Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Thank you for joining us for this joint committees with the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Government Operations. It's 3:00 on this Thursday, January 30th. We are streaming this hearing live via YouTube.

If for whatever reason, weather related or otherwise, we have some type of technical difficulties, we will post a notice as to when this- these joint committees will reconvene and for purposes of those who are testifying, we're going to limit testimony to one minute. So just to repeat myself, we're going to limit testimony for individuals to one minute.

Mark Glick, Energy Office.

So so first in our agenda we have SB133 relating to energy. First in our testifiers list we have Michelangelo from DCCA

Mark Glick, Energy Office, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Committee. We stand on our testimony with comments and happy to answer your question.

Thank you. Mr. Glick. Leo Asuncion.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Leo Asuncion, Chair of the PUC will stand on the written testimony providing comments.

Kiko Pakowski from IBEW.

Good afternoon Chairs, Vice Chairs, Committee Members. We stand on our written testimony.

David Bissell from KIUC has submitted testimony in opposition. James Abraham.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. My name is James Abraham testifying in opposition to Senate Bill 133. You have our written testimony. We don't feel that this bill is necessary because the PUC is open to a docket to investigate wheeling, including intergovernmental wheeling, which is the subject of this bill.

So we think that this bill should. Be deferred and we should allow the PUC to go through their collaborative process. Where any stakeholders, including government agencies, have been involved. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, James. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 133? Members, any questions of those? If not, we're going to move on to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 161, related to county permitting and inspection. First up is Dawn Chang from DLNR. Thank you. Mary Alice Evans from Office of Planning has submitted commentary. Dawn Apuna from the Department of Cities Department Planning and Permitting has submitted testimony in opposition. Keith Regan from DAGS.

Chairs, Vice Chair, Members of Committees. Keith Regan, Comptroller from the State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services. Stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Ted Kefalas from Grassroots Institute has submitted testimony in support. We have Craig Nakamoto from HCDA.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Committee. Ryan Tam, Hawaii Community Development Authority. We submitted a written testimony and stand on it.

Thank you, Ryan. Seth Kamemoto has submitted testimony or commentary, and Reid Mizue from OMIZU Architecture has submitted testimony in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 161? If not, Members, any questions? Senator Moriwaki.

I don't know who you ask this. Who would be in charge of this? My question is I see it's a good, you know, requiring all kinds of things to expedite among the state agencies. I don't see any accountability. So I just wondered whether there's language that we could put in that they report back or something on what projects they've approved on their own. I don't know who would answer that question. DAGS?

HCDA? Ryan, can you help us with that?

I think this would be a... Ryan Tam, Hawaii Community Development Authority. In terms of expediting permits, I think this is, you know, there could be there could be measures or you could draft language to allow annual reporting.

Because it seems that it's good. I mean, you know, like especially DOE that has a lot of projects, and if you give them the responsibility to do their own permitting without waiting in line for years, that's a good thing. But you know, how do we know what, who's liable that permitting is improve things?

I think the City Department of Planning and Permitting might have better more substantive comments. Our comments were more related to... At least from HCDA perspective, we mainly look at the zoning and land use. In terms of building permits that address life, safety, and code requirements, that that's still, we typically still rely on the county permitting.

So maybe there's somebody from the county. At least we know that what they require and that the departments that take it on at least are doing things to safeguard the safety of whatever they build.

Okay. Well, especially since DPP is not here. We just throw all kinds of responsibilities on them. Questions? So Ryan, in your testimony you bring up some really good points. I mean this is kind of just a blanket we can disregard the county codes for state projects.

But you mentioned that you don't or the state generally doesn't have expertise in building code review, site inspection, certificate of occupancy requirements, and a few others. Could you come help us draft some amendments to come up with, we can have a blanket exemption except for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or whatever it is?

We'd be willing to get back to you or on or unless you need it now. But...

Oh no, not now. Maybe tomorrow.

Certainly, we could help draft language.

Okay. Thank you Members. Any other questions? Thank you Ryan. Members, we're going to move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 232 relating to renewable energy. On our testifiers list, we have Candace Ito from Contractors Licensing Board. Thank you. Wayne Tanaka from the Sierra Club has been testimony and support. David Bissell from KIUC has suggested amendments.

Koda Daly from Ola I Kauai has some testimony and support. And we have Laura Breer from Kauai Climate Action Coalition in support. We have Lauren Zerbo via Zoom from the Hawaii Food Industry Association.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Ted Kaphalis from Grassroots Institute is not here. Aaron Weber Keough from Sonova Energy Corporation might be joining us via Zoom.

Not present not present on Zoom Chair thank you.

How about David Milanex from Greenpeace Hawaii? Is he on Zoom also?

Not present on Zoom Chair sure.

BA McClintock in support. Anaya Lowe in support. Catherine Fryer in support. There are another 10 individuals all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 232? Yes. Mr. Mold, sorry I didn't see you on the test.

Thank you. Chair I did not submit testimony on this bill. Rocky Mold, Hawaii Solar Energy Association. This bill is an older version of a permitting bill. This is a bill that we pushed last year.

There's a more updated version of this bill on your agenda, SB588, that we support and we prefer from the Hawaii Solar Energy Association standpoint. It includes some of the same things as this bill, but it's just an updated, better version, SB588. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Okay, you could sit there for just a second. Members, any questions.

Real quickly? It actually touches upon the next bill. You're right. This is a repeat from last year. And last year I was concerned about the fact that SolarApp plus is at the county level, right? Correct. So why are you guys approaching the county councils to pass this at the county level and keep coming back to the state?

So again, we're pushing SB588, which is different, which doesn't have an explicit SolarAPP requirement in it this year. We felt it was needed really to have the Legislature step in and help us to send a policy call out there so that the county councils would react.

And we think the county councils and the city and county has reacted. And some of the stuff that's in that bill from last year in this bill has been acted upon. For instance, there's a materials and method number removal in this bill.

The city and County of Honolulu removed that from their requirements Already and I do think that so some of the pressure that the Legislature exerted was helpful in this regard.

All right, thanks Rocky. A couple of questions. In the testimony from the contractors licensing board they say that we should if we were to move forward with this bill restricted to just residential systems, not what is embodied in the bill currently commercial and you know, kind of just large scale PV projects.

I mean if we're going to expedite the permitting process we should make this finite to those who are doing kind of rooftop solar, not just the AES and Amerescos of the world. Right.

So SB588, the next bill. We do specify that this is for behind the meter customer sited project. So that could be larger scale projects but these are projects that are on the customer side of the meter.

So for instance like a large, you know, warehouse could be a pretty large solar system that would be covered under the self certification rules of this bill and the next bill and we're supportive of that.

So for utility scale projects we don't this is, this does not cover utility scale projects like what AES or Clearway or some of the some of those other folks would do. So we aren't pushing that. You're correct.

Okay, thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you Mr. Mo. Going to go on to the next measure that is Senate Bill 412 relating to renewable energy. On our testifiers list we have Kit Hayashi from DOE has submitted commentary. Leo Asuncion from the PUC we'll stand.

On our testimony provides.

Thank you. Laura Brear has submitted testimony support. Sherry Pollock from 350 Hawaii in support. David Milanix is it is David with us via Zoom?

He's unavailable on Zoom chair.

Thank you. And we have supportive testimony from another 12 or so individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 412 if not Members? Any questions? Leo so this Bill has the responsibility of each area state agency to do their assessment.

And I can't imagine that every state agency has the capacity or the understanding to say zero you know Department of Health, we have this many rooftops, we can do this much solar and it's going to cost this much.

So shouldn't we have HSCO or some other entity be responsible for working with the various agencies and then come up with the list to then have us act upon versus this kind of doe. Go find somebody and you're staff to go do this.

Yeah, it's either HSEO or else even like the planning office. Right. Some more kind of overall tags. Well if you're looking at state buildings. Right. That's one. But at the same time. Right. I think one of the issues that might be kind of. We do have some state agencies that are not in state buildings.

So how do they. Right. Would you want them to be or just looking at state buildings. Right. But yeah, maybe some kind of overall entity or agency that I don't want to say doesn't have skin in the game, but can, you know, look across the spectrum and be kind of unbiased. And here's the data.

Better and better.

Wait, so you want responsibility of this?

I don't know if we would be the right agency. I mean, we can certainly, you know, we have the capability to, you know, kind of coordinate everything, but then. Right. I do. We got a lot on our plate as well. So.

Mr. Glick, do you want this? Can you.

Chair Wilcock? The question was, would we like to take on this function? I believe that the Energy Office, true Rush statute, does provide technical assistance to public agencies. We just don't want you to do it uniformly and build up capacity to do it to all agencies all the time.

We do it based on their need and their desire to build out renewable energy.

So.

So the answer is yes, we could. Have it added to our duties.

Okay, so the answer is yes, because I got to pick one of you two. So you want a Jungkook or wait.

Is he in punctual?

Maybe you should have, I think on behalf of Leo and Keith Regan, I think HSEO will stand up and say we'd be willing to do that. You're a good. But. But, you know, we, we would like, you know, the resource to continue, have enough staff to be able to handle that.

Of course.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Members, any further questions on 412? If not, we're going to move on to the next measure. That is Senate Bill 588 leading to renewable energy. On our testifiers list, we have Don Chai or someone from DLNR.

Hello Chairs. Edwin Matsudo with DLNR Engineering Division. We offer sign on our written testimony. We offer some comments. Any state or county law that is not consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program may jeopardize continued eligibility in the program. Unintended consequences of program suspension include. No federal flood insurance can be sold or renewed in the participating communities.

Currently there are about 46,000 active policies. 28,000 are in what we call special flood hazard areas. Certain forms of federal disaster assistance mitigation. Grants will not be available in event of a presidential disaster declaration and it would impact Federal mortgage guarantees in in the special flat as areas.

Thank you. Thank you for your commentary. Leo Asuncion from PUC stand on a.

Read the testimony for any comments.

Thank you, Leo. Mark Glick from State Energy.

Thank you. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, Mark Glick Chief Energy Officer, State Hawaii State Energy Office we do stand on our testimony supporting the concept and hoping this Bill continue to move forward. We think it's totally consistent.

The self certification parts are extremely valuable in improving the process, making a lot less onerous and will help greatly expand renewable penetration. And it's totally consistent with the Executive order that Governor Green issued 2501 on January 27th which calls for this kind of approach in trying to streamline and accelerate renewable transition.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Gregory. David Bisson from KIUC has some commentary and suggested amendments. Paul Oram and Ella Aki are individuals both in support. And do we have Aaron Weber Keel on Zoom?

Not available on Zoom chair.

And then we have another dozen individuals all in support of this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to. zero, I'm sorry. I have some indication of Zoom participants. Laura Zurbo by chance it is Lauren Zerbo here.

Yes, she's there present.

Good afternoon Chairs. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA. We stand on our testimony and support. We also submitted in support of SB232. But I jumped on a little late and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Alexis. Rocky Mold.

Aloha Chairs Vice Chair Members of the Committee Rocky Mold Hawaii Solar Energy Association I stand on my testimony in strong support of this Bill. This Bill implements self certification for solar projects. This is a key efficiency measure that will really lower costs for achieving our renewable energy goals.

Regarding the FEMA flood zone exemption, what we're calling for in this Bill is is only PV that is put on existing structures that does not expand the footprint of existing structures within a floodway would be eligible to receive this treatment, the FEMA exemption.

And that FEMA exemption actually is a huge block on our ability to build renewable energy in these communities. So we're asking for that to be removed. I'm here for any questions.

Thank. Thank you. Ted Kafalas from Grassroots Institute has submitted testimony and support and Sandy Wong says she might be joining us via Zoom.

Yes.

Okay. Is there anyone else in the room or online that would like to testify and Senate Bill 588 Members, any questions?

If not, we're going to take it on. I guess I'll jump in.

Right.

Zero, didn't ask all the questions.

Rocky Mo Sorry. You're looking at me like I was looking at you because you look like you had a Quirian on your face. But it's just handsomeness. Yes. Chair okay, sorry. Going back to the flood issue. If. We were to make that amendment I suggested by D.

Lennar, are you saying that that would preclude this hastened permitting process from being fully utilized or.

So it's a the FEMA exemption in the Bill is really separate from the self certification. Self certification could happen within FEMA flood zones and it will make that more efficient. But what we're finding is there are these additional rules in FEMA floodways that are getting in the way of installing projects in those floodways.

And so that's what that's for.

Okay. So I don't want to jeopardize potential federal funding, so I'm kind of inclined to help make sure that we don't jeopardize that and put in DLNR's suggested amendments. But in your estimation, is that a deal killer or is that something you could live with?

It's a certain. The industry's really asking for that exemption. It's really, it is that is getting in the way. And it's our view that current jurisdictions are over, you know, being too conservative in their interpretation of the law. And they're really that FEMA flood zone exemption really is for like new construction that expands footprints within these floodways.

And you know, we've had conversations with various experts and we've provided we've shared memos and had had folks look at this and we believe that properly installed PV that's on the existing structure that does not expand that footprint should not trigger these FEMA flood zone rules.

What does FEMA say?

FEMA says that jurisdictions have broad discretion to interpret the rules how they see fit.

Okay, so have you accident on point about this exemption?

We have had conversations with female and.

What did they say?

They said it's up to the jurisdictions to decide.

So they said if we were to do is allow this and there was a disaster in the future, there would be no implication of federal funding or response at all.

They think they believe that there's broad discretion to interpret the rules. They did not come in chime in one way or the other on that question to be true to be sure.

That leaves me a lot of concern. To be honest with you. Okay, thank you, Chair.

So if we were to put that exemption in, there would still be value of the Bill. You wouldn't be able to do as expansive of impact with this expedited permit.

We take self certification, yes? Yeah, yeah.

So you take half the loans, right? Sure, of course. Good. Thank you. All right, we'll hand it over to my trusty partner to take us to.

We're jumping the gun a little bit. Okay. SB 92 relating to emergency medical response. This is the Dfib bill from last year. First up we have Keith Regan, Comptroller for DAGS.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Keith Regan, comptroller for the Department of County and General Services, stand on our written testimony providing comments.

Okay, thank you for the comments. We also have a late from Jamie Morgan, the senior region lead for American Heart Association. Are they here on Zoom? Not. They have written in support. That's all we have on 92. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members questions on Dfib? Seeing none. We had this quickly for comptroller.

We had this bill last year, made fixes to address the concerns. Do you think that's something we could do again this year? Okay, cool. Okay, thank you. That's good for that one. Let's move on to Senate Bill 635, relating energy efficiency. This one will require state agencies to expeditiously use energy efficient lighting. First up, we have Mark Glick, Energy Office.

Thank you, sir. Leah Laramee, Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission, written in support. Sherry Pollack, 350 Hawaii, written in support. Caroline Carl, Executive Director, Hawaii Energy, in support. And finally late from Beatrice DeRego, Coalition Earth, in support. That's all we have listed for 635. Anybody in the audience or Zoom world wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions on 635?

Chair, I have a question of Mr. Glick. Hi. Good morning, Mark. You say that HSEO and Hawaii Energy have have done some of the assessments. Do you have a list of what you've done in terms of the departments or where you've actually done the assessment, the status, and what's left to do so that you started an inventory of some sort?

Yes, Senator. HSEO routinely performs assessments of buildings. We benchmark buildings. We have a major contract underway currently that's actually being led by our Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Branch Chief, Maria Tome, who's here, as well as our Energy Efficiency Manager. And so they could even provide further details on the nature of that contract and how many buildings are covered under that, but it's quite significant.

So on this bill that's asking you to do it, you're already doing. And so we don't need to do it, or we can do something to supplement what you're doing? What is the status of where you are on looking at energy efficiency in our state buildings?

Yes, thank you, Senator. The point of our testimony was to inform the committees that we are indeed doing that work. Much of this bill would be redundant in that manner. We think that we are covering an enormous amount of the building stock, but we're not covering 100% of it. So additional resources could be helpful to do that. But the way that we look at it, there are certain buildings that contribute much greater and are much more inefficient. And I think we're adequately covering that through the current benchmarking project.

So just to be sure that we're not duplicating, but we are getting a report. What is the status of what you're doing now? You say it's on contract. So what is the contract for the scope and are you giving us a report of that?

Yeah, I'm going to ask Gail Suzuki-Jones to come up and provide the latest update to where we stand on that and the total amount of building stock, the number of buildings that are covered under that.

Hi there. So the benchmarking project that Mark was describing is a project that we've received federal funding for. And as you know, the federal funding has been put in kind of a limbo situation right now. So in the process of contracting with the contractor for this particular project to focus on 590 buildings that are over 10,000 square feet in the State of Hawaii. And so basically that's our focus. And we are currently, though, meeting with... Sorry about that. Okay. Okay, great.

So we are also currently meeting with Hawaii Energy and some of the state facilities. We have an Energy Efficiency for State Buildings cohort group that meets quarterly. And so basically agencies such as UH, Department of Education, DAGS, Public Libraries, DOD, and others participate in these.

And so we have found out recently that Department of Education has done an LED lighting retrofit that has covered almost all of their schools, and they did so actually starting in 2022. And so we're currently kind of coming up with a status for where these agencies are at. The project, the benchmarking project is, depending on when the contract actually gets executed, two year project. And so we should have results, you know, probably by 2027.

When you say when the project will be executed, are you in process or to be in process?

We are in process. We had some delays due to a number of different procurement reasons, but we have the contractor selected and we are currently drafting up the contract.

And you have, you have funding for it. How much is your funding for that project?

I think that one was 500,000. Yeah, it was about 500,000.

And so you have, you're going to do the survey, the benchmarking survey. So this bill is also asking for technical assistance to state agencies. So when you do that survey, it also includes some kind of technical assistance to the departments, if they are efficient that they need...

Yes. Yeah. And we do that with Hawaii Energy because they're the ones who provide the rebates and incentives. We also have a Strategic Energy Facility Assessment Project that's part of the same federal grant. That is another project that is currently under contract. Well, no, sorry, in procurement. It's been awarded, but the contract has just been drafted.

And so we anticipate that one will start sooner, actually, sometime in March if everything goes smoothly. And that one will focus on six facility types and six agencies, coming up with assessments, as well as strategies for financing, retrofits, et cetera.

So just for clarification, then, you are doing this already, but we don't have the assessment report. So if this bill were to be amended to say you are going to provide an assessment or at least status every year until you're done, and what you're doing with technical assistance, would that be focusing in on what at least we can get back from you, the status of state agencies?

Yeah, that seems very reasonable. Yeah. Doable.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. So since you're here, what I heard was that this is, because there's no appropriation amount. Okay. That this is federally funded, but the federal funds are now in limbo. If so, and we pass this bill, how much are we going to need to use? What kind of appropriation are you looking at to replace federal funds?

Thank you for the question. We are uncertain, really.

How much are you getting in federal funds now?

500,000 for this project, for the benchmark.

At the very least, you're going to need 500,000.

I mean, conceivably, it could be blocked or impounded, but the funds have already been allocated and we were already awarded. So this is one of those. Out of the total $160 million that we've secured so far, we believe that most of that is already either in Treasury or we have access to it, and through legal channels, we would certainly use everything at our disposal to ensure that those funds that we've already secured are or have placed into contracts get spent.

Okay, so this bill refers to... Well, when I read it, it was like all state. Which means like all of these fluorescents get changed. Right. How much is that going to cost us? And I see Keith Regan there. And it says as a patient. And it doesn't. There's no sunset date here that says that upon, you know, upon federal funds being ended, that, you know, we stop doing it. I mean, that's my concern. My concern is during these uncertain times, should we have a mandate to continue this when... How long is your federal grant for?

It's two years.

Okay. But this, if we, it's, it's going to be beyond two years. So have you asked, is it going to be your plan to ask for an appropriation in your budget every two years? And to me, 500,000 doesn't seem to be enough because, I mean, look, we still have fluorescence here.

Right. 500,000 isn't for the actual retrofits themselves. It's for the benchmarking of the buildings.

It's to identify which buildings haven't been retrofit, and also what are the energy consumption, specific current energy consumption needs that could be improved through energy efficiency.

Okay, so maybe I should ask that.

So wait, one more question of Mark. Just in terms of, is your assessment, your study also going to say what the cost is, what is the deficiency, and what would that estimated so that when DAGS gets it, they will know what are the next steps?

For the strategy program, yes. For the benchmarking program, probably not. However, the work that we do with Hawaii Energy could definitely lead to something such as that, exactly what you're asking for. And so through our Energy Efficiency for State Buildings cohort, the partnership we have there could potentially produce what you're asking for.

Yeah. Just to clarify, Senator, it's really a two step process. First is really understanding the building stock and what are the energy demands and needs and the portfolio of equipment there that could be improved. And then the second step is to drill down and actually look at solutions, and that's when you can budget and see what the cost would be.

DAGS, please.

This is the first sentence of Section 2.

Hi. Hi, Keith. So your division is responsible for the construction and maintenance of this building. Don't you guys already try to use energy efficiency lighting? And...

We do. In fact, the last time I think we went through this process of upgrading and addressing energy efficiency was like 2010. And so there is, I think, some opportunity for us to explore another energy savings performance contract or contractor to help us look at what's out there and available now. Right. Like you was mentioned, LED lighting. Right. So move off of fluorescence and the possible opportunity to save on energy utilization in the building. So there's opportunity.

So would you rather get the technical assistance from the State Energy Office or would you rather see the compliancy? And if that's the case, the price tag, I mean what would it cost?

I don't know what it would cost because I actually not here to testify in this particular measure, so I don't have that details in front of me. But to answer your question, I'd rather get it done and start to realize the savings, right, from that. And that doesn't, and that doesn't say that I don't appreciate the work that they're doing. Right.

So. So you get no problem if you guys were to work side by side with the Energy Office and if the federal funds. So, so saving like with little funds. Right. Two years, you guys would be able to push the job at that level and do the change out or?

I don't know about every building.

We can start with this one first. Like the alarm first.

Well, the elevator is having issues because of the alarm. It's malfunctioning right now.

You know. So you would be able to work site.

I have, you know, in fact we work closely with Hawaii State Energy Office on other, other matters. So yeah, I mean certainly we could.

Just to follow on. So if in fact you are doing some of this change out on some of the buildings, wouldn't you work hand in glove with the Energy Office so that, you know, whatever they're finding, because they've already started some of the process, that you could actually build on their results and not go like in separate directions?

Yeah, I mean I was speaking hypothetically, so I wasn't saying we're doing it. Right. Correct.

When you do it.

Yeah, we'll coordinate it. Sorry. Thank you.

Okay, next up, Senate Bill 700, relating to renewable energy. Requires DAGS to assess potential. This has got several things going on.

First, DAGS to assess potential feasibility of distributed energy resources. Also requires agencies to look up a setting of resilience hubs and also assigning priority to require state facilities cost effective energy efficiency measures to first responder facilities. So, with all that going on in this Bill, we first have Keith Hayashi, Department of Education, written with comments. DAGS?

Chair, Keith Regan, Comptroller for the State of Hawaii Department of Accounting General Services and our testimony provided comments.

Thank you so much. We also have Laurel Brier of Hawaii Climate Action Coalition, written in support. Sherry Pollack, 350 Hawaii, in support. David Mulinix, Greenpeace Hawaii. Is he on Zoom?

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Moving on. We also have several individuals who submitted written testimony that is part of the record, all in support. We also have late from Susan Emery of the Green Party of Hawaii, written in support, and late from Diane Ware, individual expressing support. That's all we have on Senate Bill 700.

Anybody else in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions on this Bill? Yes, please. Senator DeCoite.

Thanks, please. Just trying to warm you up, because you from Maui. So, Keith, on the—like Senate Bill 412, this Bill calls for making assessments of the feasibility of installing distributed energy research systems at state facilities. Is a Bill like this necessary?

To—is a Bill like this necessary? I think there's opportunity, right, to identify where and what facilities we might be able to deploy distributed energy resources, like, you know, either generation and storage or both?

So, I think the concept is good and I think the state could benefit from something like this and you'll see, and I think in our testimony that it it's asking that the Hawaii State Energy Office lead that effort. But.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

This is very similar to the Bill we heard earlier.

Yes, it is. That's right.

Except for the resiliency hubs in the first respondent parts. If the Committee will move this forward, in the sake of clarity, shouldn't this—should we dump the first part and just keep those two parts and use the other one as a vehicle for distributed energy?

I think it'd be a good idea.

Okay, thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 869. This is Community Outreach Boards. Big Island wants neighborhood boards. Who's to stop them? Defines Community Outreach Board to being a board established to serve in a community advisory capacity under a county commission or county department. Also includes community Outreach boards and existing provisions of sunshine.

And then authorizes the board to organize meetings and presentations to official board business statewide. And first up we have on this one is Carlotta Amerino, OIP. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And we have Charles Young, Kona CDP Action Committee written in support. Nancy Pissichio, Kona CDP Action Committee.

Also in support, Jason Masters Kau CDP Action Committee written in support. Let's see, we also have Brad Kurokawa, Hamakua Community Development Plan Action Committee in support. Ben Kreps, First Law Center on Zoom. Nope. Okay, comments. And then finally we have Mizu Liu and John Pelletier, both individuals, both in support. That's all we have on 869.

Anybody in the audience wishing to testify, seeing none. Members questions of OIP, since they're the only ones here. I have a quick question of OIP. We have a very similar bill that we're actually going to DM on later that also amends the same part of 92F for the. For the outreach.

You mentioned it when we had the hearing that this was a better bill to deal with this issue. I mean, but this has to do with community outreach boards and not necessarily neighborhood boards. Shouldn't we keep the changes for the presentations.

92F for neighborhood boards in that bill while we try to stand up the CDP Bill without addressing that?

I believe you're talking about Senate Bill 405, and I. I may have been confused when I testified the other day, but I do believe that was the bill that addressed Senator Moriwaki's concerns about government officials being able to present at neighborhood board meetings.

So this also addresses that, too, as well. That. That part of it. So do you think we should just separate that out and keep the neighborhood board changes for the presentations in that bill and then just simply stand up the community outreach boards without addressing that in this bill?

I'm. I would leave that up to you. I'm. Our position was we weren't exactly sure what or who these community outreach boards were if they were already in existence. Or if these were meant to be new boards.

Yeah, well, I mean, yes. I think this is a big island thing. They put their. That's all I have. Anybody else? No. Okay. I believe that takes us to the end of the agenda, doesn't it?

All right, we will recess.

Thank you for your patience. We're reconvening the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Government Operations, we're going to make some votes cast for our 3 o'clock agenda here in Rome. 225. The first measure is SB 133 relating to energy.

This is the bill that kind of pushes the PUC to get us some clear guidance on Wheeling. And I know the PUC has opened a docket to look at intrastate, you know, building or government property to government building.

And we appreciate the PUC doing that, but want to make sure that we keep the pressure on this date on the bill right now has a deliverables of next 26 for the deliverable in 26. And we're going to start of 20 the 26th legislative session, which I think is a little bit too ambitious.

So with your indulgence, Members, if you could move that date back to start of the 2027 legislative session and keep the pressure on the PUC to like make sure that we, if we can go down the route of Wheeling, that we do it in a proper manner, but that we make progress on this issue.

So that is the recommendation. Members of eig, any discussion? If not Senator Chang, I vote yes.

[Roll call]

Recommendation is adopted. Okay, GVO, same recommendation. SD1 Vice Chair.

[Roll call]

Thank you. The next measure is Senate Bill SB161 relating to county permitting and inspection. I think we all would like to try to reduce the hurdles of of government and permitting. And this bill does that, but does so I think a little bit too quickly.

So as we heard from HCDA, there are things that the counties really should be in charge of it and some state agencies, particularly theirs, don't have the capacity to do certain things that are necessary for safe construction of our building.

So Members, if you could give me till Tuesday, I'm going to work with HCDA to do some carve offs. So that's not just a wholesale blanket sidestep of county permitting. So if you don't mind, for EI Chi, we're going to take a vote on this Measure on Tuesday, February 4th.

At 3:00 we will do the same. But I am going to note for the record, there are a lot of concerns about this measure that are being communicated to my office right now. So just want to put that out there. But we're going to do the same as the it. Tuesday, 3:00pm February 42025 Conference room 225.

Okay. We're going to make this thing sparkle for you. Okay. Next bill is Senate Bill 232 regarding renewable energy.

The two chairs have conferred and I've talked to, I talked to the author of this bill and he's actually okay with us going with the bill that we have later in the agenda since they both kind of touch on the same permitting issues. So, Members, we're going to Defer Action on 323.

The next measure is Senate Bill 412 relating to renewable energy. This is where we are going to have a good look at all of our state buildings and how best we can put PV onto buildings that are appropriately set up to accept that.

But right now there is no entity other than each individual agency that does that assessment. And most agencies don't have somebody with that expertise. So thank you, Mark Glick and the Hawaii State Energy Office for winning the junk and pole contest and saying that you would be willing to take on this responsibility.

So we're going to make that amendment is having HSEO in charge of gathering all the data and delivering us some timeline as to when we can get more PV on our state building. So with the SD1 Members, any discussion? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Okay. Recommendation for SB412 is to pass with amendments voting. The absences of Senators Richards and Travella. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. Gbo. Same recommendation. Senate draft one. I vote yes.

[Roll call]

Senator Villa. Excused. Measures adopted.

Thank you. Sorry, Members. Especially for Members of EIG. I mentioned that we're going to vote On Senate Bill 161, the permitting bill, but I failed to mention that we're not going to be in this room. We're going to be in room 016. When take that vote next week, Tuesday. So back on track.

We are on Senate Bill 588 relating to renewable energy. And this is helping to expedite the permitting process for self. I mean, go down the road of self certification for solar projects.

We do think that it would be prudent for us to put in the language suggested by DLNR to make sure that we are not jeopardizing any federal funding because we don't want that to be a collateral damage in this measure. So we are going to add all of D.

Lennar's suggested amendments and also have technical, non substantive amendments for this measure. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Okay. So for SB588, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. Members present, do we have any objections or reservations seeing None. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Gbo, same recommendation. Senate drop one. I vote yes.

Members present, are there any reservations or no's hearing? None. The measure passes.

Okay. For Senate Bill 92, Senate Bill 635, Senate Bill 700 and Senate Bill 869. After conferring with my co chair, there's some issues we need to work on. So we're going to defer these. All of these, I'm certain. For Tuesday, February 4, 2025, 3:00pm and for GVO only in Conference Room 225.

For EIG, we'll revisit all of these issues and see the wonderful work by our colleague from the Committee chair of the Committee of Government Operations and look at his gleaming, glittering new bills. And we are going to be taking a vote on February, February 4th, 3:00 in room 016. All right.

Okay. This concludes the Joint Hearing between the Amazing Committee on Energy. Amazing. All right everybody, welcome back for the decision making agenda on the items that were heard last Tuesday. I believe it was January 28th in this room. Conference room. We'll just get right into it right now.

Senate Bill 254 relating to procurement recommendation is on page 2 to remove line 6 through 10 as it will be addressed in SB 383 defective date of 1-1-2525.

And also we want to note in the Committee report, in contrast to other measures potentially before this Committee, this seeks a nuanced path to provide needed real time exemptions to the reporting requirements, which is better simply than suspending or exempting the code in its entirety.

There also may be an unintended consequence in raising the thresholds of forcing manual processes over e procurement. And given that working with SBO and our good counterpart from Ways and Means, we're requesting the Ways and Means add language from SBO when the bill is heard to clarify this issue. Members, questions, Comments? If Not Vice Chair 254.

[Roll call]

Senator Favela is excused. The measures adopted.

Okay, thank you. Senate Bill 383 we're just going to move this with a defective date of January 12025 because we also need to address the same issues that were raised in the previous bill.

So we're going to go ahead and note that in the community report and ask Ways and Means to help us get that clarified so we don't inadvertently put people through manual procurement.

Members questions Just a clarification just what's going into the Committee report in terms. Of the E procurement. It's also a dispute.

That's why we're repeating it once. So thank you for that clarification. Okay with that 383sd1 okay other Members.

Present Are there any no votes or reservations hearing none the measures adopted okay.

Next up 382 there was all testimony and support and so with that and no recommended amendments we're going to go as is Members questions comments if not Vice Chair 3D2 as is Members any.

No votes or reservations hearing none the.

Measures adopted okay Senate Bill 462 Talk to the author Given the testimony it appears that the aim of this measure was to Indeed encapsulate the DAGs administrative rule 3122139 into the HRS. So we're going to redo the bill to do that and add an effective date of 2525 in order to ensure that it comports with everything.

Members Questions Comments of not 462 SD1.

Recommendations to pass 462 with amendments are there any no votes or reservations hearing None. The measure passes.

Okay thank you. This one. Her. Next one Senate Bill 131 relating to procurement in discussions with the author. We think this issue is being addressed in other bills. So with that we're going to defer this one indefinitely.

Next up Senate Bill 615 we're also going to defer this time certain this one we're going to defer time certain my apologies to February 4th 3:00pm as well. Okay next up Senate Bill 5.

This bill here recommendation is a Senate draft one to amend the bill to clarify that all the procedural requirements that the Governor follow to make appointments to fill legislative vacancies including deadlines and residency requirements also applies to vacancies created by the death or permanent incapacitation of the prior incumbent before primary election whose name is the only one on the ballot and given the changes we like to put a defective date of 25 in the measure for further discussion.

Members questions comments if not Vice Chair SB5SD1.

Members President are there any no votes or Reservations hearing None. The measure passes.

Okay, thank you. Senate Bill 300. Given the testimony and other things we're going to defer indefinitely. Next up, Senate Bill 1081. This is for the Legislative Budget Office.

What we're going to do on this bill here is we're going to go ahead and defer time certain for 2-4-2025 in this room because we need to look at possibly doing a feasibility study in this measure given the wide wide costing of establishment this that we've seen from other jurisdictions. zero, sorry. 3:00pm My apologies.

Thank you for that. So 3:00pm February 42025 conference from 225. Next up Senate Bill 711 Gubernatorial appointments recommendation here is that we're going to go ahead. We're going to defer this time certain as well to 2-4-2025. 3:00pm in conference room was 225. Next up, Senate Bill 375.

We are going this is to the government, the restructuring Commission Bill. We like to keep this going because this could address some very fundamental issues. We're going to put in the Committee report to ask the Committee on Ways and Means to consider the funding of $50,000 and an effective date of 25.5 Members. Questions?

Comments if not Vice Chair 375 SD1.

Members President are there any no votes Reservations hearing None the measures adopted okay.

Thank you. 418. Quite a vibrant discussion with the Attorney General's Office. While we appreciate the positive response of the ag, we recognize there are some structural issues that need to be addressed. So as such, we're going to amend the measure by doing the following. Page three, line 14 we're going to change state agencies to Attorney General.

Page three. We're going to remove line 1718 and line 20. Page four. We're going to remove lines one through three. We're going to remove the repeal requirement and we're also going to add a defective date of 2525 to encourage further discussion.

But we leave this will address the issues that were raised by the departments and the AGs about the bill Members questions comments if not 418SD1 any no.

Votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 55 admin. Rules what we're going to do is take the testimony that Mr.

Fritz gave us insofar as complying with Title 2 of the Ada on page one, lines 8 and 9 to read the full text of the agency's proposed rule shall be in a digitally accessible and searchable format that meets or exceeds the Most current ratified standards under Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation act of 1973.

And that's 29 USC Section 79, 4D. And on page two, line seven to 11 to read.

All state agencies through the office of the Lieutenant Governor shall make available on the website of the office of the Lieutenant Governor the full text of the rules of the agency in a digitally accessible and searchable format that meets or exceeds the most current ratified standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

We're going to delay the implementation to January 12027 at the request of the Lieutenant Governor's office and add a defective date of 2525 for further discussions. Members, questions, comments? If not SB55, SD1.

Are there any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure passes.

Okay. Senate Bill 870. Telecommunications. Given the testimony, we're going to have the comptroller or their designee work with the state librarian or their designee to identify locations and costs associated with increasing public access, including looking at additional resources such as staffing. We're also going to include, uh, as a potential partner in this endeavor.

And I've notified the higher ed chair of this and defective date of 2520 Members. Questions?

Yes. In the last. I'm sorry, I know we already voted, but I'm gonna suggest an amendment on SB270 because you said the effective date of 2025. Yes, it is 2525. So it's opposed. So I think you need to put that on the record.

The defective date is. Which means I should pick a better defective date. The defective date for the measure in question is 2525. And for the record, all defective dates will be 2525.

Thank you.

Should pick a better date instead of 25.

You were discussing whether or not that was the last one.

Yeah, very much. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, on this one here, are we good with 18?

Yes. Okay.

An emergency has been reported in this building.

Please cease operations.

All right, with that.

870 center draft one. I vote yes. Any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure passes.

Okay. Senate Bill 270. We appreciate the the county councils on this, but noting the overwhelming opposition, we will defer indefinitely. Next up, Senate Bill 405. Neighborhood Board Meetings agenda, third party reports.

As we discussed in the Joint Hearing, we're going to defer time certain to Tuesday, February 4th at 3:00pm in order to rectify the issues that were brought up in that bill, in this bill as well as the other one. Senate Bill 406 relating to copying fees.

We realize the challenges, but also we believe that there's a way to do this. So given the testimony, we're going to recommend an SD1 to allow the cap of $0.05 to be only for digital copies of records that have already been digitized. And we're going to add an effective date of 2525 to encourage further conversations.

Members, questions, comments? If not 406 SD1 any no votes.

Or reservations hearing none.

The measure passed 380 relating to non General funds. In a discussion with the Auditor, it appears they can do this already. So with the everybody's indulgence, I am going to defer this measure. Everybody good? All right, next up, Senate Bill 372 relating to the state Naming Commission. Likewise this bill we're going to defer indefinitely.

Is there are concerns about the impact to not only uh, but also regarding expansive commercial naming which was brought up by the Outdoor circle. So everybody good with the deferral?

Yep.

Okay, next up we have Senate Bill 1132. Recommendation is we defer time certain Tuesday, February 4th at 3pm to work on this measure with the stakeholders. And there's another bill similar to this as well. Senate Bill 78 relating to voter registration.

While we like the idea, given the chaos with the feds, the vacancies and the practical hurdles, we will defer this bill indefinitely. Okay. Senate Bill 381 relating to public agency meetings defer time certain February 4th at 3pm in room 225. Okay. SB2 relating to trees. We're going to work on this a little bit more.

So with that we're going to defer time certain Tuesday, February 4th at 3:00pm Conference room 2 to 5. And finally relating to arborists, recommendation is that we go as is. However, in the Committee report we're going to note that was brought up in the testimony.

This is not only one good for the whole state but also critical to Lahaina and the massive need for revegetation Members questions, comments? If not Vice Chair 546 as is.

Are there any no votes or reservations hearing None. The measure passes.

Okay, I believe that takes it to the end of the dm.

Thank you guys all your help on this and we will see you next week.