Kila and Vice Chair Grandinetti.

First item on the agenda is HB 1484 related to transit oriented development. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Craig Nakamoto, HCDA with comments.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Francine Murray from the Hawaii Community Development Authority. Craig asked me to apologize to you. He couldn't make it today. He had to attend a family funeral. So we're sorry he apologizes, but we're here to stand on our testimony. In summary, we request to be removed from this measure but would offer to assist the TLD if it is implemented. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We'll take questions after. Thank you very much. Thank you. We send our condolences to Craig and his family at this time. Seth Kamemoto, individual in opposition, Janice Mitchell, opposition, Jolyn Okimoto, opposition, Galen Fox in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter. Seeing none.

Members, any questions? Seeing none. Next item on the agenda is HB 157 related to transportation. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Dean Minakami, HHFDC with comments.

Morning, Chairs, Vice chairs, members, HHFDC supports the intent of the measure. For those of you who are the background of the Kapolei roadways. HHFDC's predecessor agencies developed the villages of Kapolei starting in the 1990s. To expedite construction of the roadways, they did not get city permits. They did their own permitting. They were self permitted.

So what happened subsequently is that the city refused to accept dedication of the roadways. So we've been maintaining the roles of the villagers Kapolei ever since. And about two years ago, we did finally execute an MOA with the city where they agreed to take the roadways if we approve them to a standard that they find acceptable.

That entails us having to redo all the asphalt, reconstruct sidewalks, replace electrical poles, reconstruct catch basins, basically redo all the infrastructure. We turned over the first phase of roadways about a year ago, and that was at a cost of about $15 million. To redo all the rest of the roadways will probably be close to $100 million. And we're just doing it slowly as we can. So we certainly support the measures intent to require the city to take the roadways.

Thank you. Thank you. City and County of Honolulu in support. Villages of Kapolei Association in support. Sandra Jamora in support on Zoom. Okay. And for.

Yes, I'm here.

Oh, go ahead, Sandra.

I apologize. Mr. Minakami covered some of the points I wanted to make about this, the origin of this development.

I did want to say that we are consistently have problems getting non-emergency services here from HPD, such as ticketing and towing, resulting in a lot of illegal vehicles, illegal car camping, parking across crosswalks and around corners, inhibiting safety of pedestrians, and blocking view planes, and derelict and abandoned vehicles that just sit there for a very long time.

I'd like to point out in the mid-2000s, we made an appeal to Mayor Mufi Hannemann. And so for many years after that, we were getting HPD services, non-emergency services, and now it's reverted back to not getting those kind of services. And this is not for want of effort on our part.

We've been working with DPP to correct the GIS maps because they show that the roadways were private, not state owned. We worked with the city on updating the Ala Nui maps in the hopes that HPD could use those maps to come in and ticket.

I even spoke with Prosecutor Steve Alm to try and get support from the prosecutor's office and recognition in the courts that these tickets could be upheld. And in the meantime, the GIS maps have been updated by DPP. We've been jumping through hoops for quite a few years now to try and get this done.

So the last thing I would just like to point out is ROH Section 15-1.1, which talks about private streets, highways, or thoroughfares which have been used for six months or more by the general public and are intended for dedication to the public use, are open for public travel, and not yet been accepted by city.

This chapter referring to traffic code may be cited as traffic code of the city and County of Honolulu. We support this bill and I urge you to take some action on this so we can get the city services we deserve like every other taxpaying citizen. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, we also have Daryl, Darren Holbrook, Cheryl Castro, Claudia Quintanilla. Individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on the matter before us?

Members, any questions? A quick question for Dean. So given that there's been this ongoing negotiation process, could you just elaborate a little more what the current holdup is with the city and county or what your folks latest offer has been and.

Well the current agreement calls for us to improve roadways to the city standards before they accept them for dedication. So the holdup is the amount of resources that we have to basically redo the roadways in Kapolei in terms of staffing primarily and funding so we can do so many roadways at a time.

We anticipate it'll take us maybe 10 years to get through all the roads in Kapolei. We have been talking to the city about, well we just give you a sum of money. Would you just take the roadways in its current condition. And that has been an ongoing discussion.

Okay. Like I said. So they never, they haven't agreed to what the sum of money would be?

Well, they have thrown out a sum of $60 million.

Okay, thank you. Oh yes, Representative Muraoka.

Hi Dean, Good morning. Would you folks be able to work out some type of agreement with the city to where they take it on an as per? You know, if you guys are strapped with funds, if you guys can do certain roads and then the city takes it over and then when you do the next road they take it over on an as per.

Well that's, that's what the current MOA calls for. That we as we reconstruct the roads to their satisfaction, they have to accept that roadway. As we for example, if we were to replace street lights then they would accept the street lights. So it is. MOA does call for that.

But I'm talking as far as a transfer. Is that what's happening? Okay. How many streets have been transferred since the beginning of that MOA?

It's what's called the major backbone role. So it's a major collector roles and Kapole. So Kamahalu. Some of the other major arterials there. Not all of them, but some of them.

So there has been some transferring ownership from the villages to the city.

Not in ownership. For maintenance. We also have to subdivide the roads out. And that has been a lengthy process because they're in land court and it's just a very complicated subdivision.

So as I read this, it says you guys are trying to have the city take ownership of these roads. So my question again was if the city's gonna take ownership of these roads, but they're requiring you guys to get these roads up to standard before they take ownership. And you say that funding and manpower is stopping you guys from getting it up to the standard the city wants. My question is, can you guys do it in segments?

Yes. And that's what we're doing. We're doing it in segments.

Okay. And nothing has been transferred in ownership yet?

Well, we have transferred maintenance responsibility, which is a huge burden. The actual dedication will follow once we subdivide out the roadway. It's really the maintenance is the major burden.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Dean. Members, any further questions? All right. Seeing none, we will recess briefly for decision making.

Reconvening the 9:50 AM Joint Committee Hearing agenda with the committees on Housing and Transportation for decision making. First up, we have HB 1484, relating to Transit-Oriented Development.

I recommend that we move this out with an HD 1, with a defected date. Deleting the reference to Section 225, P-8 on Page 11, Line 3. Adopt HCDA's proposed amendment from their testimony and to blank out the positions from Section 5 and add them to the Committee Report. Members, any discussion? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Okay. Transportation Committee, same recommendation. Any comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Next up is HB 157, relating to transportation. On this Bill, I've been in some discussions with the AG's office and I'm waiting for a written opinion from the AG, as to our authority to essentially force this transfer to occur, given that there's been ongoing dialogue and negotiation between HHFTC and the city.

The AG is in the process of giving a formal opinion on that. While we wait for that, I think it's important to keep this measure alive for continued discussion and it's important to do all we can to try and help facilitate the transfer of, of the streets in Kapolei.

I also want to reference that the Part Two of the Bill, to ensure that the police have authority on these streets, I think is really important, no matter what happens to the transfer component. So, I'm hoping that that part can continue to move also.

So, my only recommendation then is to move this out with an HD 1, with a defected date. Members, any comments? Sorry, and we can reference in the Committee port that we're waiting for the AG opinion and that it'll be up to the Committee on Water and Land on, on how they want to handle this. So, seeing no comments. Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Vice Chair Miyake.

Thank you. Transportation Committee, same recommendation. Quick comment. I think, as we continue, especially on the counties of Honolulu, we will continue to run into this issue, and I think it's going to go back to—at some point, the state cannot continue to keep subsidizing county negligence. So, we're going to adopt the same recommendations.

But that's just my comment. Questions or concerns? Okay.

Same recommendation.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Members. Seeing no further business and hearing no objections, this joint public hearing is now adjourned.

Morning everybody. Calling to order the Committee on Transportation today for the 10 o'clock hearing in room 430 here at the state capitol, Thursday, January 30, 2025. I am the Chair of the House Committee Transportation. My Vice Chair Tina Grandinetti. Just some housekeeping measures. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, if we need to, we will install a time a time limit of 2 minutes for testifier because the morning hearings have to adjourn prior to our noon floor session.

If the case that all testifiers may not have the opportunity to testify, please know your working comments have been considered by the committee. Please keep yourself muted and video off while waiting to testify. After your testimony is complete, the zoom chat function allows you to chat with technical staff only and use it only for technical issues.

If you're disconnected, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. And if you are disconnected while testimony, you may be allowed to continue if your time permits. Please note the House is not responsible for Internet connections. In the event of a network failure, may be necessary to reschedule the hearing hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making.

In that case, appropriate notice will be posted. Please do not use trademark or copyrighted images and please refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Okay, all that to be said as we get underway with our 10 o'clock hearing I just want to announce and and it's the practice of a Housing Committee as well.

But I just say for the Transportation Committee for members and the public, please know that our House rules require all testimony to be made available to the public by 2 hours prior to committee hearing. But just know that on the adoption of myself and Chair Evslin we have adopted the practice that all testimony will be available made public at 5pm the prior day to any hearing. So for today's hearing last night, yesterday at 5pm the same time members got testimony, so did the public. I will quote one of our colleagues House rules are a floor, not a ceiling. And as we seek to make better engagement the public that is the House community transportation. All that to be said, let's get underway.

HB 1083 relating to vessels in state commercial harbors clarifies their requirements for securing a mooring lines in state commercial harbors should not apply to certain vessels. Vice Chair for testimony.

Eric Kingma, Hawaii Long Line Association, in support. Ryan Sakuda, General Contractors Association of Hawaii, in support. Holo Holo Charters in opposition on Zoom. Captain Andy's sailing in opposition on Zoom. Blue Dolphin Charters in opposition. Is there anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify on HB 1083?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone in the room or online to testify in the measure before us? Seeing none. Members, questions? Okay, moving on to the next agenda. Item HB 1159 related to commercial harbor specifically requires harbor masters or persons to charge of vessels to follow order by a harbor master to evacuate commercial harbor in emergencies.

Establishes higher penalties for non compliance. Amends section 266-19A to include fines collected for violations of this section as monies to be paid into special harbor Fund.

Vice Chair for testimony, Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you.

Hawaii Long Line Association in opposition. Holo Holo Charters in opposition on Zoom. Captain Andy Sailing, in opposition on Zoom and Blue Dolphin Charters in opposition on Zoom. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on the measure before us?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone online or person to testify on the measure before us? Seeing none. Please say your name.

Gabriel Lucy. Captain Andes. I submitted my testimony. I'm here to oppose HB 1159 because it could hurt small operators like us who, you know, we depend on fair and reasonable harbor regulations. We do support safety. This bill as written could cause unfortunately unnecessary evacuations and devastating penalties for us.

We've been operating for 40 years. We need flexibility to respond to like real emergencies. These are just really broad evacuation orders for minor conditions. You know, basically we would suggest, you know, amending this bill to provide clear guidelines on what counts as emergencies.

So we'd recommend suggesting like defining an emergency with clear criteria like sustained winds over certain speed or conditions that directly threaten safety. So it's not up to like the broad interpretation and also on the penalties like a tiered system based on the size of the vessel and circumstances.

And so, you know, just so small businesses aren't shouldn't face this large penalty of commercial shipping. So mahalo for your time and consideration. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I did have a chance to review your testimony, so I appreciate you being here today. Anyone online or in person like to testify in the matter before us? Signal further testifiers. Members, questions. Elijah.

No worries, Aloha. This question is for Director Ed Sniffin. What are your thoughts on adopting these recommendations for, you know, defining what an emergency is and having a tiered penalty system?

We can absolutely talk about clarity. But for us, we work with the captain report and their guidances on the port conditions. So that's pretty clear for everybody. They set the, they set what conditions are in the different ports they. They set, what conditions are for access and for. For people who need to leave.

So we can, we can work on it. We, we're happy to work on it. We think there's clarity already.

Okay, so if emergency is declared, there's already a definition for that emergency. Okay, thank you.

Thank you Rep. Members, any other questions? Rep Muraoka.

My message would be for Gabe. You know, Gabe, maritime security, it establishes a lot of these emergencies. What would you consider or what are you afraid of? An evacuation notice that you would consider a non emergency.

An evacuation would be a non emergency. It's just different for larger boats. Larger boats can go out in kind of conditions that we sometimes can't.

So we'd like to just be part of that conversation a little bit more, but we just don't have as many places to go that they do and we are set up here on in Port Allen. So possibly would just be like there are certain larger wind conditions and stuff. So an example would be like a larger boat.

The big fear is that those boats sink in those harbors, I think. And for us, we just need safe places to go and time to make that decision and evaluate it.

So in times of like a hurricane or something like that, you. The smaller boats would be safer in harbor.

In certain harbors. There are certain harbors that we can go to for refuge, but specifically, I mean, we like to work with them. We just want a little more time and to be part of that conversation.

Thank you. Thank you, Rep. Members, any other questions? See None. Thank you. Okay, moving on to our next measure before us.

To the next measure before us, HB 1158 relating to firefighting at commercial harbors, limits civil liability of individuals who render firefighting services at any state commercial harbors or roadsteads, any commercial harbor or waterfront improvement belonging to or controlled by the state or any vessel at the commercial harbor or roadstead to only damages resulting from an individual's gross negligence or wanton acts on omissions. Vice Chair for testimony,

Department of Transportation in support.

In support, thank you.

Thank you.

The maritime group in support.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone online or in person testifying the matter before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, moving on to the next measure HB 1165 related to highways authorized to counties to sell or dispose of property bordering the ocean. Department of Transportation, request acquisition of the property for state highway purposes. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you.

That's all the testimony.

Thank you, vice chair. Anyone online or in person to testify on the matter before us. Seeing the none. Members, any questions? Okay, moving on to the next measure. HB 938 relate to the Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Act. Authorizes manufacturers and distributors to sell directly to consumer items activated or installed through the more electronic transmission.

Clarifies the ability of Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Act to common entities. Amends grounds for denying, suspending, revoking or otherwise taking adverse action on a license. Permits a manufacturer distributor for requiring to dealer purchase or lease any electric vehicle charging station at the dealer's expense unless provided notice of intent to sell the manufacturers or distributors electric vehicles.

Clarifies the conditions or the transfer of a franchisee clarifies the requirements for reimbursing a dealer for parts and labor. All in one. Vice chair for the testimony, please.

DCCA Office of Consumer Protection with comments.

Thank you.

Hawaii Electric Vehicle Association in opposition. Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition. Kauai Climate Action Coalition in opposition.

Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association.

Members of the committee, I'm Melissa Pavlicek. I'm the Executive Director for the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association and with me today is Russ Wong from Aloha Kia, one of our board members.

We stand in support.

Right, thank you, Russ. I just, I wanted Russ to share with you a little bit about our intent in this Bill and we appreciate the committees turning on the testimony. So we have observed that there are a number of concerns that was never our intent.

The purpose of the motor vehicle franchise law is to ensure that the relationship between manufacturers and dealers is fair and equitable for the benefit of consumers. It's administered by the Department of Commerce and Consumer affairs and over time as the industry changes, there are periodic needs to refresh and update this law.

There are clearly provisions in there that, you know, go beyond just clarifying and housekeeping. And we're committed to working with stakeholders outside the legislative process to ensure that we have consensus and agreement. We've been particularly working closely with manufacturers and others and we can see that there are people we need to reach out to in the testimony. I'd like to ask Russ to just briefly share why we asked for this Bill.

The main thing is the automobile dealership structure is being challenged nationwide and dealers find it real important that their states understand, you know, as things change, you know. Dealers are the backbone of Main Street, you know, USA in the communities and we contribute a lot and we're very valuable part of the of what goes on in the states and we think the franchise system has served consumers well.

And you know, we just want to make sure as this market is changing, there's a lot of push towards an agency where manufacturers are going direct to consumers. And we are concerned about the long term viability of dealerships without some franchise protections.

And we understand that this is a very complicated bill and probably too much in one bill and we've got to work to make it understandable to everybody.

Thank you for letting us have a moment to explain that to you and we look forward to working with you outside the legislative hearing process.

Thank you, Melissa. Thank you, Russ.

Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Board with comments.

Hello chair, hello board members. My name is Hector West. I'm the Executive Officer for the Motor Vehicle Licensing Board. The board basically...

Wait, if you're not going to stand your testimony, can you come to the mic, please? Thank you.

My name is Hector West. I'm the chief. I'm sorry, I'm the Executive officer for the Motor Vehicle Licensing Industry Board. Sorry about my voice, I have a cold. The board basically stands on its testimony with comments and I'm here, of course, to answer questions.

Thank you.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation in Opposition on Zoom. Oh, in person.

Hi, good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, I'm Tiffany Yajima with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. The alliance, the Auto Innovators, opposes this measure as it's currently drafted. We are committed to working together with the Hawaii Auto Dealers Association on language where we feel there can be consensus.

We're happy to do so as this bill moves through the legislative process if you would allow us a little bit more time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Noelani Derrickson with Tesla in opposition. Beau Whiteman from Rivian in opposition. And we have 51 individuals in opposition and one with comments.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person to testify on the measure before us?

Yes, please. This is Cody Thacker from Scout Motors.

Thank you. Proceed.

Yeah, chair, vice chair, members of the Transportation Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. As I said, my name is Cody Thacker. I'm the Vice President of Growth at Scout Motors, along with our CEO and head of strategy.

I founded the company in 2022. Yet in a few short years my company has grown to over 800 employees and we project that we'll finish this year at 1600 employees. After we start production of Scout EVs, we project that we'll employ 4000 hard working men and women in our manufacturing facility. So what is Scout Motors?

We're a new EV startup that we're bringing cool, credibly neat electric trucks and SUVs to market. And doing that requires billions of dollars of investment. And we're extremely fortunate to receive essential seed funding from Volkswagen AG. So we're working hard to bring American made adventure ready EVs to market.

And we're excited about the future of EVs in Hawaii. But I'm here today because HB 938 threatens to slow or even stop all of that progress. Hawaii has set ambitious goals to promote EV adoption and reduce carbon emissions as outlined in the state's Stone Energy policies.

And to achieve those goals, innovative companies must be allowed to bring cutting edge EVs to market in ways that serve consumers consumers best. HB 938 moves in the opposite direction. It protects entrenched interests at the expense of competition, consumer choice, and the state's EV adoption goals.

A critical aspect of EV adoption is ensuring that consumers can purchase vehicles in a way that works best for them. Some buyers prefer to go through a traditional franchise dealer. Others want to buy directly from the manufacturer, something that modern technology makes possible and extremely efficient.

As a newly formed American company, Scout Motors is building vehicles or factory or customer experience all from the ground up to provide the most affordable, transparent, and convenient customer experience. We made the strategic decision to sell Scout vehicles directly to consumers.

But HB 938 seeks to take that choice away from consumers by effectively shutting out companies like Scout Motors because we've chosen to utilize the more efficient direct to consumer model. Even more concerning is the bill's attempt to redefine what constitutes a sale of a vehicle well beyond the common sense definition.

By expanding that definition, HB 938 would restrict fundamental aspects of the EV buying process, such as test drives, online pricing information, and the ability to discuss vehicle features.

Sorry, do you mind wrapping up, please?

Okay, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Look, the dealer lobby, what they're trying to do here is block new entrants from competing not because of safety concerns or consumer protection issues, but because they don't want competition. Economists, academics, consumer protection groups, environmentalist, free market advocates, the FTC, the US Department of Justice, they're all completely aligned here.

Stymieing direct to consumer harms consumers, drives up prices, and limits innovation. So given the significant impacts of these things found in HB 938, we would urge the committee to pause to take a thorough deliberate process to examine the impacts with all stakeholders. Thank you very much for your consideration. I'm happy to field any questions.

Thank you. I watched your unveiling of the two vehicles on YouTube online. Can you please make sure you provide your written testimony to the committee for follow up to make sure it's inside? Thank you.

Absolutely.

Anyone online or person like to testify on the matter before us. Seeing none. Members, questions?

I have a question. I have a question for DCCA. I don't think this is like the real meat of the contention in this bill, but I was curious if you could elaborate a little bit about your concerns with the subscription features in software.

Yes. As we have more vehicles doing these electronically remote installations, a lot of these features have to do with recurring charges for services.

So our concern is mainly that consumers are aware of what the charges are, how they're going to be deducted, how much they are, and that they're provided with an easy mechanism for canceling it if they decide they no longer want these features. So that was our main concern and point of comments in our testimony.

Thank you. Thank you. Members. Any other questions? Seeing none, next measure, HB 1464 relating to automotive repair provides access by owners of motor vehicles independent repair facilities to motor vehicle manufactured diagnostic and repair information and diagnostic repair tools otherwise made available to dealers. Vice chair testimony, please.

Oh, sorry. Oh, Tiffany Ajima, Alliance for Automotive Innovation in opposition.

Hi, Tiffany Ajima for the alliance for Auto Motivation Innovation. Again, we respectfully oppose this bill. Right to repair already exists today. In 2013, a national agreement was signed with the independent repairers and that MOU was reaffirmed in 2023. We feel like right to repair exists already and for this reason it's unnecessary. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association in opposition.

Thank you.

O'Reilly Auto Parts in support. Motorcycle Industry Council in opposition. Auto Care Association in support on Zoom.

Yes, good morning. My name is Tod Moore with the Auto Care Association and I'm here to testify in support of HB 1464. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this critical issue before the Transportation Committee.

We are a national trade Association comprised of more than 3,000 Member companies and affiliates that manufacture, distribute, and sell motor vehicle parts, accessories, services, tools, equipment, materials, and supplies. The Auto Care Association is the voice of the Auto Care industry, a $516 billion industry comprised of more than 4.7 million Americans.

In Hawaii, our industry includes 6,500 jobs, generates 959 million in activity and provides 435 million in wages. This Bill protects a vehicle owner's right to have their vehicle fixed at the repair shop of their choice, guarantees that the owner and the repair shop of their choice can access the same critical repair and maintenance data they access today,

even as cars become more complex. The vehicle manufacturers maintain exclusive rights to the information and decide who, when, and for what cost. Such information will be provided. The right to access this repair and maintenance data is essential to safe, affordable, and accessible repair as the independent aftermarket performs more than 70% of out of warranty repairs.

Advances in technology since 2013, are raising new challenges for access to vehicle data that did not exist previously.

Car companies are building proprietary firewalls around their onboard diagnostic systems such that, independent shops and the tools they use must request authorization from the manufacturers before accessing this critical repair data, thus increasing manufacturers control over the access to this data.

These restrictions will only get worse as vehicles continue to transmit terabytes of data that can be monetized by the manufacturers. An independent survey concluded that 51% of independent repair shops send up to five cars each month to the dealer for repair and they're restricted from performing these repairs.

63% of shops surveyed report experience a restriction on repair data daily or weekly. These restrictions have resulted in more than 3 billion additional repair costs.

Sorry, we love your data, but do you mind wrapping your comments up, please?

Yes.

Thank you.

Autocare supports right to Repair and consumer choice supporting HB 1464. Thank you.

Thank you.

808 Safety in support. Coalition for Automotive Repair Equality in support. LKQ Corporation with comments.

Morning Members of the Committee. I'll be briefing my comments. LKQ Corporation, nation's largest distributor of aftermarket and recycled auto parts. We commend Representative Kila on his Bill. We support right to repair and we support his Bill. The motor vehicle after your home, after any individual's home is likely to be the second largest expense

that one is to make in his or her lifetime. And individuals are holding onto their vehicles for a lot longer now. It is only reasonable for an individual to have access to choice for automotive parts for automotive repair and for whom and where and when they go to get the motor vehicles for repair.

Right to repair is a reasonable measure. You've seen right to repair on other types of products, electronics, TVs, what have you. It is only reasonable the right to repair be extended to motor vehicles. So Shaquilla, thank you. We look forward to working with you on this Bill and happy to answer any questions that could Committee may have.

Thank you.

We have. Next. We have.

We'll take questions after. Okay, thank you.

Jeffrey Lynn Groves in support. Michael Older in support. Lisa Spooner, BO in support. And that's all.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person testify on the measure before us?

Excuse me.

My name is Melissa Pavlicek from the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association. I just may have inadvertently communicated unintentionally that we stood in our written testimony as if it was not a high priority. But I just wanted to assure the Committee that this is a big concern, particularly for cybersecurity and other proprietary information and data being shared.

We, along with the Automotive alliance, believe that there are already protections in place for consumers to be able to repair their vehicles and we respectfully oppose this measure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else online or in person like to testify in the measure before us? Question for LKQ, please. From my understanding, Maine and Massachusetts adopted similar measures around similar legislation like this. Where is the current status in those two states?

So, Massachusetts and Maine were ballot initiatives chair, Massachusetts around 2014 and then Maine recently as of 2023. Unfortunately, despite the ballot issue in Massachusetts being passed by overwhelming vote of Massachusetts voters, it is caught up in the judicial system right now because opponents brought legal action against its enforcement.

In Maine, the ballot initiative directed the Attorney General's Office to conduct a working group and establish an independent entity to conduct the regulation of the language of the ballot initiative. There was an attempt to dilute the wording of the ballot initiative during the legislative process in 2024 that was defeated.

The Attorney General Working group convened its working group during the fall of 2024. We are expecting their report sometime in February and then the Legislature will enact legislation to enforce the working group recommendations. Thank you. Thank you.

Members. Any other questions? Okay. Oh, so I don't think Rep has a question. Oh sorry Luke Evslin.

Sorry, could you just describe briefly the difference Tiffany and I think Melissa mentioned that there's the Federal Right to Repair Act could, how would this differ from this and increase protection or availability for consumers?

Well, the Federal Right Repair Act number one would apply to all 50 states in the union. The Federal Right to Repair act calls for all types of over the air data, telematics, and whatnot to be shared with independent repair shops and with the consumers.

I don't think there'll be much difference between a Hawaii Right to Repair act than the federal Act. They both protect the consumers, they both protect free markets and they both protect access to parts and repairs.

Okay. I bought a car on Oahu a couple years ago and it was never disclosed that there was nobody on Kauai where I live could service the vehicle. When I got it to Kaua'I tried to get it serviced. Turns out there had to ship the thing back to Oahu to get it serviced.

And dealer independent repair places on Kauai said it would cost $250 for them to access the software just to reset the service light. Right. They could do an all points inspection. Anybody can do that. It was an electric vehicle, so it requires no actual fluid change, but $250 to access the software just to reset the light.

If this were in place, I see that there's a provision that says like, that they would have to charge a reasonable cost to consumers for access to this stuff. Is there a reasonable expectation that that $250 charge would go significantly down with this?

I'm just trying to sort of better understand what the impacts of this would be versus what's already in federal law.

I think that's probably the question better asked of the manufacturers and the dealerships.

Representatives.

Okay.

Okay. So, I guess given that the federal law applies to all 50 states evenly, equally, and has similar protections, like, what do you then see as the main benefits of us passing this versus just relying on the federal law?

There is no federal law just yet. Oh, I thought it's before Congress.

Okay, I guess I have a question for Tiffany then. Sorry and we can go to Chris's question. I didn't mean to cut in front of you.

I believe that what was referenced, that right to repair, already exists. There was a reference to an MOU that was signed in 2014 and then reinforced in 2024. That MOU is a private agreement between the manufacturers and certain aftermarket companies. So it's not long.

And you know, our reservation with that is that we believe it's deficient because not all over the air data is shared with the consumer or independent repair shops. And it was referenced here that cars are continuously changing and evolving, so is the data and the information that is shared.

So that's why we think that perhaps an evolving right to repair is necessary. Okay, thank you.

I better understand. I appreciate that.

Okay, Muraoka, you're good. Thank you.

So if DCCA and or the auto dealerships, this is for either of you guys, whoever can answer, so the MOU in place currently, it actually hurts the consumer because an independent dealer can replace your transmission, but without the permissions to go in and flash in the,

in the repair field is called flash, but reprogram the shift points on the shift, the computer for the transmission. So now they go to an independent dealer to do their transmission, get their transmission reinstalled. They still got to tow their car to a dealership to have it flashed. That's part of the right to repair MOU currently. Right. Can we get clarity on that.

For DCCA or Hata.

Well Muraoka, I'm not familiar with that. I'm Melissa Pavlicek from the Hawaii Auto Dealers Association, perhaps. DCCA might be. But I'd be glad to get back to you and look into that. I don't know the answer, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

DCCA, you have any comments regarding R. Mora's question and if not, just please share. Okay, wait, come to the mic please. Thank you. Thank you. For DCCA and Hana, if you folks don't mind following up with me and I would distribute to the Committee appropriately. Malo.

And just to follow on, when you guys do check like, like the reflashing of the ecms for a new engine, a new transmission, it goes as simple as key fobs. You misplace your key fob, you cannot just go to an independent dealer. You cannot go to City Mill. You got to go back to the dealership.

So just look into that for me, please. Thank you.

Thank you Rep. Members, any other questions? Tiffany, do you mind coming back to the mic to regarding question please.

Thanks, Tiffany. I guess just some clarity on the agreement, the federal agreement. And, and mainly for me, like, again, the fact that there is no access to anybody who can service a vehicle on Kauai seems like a major issue. Without paying this kind of exorbitant price just to reset the light.

Is that not something that the federal agreement covers and would this legislation end up hopefully bringing down that price?

I can't answer your question directly in your situation, but I'm happy to look into it and just look at the vehicle and the manufacturer, the dealer, that situation. I just want to maybe add a point of clarity that it isn't a national law or national agreement.

There's a national agreement between entities and I'm happy to provide that to you. It was like I said, established in 2013, agreed to and then reaffirmed in 2014 and then reaffirmed in 2023. So it was recently reaffirmed. My understanding is that 70% of automotive repairs are done via the independent repairers.

So, I'm happy to provide that to you. My understanding also is that there is this Bill is based on the Massachusetts ballot initiative that is being litigated and has been litigated and it's just pending a decision. So we're sort of operating real time right now.

And once that is a judgment is decided, then we will have some clarity on what will happen nationwide. Therefore, we feel like this Bill is unnecessary.

Okay, thank you. And I guess then the one follow up to that is do you for my quick read of the Bill, it seemed there's a provision that said sort of reasonable prices had to be charged.

Like does the federal agreement just mandate that these the technologies have to be available to these independent providers with no potential price provision? Do you know?

I don't know, but I can look into it.

Okay, thank you so much, Tiffany. I appreciate it. Thank you, Tiffany. And then to Rep's questions, if you don't mind sending them to me and I'll disperse to the Committee. Thank you Members. Any other questions? Okay. See. Now move on to the next measure.

HB 1304 relating to transportation requires Department of Transportation to adopt rules governing a clean fuel standard for alternative fuels in the state. Vice Chair for testimony.

Nesty in support.

Thank you.

Hawaiian Electric with comments on Zoom.

Yeah. Hi, good good morning everyone. My name is Nicholas Paisley and I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. So the company supports a clean fuel standard. However, we have some comments and are offering some amendments because we're concerned that it doesn't include the fuel used for power generation.

So we just wanted to have our fuel included as well. The concern there is that if we're not included then it could increase electrical rates for everyone.

Thank you.

Biotechnology Innovation Organization in support. Coalition Earth in support.

Thank you Vice Chair. Anyone online or personally to testify on the measure before us?

Vice Chair and members. It's Sniffen with Hawaii DOT.

I think we sended ourselves in late. Duty stands in supporting the intent with one concern want to make sure that we understand what impacts this could be could have on the government and economy and one request should we move forward with setting these clean first fuel standards is a big lift.

We want to make sure that we move it back one year to January 2028. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. Anyone else online or person testifying the measure before us? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay, move on to the next measure relating to transportation demand and management.

HB1302 it requires Department of Human Resources and Development in collaboration with various state and county agencies to establish a transportation to management- transportation demand management program appropriates funds Vice Chair for testimony.

DHRD offering comments.

Department of Human Resources we stand on our testimony.

Thank you.

Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kiana Otsuka and I'm with the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization.

I wanted to note for you folks that we stand on our written testimony in support and also let you folks know that our office helped to lead this study that's aligned with this bill, including developing cost estimates for the items in this bill. I'm happy to take any questions about the study or cost estimates. Mahalo.

Thank you.

Get Fit Kauai in support. Hawaii State Energy Office in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee on Behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office, we stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have Kiana Otsuka in support, Molly Mamoril in support, Nathan Dube, Justin Menina, Nicole Shintani and Brandon Sue, all in support.

Thank you. Anyone online or personally to testify in the matter before us? Seeing none. Members, questions? Okay, move on to the next measure. HB 1301 related to transportation. Part one repeals the Public Utilities Commission Authority to regulate rate raking for motor carriers. Part two applies existing framework regulating more carriers onto transportation network companies.

And part three repeals the chapter of regulating transportation network companies. Vice Chair for testimony.

Attorney General with comments.

Good morning, Attorney General Ian Robertson. We submitted comments noting that HRS Section 271-2 is amended twice in this bill, once at Section 2 and once at Section 17. We suggest deleting one of those sections to avoid confusion. And we note that some of the amendments that are in section two are not in Section 17. Thank you.

Thank you.

Uber Technologies in opposition.

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti and members of the committee. My name is Zahid Arab, and on behalf of Uber Technologies, I'm here today to respectfully oppose HB 1301. The push to classify TNCs like Uber as common carriers doesn't make sense and could create more harm than good. Uber has been serving Hawaii for more.

Than a decade, providing affordable and reliable transportation. And the regulatory framework we already have. Like HB 1681, signed into law a few years ago, has been working well for everybody. Everybody. There's really no reason to disrupt the system that's functioning effectively.

Classifying TNCs as common carriers would impose unnecessary legal burdens and financial strain on both drivers and passengers. TNCs aren't like taxis or buses. We're technology platforms that connect drivers with riders, and we don't own our own or operate our vehicles. Holding TNCs to the same liability standards as traditional carriers is not just unfair, it's unwarranted.

If passed, this bill could hurt Hawaii's most vulnerable communities. Higher insurance costs and additional liabilities resulting from it will likely drive up fares, making it harder for riders, especially those on fixed incomes or in underserved areas, to afford the service they depend on.

This could also lead to fewer earning opportunities for drivers that rely on our platform to support their families. Let's not fix something that's frankly not broken. We already meet high insurance requirements, including $1 million in uninsured, underinsured motor school coverage while passengers are in the car, which is far more than taxis or personal vehicles.

The existing framework is sufficient and protects both riders and drivers. In closing, instead of complicating things with unnecessary changes, we should stick to what's working. The law implemented in Honolulu in 2016 is a proven model and it's one that balances the needs of drivers, passengers and the community. Thank you.

Lyft in Opposition.

Hi, Good morning everyone. Chairman Kila, Vice Chair Grandinetti and committee members. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony Lyft submits this letter in opposition of HB 1301, a bill that would unnecessarily impose duties and liabilities on TNCs and will threaten the industry as a whole in the state.

TNCs are technology companies and designated at TNC as common carriers would completely eliminate the uniform statewide framework that governs the rideshare industry in Hawaii and has been working well for communities across the state. Courts have acknowledged that TNCs should not be treated like taxis or other common carriers.

While a common carrier company may employ a few dozen professional chauffeurs, TNCs connect an enormous network of thousands of drivers and independent drivers who control when, where and how often they work, over 90% of whom drive fewer than 20 hours a week.

Since day one, we've built safety into every part of the Lyft experience before, during and after the ride, which is unparalleled in the transportation industry.

We've implemented strict policies of compliance with TNC regulations to screen everyone who drives on the Lyft platform by requiring initial and annual background checks, conducting continuous criminal monitoring and driving record checks, and providing community safety education.

Creating a partnership with the nation's largest antisexual violence organization, we've developed in ride features that allow riders to share their location with family and friends, connect directly with Lyft support, and quickly and easily access emergency assistance from the Lift app after the ride.

Our safety team is available 24/7 so riders can always reach a live person if they have concerns and so we can take action to help keep our community safe. These enhanced safety features did not exist before in the for hire transportation industry and even today remain unique to ride sharing.

Safety incidents on Lyft are statistically very rare occurring 0.15% of rides with over 99% of all rides occurring without any safety reports at all. Multiple courts have reviewed and upheld the TNC statutes applying different standards from motor carriers for the same reasons that drove the development of these unique TNC regulations. These operational costs.

Sorry, do you mind wrapping up your comments?

You got it. So rideshare of course provides thousands of people in Hawaii with important earning opportunities and transportation options. People across the wire driving with rideshare for supplemental income and helping vulnerable communities with these essential services.

Imposing these additional requirements on TNC as proposed in this bill will result in increased costs for the customer and unnecessary as the current TNC rules and liability standards provide on apple protection. For this reason we oppose this bill. Thank you for your time.

Roberts Hawaii in support. Hawaii Association of Justice in opposition. Public Utilities Commission, oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Sorry Vice Chair. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Evan Oue on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. Apologies for our late testimony on this measure but we did want to respect fully upholds. This bill which you know on two fronts of course the unintentional consequences may result in insufficient insurance coverage and liability for TNCs which severely impacts the safety of Hawaii residents that utilize their services.

First and foremost. You know we're concerned that this may create additional gaps in, you know, insurance on this bill by removing the 297J requirements that was mentioned by the Uber representative on the call.

You know, ultimately this may place the costs and burdens on the drivers rather than a corporate entity and which is better suited to, you know, put that financial cost. Additionally, you know, removal of liability for TNCs.

You know I know that there's an independent contractor argument going out there right now, but you know, we're concerned that this may eliminate the liability requirements for the TNC at this point in time and you know, place the driver firmly on the liability standpoint.

So you know, for these reasons we just wanted to respectfully oppose this measure and will be available for any questions. Thank you Chair and Vice Chair.

Public Utilities Commission in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair. members of the committee. Leo Asuncion, chair of the PUC. Will stand on our written comments providing, written testimony providing comments on the bill. Available for any questions.

Thank you, Chair. Anyone online or personally testifying the measure before us? Seeing none. Uber and Lyft, quick question. You folks have expanded outward of just passenger experience and delivery and are providing other services such as package and other deliveries. Yes or no?

That's a no for Lyft.

Yes, Chair that's a yes for us. With Uber Eats platform. We also have Uber Connect and Uber Direct.

Thank you. Members, any other questions?

Okay, seeing none. Moving on to our last measure for the 10 o'clock agenda.

HB1161 relating to transportation provides authority for county to pose a mileage based road usage charge. Provides a disposition of funds of county mileage based road usage charge. Clarifies the disposition of funds of state mileage road base road usage charge. Repeals the maximum amount of a driver will pay in state mileage based road usage charge on June 30th, 2028. Establishes a default state mileage based road usage charge rate when in missing incomplete or incorrect odometer reading regarding information that will prevent the state manager bait road juice is charged from being held. Calculates and establishes a state mileage based road use discharge to sub account to follow to allow disbursements or reimbursements back to vehicle owners. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Thank you.

Department of Customer Services City and County of Honolulu with comments. Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments on Zoom.

Yes good morning Chair, Members of the Committee, this is Jade McMillen, on behalf of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. We have submitted some comments on the measure. Our comments outline a few of the inconsistencies with regards to electric vehicle policies. As far as benefits and now a road you speed that can be imposed by the county.

So thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation with comments.

Thank you.

Chair Alice L. Lee, individual in support. Victor Ramos, individual in support. Robert Souza, individual- oh I'm sorry, Victor Ramos was in opposition and Robert Souza is also in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone online or in person testifying the measure- measure before us? Seeing none. Members, questions? Rep. Miyake.

Chair, I just wanted to disclose I spoke with House Attorney Mark Morita and before I was a Legislator I was a contractor with this project. But I wanted to disclose that I have no personal interest or benefits from this and this will not affect my decision.

Thank you.

Thank you Chair.

Members, further questions? Okay, seeing none. We're gonna recess for decision making.

Thank you.

Bringing the Committee of House Transportation back to order for decision making, on the matters of the 10:00 AM agenda. Members, let's go through the hearing. HB 1083, related to state vessels in state commercial harbors. Members, we're going to adopt the HD 1 in order to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

We're noting in the Committee Report on potential expiration and language for exemptions on vessels. Noted in testimony, DOT will clarify those exemptions in the next Committee, and I thank the testifiers for providing the recommendation. That is my recommendation. Members, questions? Sorry. Comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HB 1159, related to commercial harbors, we're going to adopt the HD 1. We're going to do some technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. We're going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

In the Committee report, I'm also going to note on the exploration of exemptions for vessels mentioned in testimony by the Long Light Association, and consider exemptions for these vessels, with Coast Guard-approved mooring plans. Thank you to the testifiers and that is the Chair's recommendation. Members, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HB 1158 relating to firefighting at commercial harbors. We're going to defect the effective date, sorry, adopt the HD 1, defect the effective date July 1st, 3000.

On Page 195, we're going to add language, "with a firefighting vessel" to clarify the person who uses a firefighting vessel should not be liable for any civil damages, except from gross negligent wanton acts or emissions. This is a measure that HDOT needs for cleanup and liability, and I am this Chair's recommendation. Members, questions or—sorry, comments or concerns? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HB 1165 relating to highways. We're going to adopt the HD 1 and we're going to affect the effective date—July 1st, 3000. We're going to do some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And on Page 19, Lines 17 to 22, we're going to delete the language there and replace it with our boilerplate language, and we're going to blank out any specific appropriations. Members questions, sorry, comments or concerns? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HB 938, relating to Motor Vehicle Industry Licensing Act. Full disclosure, I own a Kia and so, sharing that, as the owner of the dealer for Kia Hawaii testified, I also own a Toyota, a Chrysler, and an old Cadillac.

All my cars are old. So, I just want to thank everybody for their testimony and the willingness to work on this measure. This measure honestly needs a lot of refinement, and the compromise is clearly needed. I am not inclined to advance the Bill to the next Committee without a clear consensus on this language.

There is a Senate vehicle that is currently still possible to move over and if it crosses over, I will consider amendments and potential compromises. I appreciate and acknowledge everyone's extensive and passionate testimony in opposition. At this time, the Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure.

Members concerns, comments? Seeing none. Members, moving on to next measure, HB 1464, related to automotive repair. Members, we're going to adopt the HD 1. We're going to do a technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Defect the effective date—July 1st, 3000. I'm gonna strike—remove—Pages 1 through 12, as the agreement already exists and does not require codification.

I'm gonna include a Committee Report—the note on consideration exclusion of motorcycles, and I also wanna note that, in the State of Hawaii, folks who participate in the regulation of sale and vehicles are subject to regulation by DCCA, and these—DCCA can serve as the entity regarding civil fines and non-compliance in this measure.

I appreciate the folks testifying on this matter before us and appreciate the Members' dialogue and providing context to your folks' personal experiences, and that is Chair's recommendation for our amendments. Members, questions—I mean, comments or concerns? Rep. Evslin.

Yeah, just a quick comment. I—I'll admit that I don't fully understand the difference between the national agreement and the impacts that this would make, but want to reiterate the incredible importance—that impact it potentially would have on neighbor islands to reduce the cost and increase access to servicing and repairs, and that it's a major issue on neighbor islands that we don't have access to the dealers and often, are getting stuck, like in my case, without the ability to literally service my car on Kauai.

So, I'm really appreciative of this measure and I'm hopeful that it'll make a significant impact.

Thank you, Rep. Members, any other concerns, comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HD—HB—1304, related to transportation. So, in Section 2, this measure requires DoD to adopt rules governing a clean standard. We have it currently as a session law, but eventually, it probably needs to be codified within an HRS.

DOT is still working to find language and determine the chapter, based on amendment for statute. The measure contains blank percentages, and I will leave that for further discussions.

I want to address HECO's comments and provide this—I don't want to say rebuttal—but the Bill would potentially provide a cost-effective solution for HECO, other electricity providers in Hawaii, to develop infrastructure needed to supply customers with lower carbon transportation fuels.

National practices for this program prioritize technology neutrality and transportation fuel suppliers from diesel to electricity, to contribute to reducing carbon intensity, overall. The program would allow renewable assets, such as wind and solar, to generate substantial credits for HECO ratepayers that currently are experiencing this right now.

Furthermore, the use of biodiesel in these generators would also produce significant credits that could benefit rate payers. So, that is my comment, back to HECO. I just want Members to know that I'm going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

And I also want to note, in the Committee Report, based on DOT, their concerns, there could be explicit potential hidden financial impacts that have yet to be fully determined.

And for full clarity, as a Transportation Chair, there are some concerns I always have around measures such as this, because I've always been—believed that as we push green initiatives, you must have green to go green.

So, folks who have been able to utilize and access some of these do not have the same capital as folks who have obviously been able to use this. But this could potentially be a measure to level out the playing field, so people in communities, like mine, have the chance to electrify their households, as well, without exorbitant costs.

So, in a matter of equity, of thinking about no matter what your income level is, the fact that you can obtain the same thing as someone else who'd be able to utilize tax credits for the last decade—that's my intent with the measure. So, I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion and that's my recommendation.

Members, concerns, comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, HB 1302, relating to transportation manage—transportation demand management. We're going to adopt the HD 1. We'll do technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Defect the effective date—July 1st, 3000. Bill contains appropriation amount, and I will leave it blank for further determination by finance committees, on our appropriate amounts.

This intent of the—the intent of the measure is to be a statewide program, as we have it listed, with OMPO to have a position.

I also acknowledge Maui has a metropolitan planning organization and I'll note, in the Committee Report, the consideration and adding of this position, as well, with funding and/or cost sharing to be determined by the county and state. We're going to blank the FTEs and note, in the Committee Report, the original requested FTEs.

I shared with members that there was a survey conducted by OMPO that has shown that state employees would love the opportunity to give up their parking stalls and utilize public transportation. Also, sorry full disclosure, I chair the OMPO, but I do not direct them on matters and measures and testifying in support or opposition, or comments.

They are fully autonomous in that capacity. I just chaired the Policy Board. But going back to what I'm saying, I told the Committee Members that we cannot give bonuses like private companies and do X, Y, and Z.

But we do have the chance to make it more attractive for our state employees, by the utilization of the public transportation system that we are installing.

And although that there may be a cost given to the appropriation now, there's hidden cost savings that folks may not be able to see with the reduction of cars on the road, allowing folks the access to vehicular transport, on many different opportunities.

And as we look to build TOD zones and expansion of public transportation, this gives us an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is, to allow our state employees the opportunity to do that.

They pay a nominal fee, now, with parking, but we ultimately end up subsidizing parking maintenance and cost. Transportation demand management will allow us to plan further to seeing, do we need to continue the investment in parking, or, actually, if we can divert money elsewhere? That's recommendation. Members, comments or concerns?

Chair. Sorry, just for disclosure, I also serve as a Member on the Maui MPO.

Thank you, Rep. Miyake. Members, other further comments or concerns? Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. HB 1301, relating to transportation. We're going to adopt the HD 1 to do technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. We're going to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. Into HB 1301, we're going to strike Part One, repealing the PUC's authority to regulate ratemaking for motor carriers.

We're going to leave Part Two and Part Three in the measure. My position on the matter is that it was either regulation for all, or regulation for none. I believe in safe regulation, and I fully stand behind the authority of what PUC currently does, regarding regulation.

I believe in our local operators, and I appreciate the local operators who utilize TNC platforms and whatnot, but when I look at safety and making sure that there is a fair equity for, for competition and not a monopoly, that is my position on the matter.

I understand there'll probably be many more discussions on the, the measure, as it goes before the next committees, but that is my recommendation. Members, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members, last measure—last measure for the 10 o'clock hearing. After we take the vote on this one, I'm going to gavel out, then gavel in, for the 10:30 decision making. Just letting you folks know. HB 1161, related to transportation. We're going to adopt HD 1, take amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

Defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. On Page 4, Line 12, we're going to clarify and amend that the registration, the registration language—we're going to amend—sorry, we're going to amend the language that it has inspection to registration instead.

In Section 8, Page 14, there's an appropriation of 1.7 million out of State Highway Fund for the fiscal year 2025-'26.

So, we're updating it because, currently, it reflects '24-'25 and then, also amount FY '26-'27 in Section 9. We're going to blank the amount and also note in the Committee Report the original—the original money intention—and Section 9, Page 15, Line 6, we're going to appropriate sums, as well, from the matter.

There's language requesting federal funds, but it's not clear what the amount is. I'll make sure to leave it blank and note in the Committee Report: federal funds to be determined. There's also lap dates for the State Highway Fund that may not be needed. So, we'll note that, as well.

And I also want to adopt language in the report, I'm sorry, in the testimony that was provided, the amount of the county mileage-based road usage charge shall be comparable to the county fuel tax and no more than the estimated county fuel tax.

As Vice Chair for Transportation prior, I had previously opposed the measure, based on concerns thinking about folks with further transportation destinations than those that live in urban cores that are close to workforce. I appreciate DOT's commitment to the cap of $50.

That way, someone in Nanakuli and Waianae is paying the same thing as somebody who lives right downtown Honolulu. And as we look, also, that the impact that we've had on electric vehicles onto our roadways. I've always been this proponent—again as we go green, you gotta have green.

But if you look at now the way expansion of battery packs on vehicles, I will quote, I believe, the GMC Hummer is upwards of almost 9,000 pounds and they are repealed from the GWR weight limit, just because of that alone.

So, when we think about the impact of these electric cars on the road, they weigh more than my suburban, from 2003, and these vehicles are having substantial impact on our roads. So, although we can adopt going green, again, we have to recoup costs and damages on that existing. So, that is my recommendation. Members, comments or concerns?

Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We're going to gavel out the 10:00 hearing and then I will gavel in the 10:30 for decision making.

Hello. Good morning. Gaveling the Committee on Transportation, today in room 430, at the State Capitol, for decision making on our 10:30 AM agenda. Thank you, folks, for staying put on this matter.

Because the measures previously heard on January 28, 2025, at 10:00 AM, no testimony will be taken for the measures before us, as decision making is the only thing we're going to be doing. Members, HB 368. We're going to adopt and—we're going to adopt the HD 1.

I'm going to change the effective date to July 1st, 3000 and note, in the Committee Report, that clarification on authority responsible for regulating and approving medical conditions is needed. I believe this measure is good intent. Definitely more discussion is needed and that is my recommendation. Members, comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. I need to thank the introducer for giving us the conversation on this matter. Lastly, Members, HB 226. What we're going to do we're going to adopt HD 1. We're going to change the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

I'm going to reinstate the provision, the 35% provision in Section 2, Subparagraph 7, leaving that front windows on all vehicles have to comply with this—with this tint measurement. We're going to add language prohibiting the use of metallic mirror red, yellow, amber, and blue tinting.

In Section 291-21.5, the fines exist currently in structure—I'm going to increase the fines from $250 to $300, on the minimum, and the maximum from $500 to $550, per offense, for vehicles' owners and the violation. And on the installers, the current fine minimum exists at $500. I'm going to increase by $200, to $700, and the maximum currently is $1000. I'm going to increase it to $1200, per offense.

I'm going to explain why shortly. I'm going to note, in the Committee Report, the original fine amounts and then the minimal increases of $50, on both the minimum and maximum on the individual, and the $200 increase on the installers and the minimum and maximums.

I'm going to amend Section 2 by modifying Subparagraph 8 to specify that the regulation now applies to sedans. Language exists in the measure, right now, currently, that allows it applicable only to vans, minivans, trucks, and buses. With this, with this measure, we are adopting the potential for sedans to now be a part of it.

The question was raised—the increase of fines. I'm only doing that currently because if we're going to expand the use of vehicles that have not had it prior, there are just as much sedans in the state. I want to make sure that we can still have compliance on the matter.

Amending Section 2, by modifying Subparagraph 9, to also extend the regulation to sedans, which were previously excluded, as well. I'm also adding this language at the request of law enforcement, and I believe this is a good recommendation, because, ultimately, back everything in transportation, I want to keep it rooted in safety.

We're going to add language that requires that all windows of the py tint must be rolled down when a motor vehicle is stopped by a law enforcement officer, at a traffic stop. I want to note, for the Committee, that this is currently not in provision or codified.

And with this consideration by law enforcement, this would greatly increase safety for motor vehicle travelers and our law enforcement folks, as well. And before we take a vote, I just want to acknowledge that the transfer—the tinting Bill was adopted July 14, 1983, by Governor Ariyoshi and we haven't amended or touched it since.

I know, in the preamble, that acknowledging how, obviously, the world has gotten hotter, but I go back to policies have always benefited larger vehicles and excluded sedans. This now gives the equitable opportunity for people who use sedans to have the same dark tint as large SUVs, trucks, and bikes—I mean, other buses.

But also, with the provision of safety for our law enforcement officers, because that's my also intent, as well. All with that said, Members, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We are adjourned.

Thank you, Members.