House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Wednesday, February 19th, 2025. Right about 2:05 in Conference Room 329. Now read my script. In order to allow as many testifiers as possible, there will be a 2 minute time limit per testifier.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with the technical staff only. Please use the chat only for technical issues. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting.

If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note the house is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted.

Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. All right, first up, we've got HB 117 relating to condominiums. First up, we have Hawaii First Realty in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. As indicated in my testimony, I am a Reserve specialist who's been involved in Reserve industry since its inception in 1995. Reserve studies have national standards and specific protocol and how they're addressed. None of that includes assessed value.

I appreciate the Committee's concern in wanting to find ways to address the reserve problems, but I don't think assessed value is the correct answer. Think of it this way. I have one project of 20 units of $1 million single family homes. As a part of a condominium Association, the assessed value is going to be around $20 million.

Well, in fact, all they have as a component is a road, a small road that connects to the main road that the estimated cost to replace is 250,000. So it's hard to take all these different components, different programs, and lump them into having an assessed value being a critical item.

So I'm opposed to this Bill, but I welcome the Committee to find ways to improve accountability for doing reserve studies.

Thank you. Next up, we have Community Associations Institute in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members, My name is Phil Nerney. I'm the chair of the Legislative Action Committee for CAI. As the previous speaker had indicated, what we're concerned about is the existing law already provides for a reserve study that deals with the actual components for a specific building and that the study is the reserve requirements are based on the actual needs of the association.

With this Bill, there is the risk of over inclusion and under inclusion, the speaker just gave an example where an association would have to collect too much money. There could also be examples where an association would collect too little money. Thank you for the time, the opportunity to testify.

Next up, we have Christine Morrison in support. Should be over zoom.

Yes. Hello.

Hi. Can you. Are you able to turn your camera on?

I am not, but I do support it. The reserve study in my association, I have been told by a board Member, has not been done for eight years. December of 2024, the board treasurer wrote we should make up reserve fund deficits in about three years by increasing HOA fees. I support this Bill.

And as far as fiduciary duties with the board, where it says the reserve funds may constitute a violation, I would suggest changing it does constitute a violation of their fiduciary duties. And I thank Senator Hashimoto for writing a February 2024 letter on my behalf to the DCCA.

There's a lot of issues like the failure to repair units while owners are forced to pay $15,000 in fees and litigation from a construction defect settlement that resulted in a $15 million settlement. And you're still denied repairs by the board. They have a fiduciary duty that needs to be upheld.

So I support this Bill and I support an investigation into the allegations that are in Senator Hashimoto's letter by the DCCA to protect owners from.

Thank you. That's a little off topic, but we appreciate. Thank you for your support of the measure. Next up, we have Gregory Masakian in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gregory Misakian and I'm an advocate for consumers for condominium issues. And recently this past week I been interviewed on the radio, and also today there's an article out on Civil Beat. But I just wanted to mention that I do support HB 117. I'm just going to read.

I think it's important. My testimony was late and I apologize. I've been very busy. But I'm going to read a very short statement. Fiduciary duty are two words that don't seem well understood or complied with at many condominium associations throughout Hawaii, including mine.

I'm still waiting for the 2023 annual financial audit report at my condominium association, which is a violation of state law for not providing it. And this is within the statutes hrs 514B-150.

Currently, unless numerous condominium related bills are amended properly, the 2025 legislative session will be known for not passing much needed bills for better consumer protections for condominium owners. The substantive bills that would provide better consumer protections were not scheduled by Committee chairs from CPC, CPN.

We're getting off topic. We're only testifying in this measure. Please keep your comments confined to this measure.

So regarding this measure, I'll go back to the two words fiduciary duty. There's a serious breach of fiduciary duty at my condominium Association and many condominium associations throughout Hawaii. You just heard it a moment ago. This Bill, I suggest what you do is carefully look at this Bill.

I know it's going to cross over if it goes forward, but carefully look at this Bill and look at amending this Bill to revise sections of it to properly address additional things that would somehow incorporate the intent of the Bill.

I realize you have to stay focused on the intent of the Bill, so that's my suggestion and I hope to be able to communicate further suggestions as the session continues. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? All right, Members, any questions? I have one for Richard Emery, if you don't mind, sir. So my question is how many of the-

If you know a rough estimate of how many AOAOs or HOAs, I guess, have done the reserve study so far, because we did hear from a testifier just now that one of them hadn't done one in eight years. Did you have any idea of how many may be lacking in this department?

I don't know of any association that has not done a reserve study. It's within the statutes required annually and it's updated annually as a part of the annual budget. So I don't know that particular lady's particular association, but my experience is well over 95%, if not close to 100%, have done reserve studies today.

Some of the qualities may not be as good as others, but they've all complied on basic terms with the law to have provided Reserve studies to their owners as a part of the annual budget.

Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions? If not, we'll move on to HB 544 relating to pet insurance. First up, we have the Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Andrew Kim, Deputy Attorney General. We've provided written comments and provided suggested language on possible contract impairment issues. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, DCCA Insurance Division with comments.

Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, and members of the committee. I'm Jerry Bump, acting Insurance Commissioner. I'll stand on our written testimony providing comments and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Next up, we have North American Pet Health Insurance Association in support.

Hi, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify today. My name is John Fielding. I represent the North American Pet Health Insurance Association. NAFIA members comprise the overwhelming majority of pet health insurers in the United States.

We strongly support the legislation, as with the amendments that we recommended in our written testimony that we submitted yesterday. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaiian Humane Society in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Committee Members. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. You have our written testimony in support of this measure. Pet insurance is increasingly important to pet owners to afford to provide the necessary care for their family members given the rising costs of veterinary medicine.

And this is a fair, clear, logical measure to protect our consumers and our animals. And we urge the committee to give it your support. Mahalo.

Thank you. That's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none. We'll move on to HB 983 relating to certified public accountants. First up, we have the Hawaii Society of CPAs in support.

Ronald Heller for the Hawaii Society of CPAs. I'm a board member of the HSCPA. We have submitted written testimony, including specific proposed amendments to the language of the bill. Unless there are questions, we'll stand on the testimony. But we'd be happy to address any questions you may have.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Hawaii Association of Public Accountants in support. Should be over Zoom.

Hi, my name is Nathan Colgrove. I'm the President of Hawaii Association of Public Accountants. And the bill as it stands, I wanted to mention that essentially the problem is in the accounting, the public accounting industry.

Currently, we are being forced to outsource about 23% of our production staff to, you know, outside the US because of the shortage and in addition, the way things are written, there is a danger to providing a CPA license to someone who's not been through public accounting experience, as the experience you would have in private industry or government would tend to be more narrow, as opposed to more broad and with experience in an accounting firm and would generally give somebody my understanding would be a better overall understanding of accounting.

Additionally, there is a way to get a CPA license with experience in private industry and government already. And also, you know, people work CPAs working in private industry and government with the CPA license, they're not required to get the 80 hour CPA CPE continuing education that staff working in an accounting firm need to get.

And so there's that additional continuing education that they're not required to get currently. And last thing, CPA firms, they can only be owned by CPAs.

And so if, you know, if, if we're not able to do this and get them CPA firm experience, there's a risk in the future of there being less and less CPA firms out there.

And so because of these things, I'm trying to point out that the problem is in the public accounting industry, not necessarily in private industry and government. And that's what I have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. From the same association we have Marilyn Niwao here to testify in support.

Hi, Marilyn Niwao. I'm a State Director and the Legislative Co Chair for the Hawaii Association of Public Accountants. Our organization is in support of this bill.

If there are amendments, in other words, conditional, it has to be clarified because the way it was written was not really what was agreed upon by the various interested parties like the Hawaii Society of CPAs and the Board of Public Accountancy.

We are in favor of substituting public accounting experience only in a CPA firm for the 32 semester hours of education that are required to obtain the CPA license. This is separate from the experience requirement. This is in lieu of the educational requirements for the 32 semester hours and so I wanted to mention that.

So I guess we have submitted testimony with amendments that hopefully get us to the place where we are in line with whatever you, all the other organizations have agreed upon. And I believe that this provides a great opportunity for our profession to have more CPAs in public practice so that we can serve the general public.

Also, this substitution of public accounting experience only is something that has occurred in the past because we used to have it. So there was four and a half years of public accounting experience plus a bachelor's degree which would have allowed a candidate to obtain a CPA license.

So this is not without precedent that there is public accounting experience only that was substituted for the educational requirement. If we stand by our testimony and if there's any questions, please let me know. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up we have Ron Heller in support. Yep, he's standing on his personal testimony. If you could come to the mic just so people could hear you. But I already told him so don't worry. I believe that's all the people we have here to testify on this measure.

Anyone here to testify in person or over Zoom? Please just state your name.

Hi, I'm Wendell Lee. I'm here. I'm an instructor at UH West Oahu. I teach taxes and accounting. I'm not here on behalf of the university. I'm here for my students. My students at UH West Oahu want to become accountants. The problem is they can't afford the 30 additional credits.

They have to go to work right away once they graduate. And the 30 additional credits is not adding value. If they can pass the CPA examination. We want to get them into the workforce as quickly as possible. There's a critical shortage of accountants in Hawaii.

And by supporting this bill, we'll be able to allow students who have choices between majors to go into accounting. And they're excited about this bill. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify, please?

My name is Hector West, Executive Officer for the Public Board of Accountancy. The testimony submitted was actually for the chair. It should be Gary Miyashiro. But anyway, on behalf of Mr. Gary Miyashiro, the board basically is recommending but with comments.

The board will be meeting on March 15, and at that time we will be trying to evaluate public inputs that will affect the pathway on experience as opposed to just a three years experience. Three years experience. I'm sorry. I'm not sure if it was submitted, but we did. I know the board said.

I did see that. I think the person who submitted it didn't click that you were here to testify. That's all.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I do recall reading that testimony, though. Anyone else here to testify this measure? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on to HB 1050 relating to Title 24, Hawaii Revised Statutes. One testifier today. DCCA in support.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Jerry Bump. Stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and available for any questions, if you may have.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this exciting measure? All right. Seeing None. Members, any questions? Very surprising. Moving on, HB 256 HD1 relating to environmental protection. First up, we have Department of Health with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Marianne Rossio from the Department of Health. The department stands on its written testimony offering comments. And we're here if you have any questions for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Energy Justice Network with comments. Mike, are you there on Zoom?

Yes, I'm here. Sorry, my audio was not happy for a second. Am I up already?

Yep, we can hear you.

Okay, great. So here's my video. Aloha, representatives. Thank you for having me. I'm just. I just wanted to give some support for strengthening this bill. This is a bill that would by itself risk actually making things weaker.

The third of three burners at the H Power trash incinerator actually has standards that are stricter in this permit than the state. Sorry, than the federal regulations that are being cited in this bill. So we support the language that we have as amendments in our testimony and others do as well.

But the health department has another version of the same idea, which is to say that if the state has stricter standards, that those would still apply. But there's another aspect to our testimony that many others are also supporting, which is to strengthen the standards in the first place.

Because the older two burners, the ones that are 35 years old at age power, are under the federal standards that are so weak that they're allowed to operate without half of their pollution control devices that most incinerators have.

They have no controls for the nitrogen oxides that trigger asthma attacks, and they have no controls for the mercury and dioxins, which are the most toxic chemicals known to science. And the third burner has them, but the first two don't.

And it would just be pretty unfortunate if this bill's intentions were to go into law without actually closing that loophole and bringing things up to modern standards like the ones that were proposed by EPA last January and just aren't finalized yet.

So we urge you to support that amendment from the Department of Health as well as ours to bring it up to the modern standards.

Thank you. Next up, we have Climate Protectors Hawaii with comments.

Thank you, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, members of the Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee. Ted Boland on behalf of the Climate Protectors Hawaii. I think this bill is well intentioned. I think it's a great idea to make sure that the federal standards, if they get weaker, don't become our standards.

But I think it's misguided because the state can be more stringent than the federal. And in this case they already are.

So what we need, I think, is an amendment to which I provided with my testimony to make clear that the emission standards, if they're made more stringent, can be more stringent if they're done so by the federal or state to cover that. I share the concerns of Mr. Ewall about H Power 3 and actually weaken it.

So while this bill is well intentioned, I think it's actually moving in the wrong direction. And if the amendment is not made, I think I would not support passing the bill. Instead, I think we need to use the standards that the EPA proposed but hasn't put into effect yet. It's time to stop relying on the federal government I think.

I represented the Department of Health for many years and we got used to getting money from the federal government and relying on them. I think those days, unfortunately, have passed and we need to step up and do things on the state level. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, Reworld in support. Not present. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay, I've got one for Department of Health.

So previous testifiers had mentioned that there were two scrubbers or some kind of thing that they were missing from the first two boilers that would take out, I think they said nitrous oxide and some kind of mercury. Bad things. I assume that they're under a permit from DOH, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So when does the permit expire or have to get re upped?

Permits are usually good for five years and they're reevaluated every five years and reassessed.

Okay. The. HPAR has been around for a long time. When the permits were re upped or reassessed, why weren't the other safety precautions put in place?

When you evaluate a permit or a facility, you evaluate it based on the type of unit, the size of the unit, how much emissions has. And there's a lot of different state and federal regulations that you have to look at and consider.

And when we evaluated that facility, we made sure they met all of the state and federal regulations at that time. And so I'm not sure when they're up for the next assessment. But currently they do meet all the state and federal regulations.

And it is correct that the EPA currently has a proposed rule out that's in comment period that is looking at changing emission limits for both existing and new facilities. And I believe that comment period ends in July.

I think the previous testifier was right. I don't think we can count on the feds anymore, unfortunately. If those were to pass and H Power was to get re upped with their permit, would they then have. Would they at that point have to add the additional safety precautions that the previous testifiers mentioned?

I would have to look at it closer, but I believe they may have to add additional air pollution controls for the older units.

Under current DOH. I mean, I know it's probably been a couple of years at least since they've been sitting on this permit, the most recent one. Has DOH in that time, or do you in the near future plan on revising your standards to require those two additional either of them or both of the additional air purifiers?

I mean, if the. I don't know when the next evaluation is up. But every permit evaluation is based on looking at all the federal and state regulations and making sure that they comply with it. So that's our basic process of how we issue a permit. They have to meet ambient air quality standards.

They have to meet prevention of significant deterioration. They have to meet nsps. I mean, there's a whole bunch of standards that they have to meet.

Did DOH comment on the proposed federal changes?

I. No, I don't think. We did not comment.

Is DOH in favor of the proposed EPA changes?

From what I've seen, we are. I know EPA is still looking at the reason why they extended a public comment period is because they wanted to gather more information on stack test, continuous emission monitors, waste characterization to further evaluate the limits.

Because they're looking at changing the limits significantly and as well as any kind of averaging times, they're looking what is appropriate. And so they wanted to gather more data and assess that. So that's kind of in process right now.

I think my concern is that and this bill was put forth because the fear was that they'd be revising them down now with the new administration. If DOH. I have a feeling DOH might have been, again, not faulting you, but counting on the federal standards to change and then kind of take care of that.

So DOH maybe wouldn't have to. But if you are. If DOH is in favor of the changes, even if they don't happen, the proposed changes, would it be unfair to say that DOH is in favor of adding those changes to this bill already on the state side?

I would say that we would prefer to have the public comment period take place and for that data to be gathered.

For the federal side, you mean?

Yes.

Okay. And you said it's due in July?

July, correct.

Okay, thank you. Members, any other questions?

I have a question for Mr. Ewall regarding the. Are you familiar with the federal standards that are put out to public comment? And can you speak a little bit to that regarding what we're waiting for?

Yes, absolutely. So first of all, there already was a comment period on those federal regulations which were required by federal court to be finalized by last December.

And was only some of the plaintiffs involved in that lawsuit that got EPA to finally update these regulations that were supposed to been updated in 2011 and they asked for another year and that's what started a new comment period. But the first comment period already passed and it was supposed to be finalized two months ago.

So I think they're as final as they can get, other than environmental groups hoping to get them to be even better. But they're final enough that they could go into it. And those standards are more protective, significantly more protective than the 2006 ones that we're currently operating under.

But they're not that much more protective that it would actually affect the emissions of any pollutants other than one pollutant at H power, and that's the nitrogen oxides that trigger asthma attacks. So we're not talking about a strict big difference.

We're talking about them basically installing the missing controls on the two older burners so they can come up to modern standards.

Any other questions, members? Okay, let's move on then to HB 1051 HD1 relating to energy efficient portfolio standards. First up, we have DCCA Consumer Advocate in support.

Afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, my name is Michael Angelo. I'm the Executive Director of Division of Consumer Advocacy. We support this bill and stand on our comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, State Energy Office in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Maria Tome, Hawaii State Energy Office. We're in strong support of this bill and we stand on a written testimony. Thank you very much.

Next up, we have Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Leah Laramee with the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony and support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, we have Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support. Don't see Gwen here. Is she online? Nope. Okay, not present. Next up, PUC and support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, members of the committee, I'm Ashley Norman with the Public Utilities Commission. We stand on our written comments in support and available for questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaii Energy in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Caroline Carl and I'm the Executive Director of Hawaii Energy. We stand on our written testimony, in support and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next up, Hawaiian Electric in support. Okay.

Not present. All right, that's all the testifiers we have signed up. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Okay, seeing that we'll move on to HB 350HD1 relating to energy. First up, we have State Energy Office in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Maria Tome, Hawaii State Energy Office. We are in strong support of this Bill and are available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have The Solaray Corporation with comments.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Will Giese. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Great. I'll make this very short, but I appreciate the opportunity to testify. As I mentioned, my name is Will Giese. I'm the Senior Director for Government Affairs for The Solaray Corporation.

Among other things, we are the largest domestic manufacturer of flat plate solar collectors, many of which have been and are still installed here in Hawaii. Those two companies are SunEarth and AET. We've been involved with the solar hot water mandate for many, many years.

I personally both in this job and in other jobs in my time in Hawaii, our company also sells many different kinds of water heaters. We're a participant of the Hawaii Energy Program. We offer comments and one amendment.

And the amendment mainly is focused on the purpose of the solar hot water mandate, which is to make sure that the most efficient water heating technology is installed as standard for new homes, unless a variance is requested That water heating technology in Hawaii is most often solar thermal, as long as there's appropriate access for solar irradiance.

Our comment is really focused on if we are adding another technology to be mandated, which in this case would be heat pumps alongside solar thermal. The heat pump itself should be raised to the same efficiency that a solar thermal system is.

The reason for this being that somebody who installed a solar thermal system or buys a house rather with a solar thermal system installed as standard is benefiting from the savings of that system, of the life of the system, which can be 15, 20 or 25 years.

So if we are going to install heat pumps instead of solar thermal, the heat pump itself should be an equivalent efficiency.

And as the standard solar thermal system, which I believe to spec is typically what's called a 90 solar, a 0.9 solar factor or 90% solar factor, meaning that 90% of the energy in a year comes from solar thermal, whereas 10%, the remainder comes from a backup, whether that be propane or electric or a heat pump, which you can add to a solar thermal system.

So you know, in closing trying to keep this short, you know, we're not directly in opposition to this Bill, but we think that if any other technology is mandated, it should be brought up at least to the same level of efficiency as the current technology that has been successfully mandated in the state for several decades, I believe now at this point.

Thank you so much for allowing me to testify and look forward to seeing if you have any questions on the Bill.

Thank you. Next up we have the Kauai Climate Action Coalition in support.

Aloha. My name is Steve Parsons, I'm one of the leads with Kauai Climate Action Coalition and I hope everybody that can see me can recognize who I am, what I'm doing. I'm dressed up as a heat pump hot water heater. I serve on a lot of different committees over here on Kauai, including the, the forefront one mentioned.

But I, I, I don't like, I'm not happy with the solar testimony that just happened and I'm a little thrown off with that. Just from a, from a cost perspective. My testimony like here on Kauai they start at $10,000 and go north of that.

And KIUC, which I happen to be running for the board of directors all gives $1500 rebates for that heat pump hot water heaters like the one you could buy off the shelf at some big boxes on island or Plumber Contractors, DYI $1,500.

Let that sink in for a second and you know solar is not efficient when the sun's not shining, when it's cloudy at night and they should be mutually exclusive.

But I strongly, I didn't like all the, you know, I'm just a common guy, I just, I'm in real estate, I know these things, I install these in my home, they cool, they dehumidify, they're just really great technology.

So it just be an easy no brainer choice like we should be on the same side like whatever's best for the consumer. But prices usually gonna win out. So heat pump actually should be primary or solar but just heat pump or solar doesn't matter, let the consumer choose.

And then as a variant not real happy with the gas. I think there should be a sunset on that were eliminated. I think you know, after everything is said and done, you know and there are new heat pump technologies that are 110, so they'll never draw more than 750 watts or so.

And those are easy replaces to kill gas because what's the plan for getting rid of all gas appliances on, you know, in the Hawaiian Islands? We need to move that direction quickly. So I think we just want to.

My comments would just be to try to sunset the gas, but at least bring the gap up to the equivalent of energy support.

I do want us to keep us. If you could wrap up your testimony and actually you're getting a little off topic from the Bill at hand.

Understood, I can do that. But hopefully you got the Prop. Hopefully you got my concern definitely for this. And the last thing I'll say is like Maine's doing this at a high level. They're rebidding at point of sale and it's the cheapest technology out there and they're. They're doing really well. So people walk in or paying $500.

I'd love to see us do that in cooperation with the co ops and I'll end my testimony.

Okay, thank you. Costume's highly encouraged by the way, for all you next time. Anyone else here to testify this measure? Okay, Members, any question? Okay, let's move on to HB 951, HD 1 relating to prescription drugs. First up, we have Department of Law Enforcement in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Jared Redulla, I'm the Deputy Director for State Law Enforcement. Our Department is in support of this measure. We understand that you are considering what occupation or industry will be allowed to prescribe under this measure. And we respect your authority to do that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have Kaiser in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Jonathan Chang for Kaiser Permanente. We'll stand on our written testimony in support and we're available for any questions. We also are asking for some amendments to make the. I guess what for the Bill to be provider neutral for providers that are already authorized to prescribe opioids under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act of HRS 329.

So it's just consistency with another harmonization of Chapter 329. Thank you. And we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in this measure?

Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll move on to HB 1282 HD1, relating to certified caregivers. First of all, we have Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Thank you, Chair, Committee Members. Daintry Bartoldus, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We are in strong support of this measure. We feel it's very important to allow 18 year olds. These are part of the family. These individuals were raised with the individuals in the care homes. It makes good sense.

We understand at times 21 is a smart thing to do if you're going to be exposing somebody to alcohol, cigarettes, or other drugs. Of course because the mind is still developing. But we could send people to war at 18, drive cars, be pilots. They really can handle being a caregiver.

Also on a personal note, I take care of an individual who's 87. My 6 year old neighbor does awesome with her. He's raised with her and she knows. He knows them very well. They get along very good. His 21 year old sister, not so much. She's on her phone all the time.

So I don't think it's really the age, it's really the person. And we really stand in strong support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Department of Health with comments. Department of Health. It says Developmental Disabilities Division. There's no actual name. Is that? Yes, go ahead.

Good afternoon Chair, Co Chair, Members of the Committee. Mary Brogan. I'm the administrator for Developmental Disabilities Division. We stand on our testimony offering comments and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. We have a couple individuals. Kaili Swan in support over zoom.

Good morning chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm a strong supporter of this bill because. Because caregivers or CNA needs to be assisted with people with disabilities in home or in a community house client providers. So please let me know if you have any question you may have and discuss my testimony.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you.

Next up we have Tiny Shah with comments. Okay, not present. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? Seeing none, we'll move on to HB 1499 HD1 relating to the Department of Education. First up we have University of Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun and members of the committee. My name is Clementina Ceria-Ulep, Dean of the UH, Manoa School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene. The School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene and John A. Burns School of Medicine are in strong support of this measure. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Department of NUSTEP, Department of Health, in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Diana Felton, DOH. We stand on our written testimony in support and happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. I have a question for you so don't go too far. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions? Okay. So, DOH, you had a proposed amendment I was a little confused about though it was written in such a way.

I wasn't sure if you were trying to replace language or just add it in. Were you just trying to add it in? It's in the preamble. But were you just trying to add in the underlying section?

Yes, as a safety measure.

Gotcha. Thank you. Okay, let's move on then to HB 423 HD1 related to workers compensation. First of all, D Herd in support. Okay, not present. Next up, DLIR with comments.

Good afternoon. Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun and members of the committee. JoAnn Vidinhar for Department of Labor. We stand in our testimony offering comments and are available for questions. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up, Nancy Monden in opposition.

Okay. I have been working about 30 years with injured workers who sustained an injury. 90 days is not enough. The recovery takes a lot of medical, psychological and social process to recover from an injury. After an injury, a person experiences a grieving process. Since there is a loss, what they lose is their self identity.

Since the job or profession defines who they are, their self worth. However, the vocational specialist does help. The worker with a new self identity has to gain trust and put them in a vocational plan. 90 days is not enough time.

However, what impacts this is the body part affected, the type of job, the education and the culture and this all affects the grieving process. To get the person back to work, it probably will take longer than 90 days. Injured worker is a person who has feelings, emotions. It- It's a very complex process.

And just to say we will just put them in in 90 days. That's it, you know, that's not enough time. The person has to grieve and it takes time. And the injured worker is not a robot and has emotions and everybody has emotions and it varies from person to person.

If a worker has been in a job as in construction worker and they only can be a clerical person, that's a huge impact on the person. But I don't want to take too much of your time. But anyway, thank you very much for allowing me to talk.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions?

Thank you. I guess this is for the Mrs. Monden. How long? Right? I mean so currently the statute allows for how many days and it would be short. I'm sorry, I apologize. I thought I read this to mean it would this. Sorry, Mrs. Monden.

How- How many days does a worker have right now to start moving forward with rehabilitation.

I don't do the rehab. All I know is it takes longer than 90 days. Once the person, once I stop, you know, I get the person to wear their maximum medical stability. Once that happens, they go into VR. All that time that I take, interacting with the patient, okay, it could be three months, could be five months.

It depends on the impact of the injury. If it's a bad injury like a hand injury, person does typing. That's a big impact on their psychological, you know, to comp- to get over it. But the whole thing is, it depends, right? What they're trying to do in this bill is say 90 days. You know what,

90 days may or may not be enough. But if you have a catastrophic injury or any type of injury, you have to. You cannot do this job anymore. Your self identity, imagine yourself without a job. Your job can no longer do it. You have to be taken out and be reprogrammed to something else.

I don't think anybody can do that in 90 days unless you're exceptional person. But a normal person cannot do that. I don't know if I answered your question.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Members, any other questions? I've got one for Joann. Are you still on for DLIR?

Yes.

So, in the prior committee I was looking at the testimony and what edits were made to the bill. DLIR D. Herd. I was going to ask this to D. Herd. So sorry you're getting kind of caught in this, but they're not here. So D.

Herd recommended changing what is now section- subsection F, but was subsection E on page 7, line 12 of the current HD1. They wanted us to change it to add in the 90 days to conform with CFR. Do you have any thoughts on that, given what the other testifier said?

Yes, thank you for that question. I do have some thoughts on that. It has to do with. I'm going to take us back to the statute. So the work comp statute. The purpose of the vocational rehabilitation is to return an injured employee to work as quickly as possible in a cost effective manner.

So when an employee is injured, they may choose to enroll in VR services. If they choose to enroll in VR services, then they will select a VR counselor. The VR counselor's job is their purpose. One of their purposes at the beginning is to evaluate the injured worker for their limitations. And that's called an initial evaluation.

So once the initial evaluation is performed, then that D. Herd is put together, which is the section F, it really says that a provider shall file the employee's plan so they evaluate the employee and then they come up with a plan and that gives a timeline for that provider to submit that timeline.

It's not saying within 90 days that they're going to be rehabilitated, but to come up with a plan. And so for that, I think really what we see over the years with VR is you have employees that are in the VR system for too long.

And so I think the purpose of this bill is to help streamline to meet the purpose of the statute that is to get the employee back to work as quickly as possible. Because if you want to look at there mental state, it really does start to affect them if they're away from the work too long.

So it's to get them back to work in a cost effective manner. There could be a recommendation that we could clarify in F that would maybe say that when a provider determines that through the that the injured worker is feasible to participate, then the provider can file.

I think maybe that's the little gap that there may be some confusion on if it's from when it was selected or when an initial evaluation is done.

But I think with our comments to clarify, to add additional language in there and then to add in or to clarify that it really is once a provider deems an injured worker feasible to be in the VR services. I hope that helps.

Okay. No, that does help. Are VR extensions, are- Can they request an extension if they need it to submit this plan?

Absolutely.

Okay.

So that is the practice that even now that they can request and it is really based on- even if counselor came and they said it's feasible today and they come up with a plan, but what happens is someone has something happens to them and they have to maybe now have surgery.

Well, then we have to suspend the VR services so that 90 days is not set in stone. At that point there is a modification. The modification is based on feasibility, medical feasibility for that injured worker to participate. So it's not a one and done. There really is opportunities for modifications.

Okay. And Joanne, if we defer decision making of this one day, do you think you could work on some language to clarify it for us?

Sure.

Okay. Thank you. Any- Members, any other questions? Okay, let's take a brief recess. Recess.

Reconvening. Let's see. Let's start with HB 117 relating to condominiums. Chair's recommendation is to defer this measure.

Moving on to HB 544, relating to pet insurance. Chair's recommendation is to defect the date to July 1st, 3000, I believe.

But I'm going to note in the committee report that the effective date should be January 1st, 2026 to allow for insurance companies to get situated to adopt the AG's proposed amendment deleting section 2, adopt DCCA's proposed amendments, changing the term of producer to insurance producer, and a subsection A on page 14.

In subsection A on page 14, adopt proposed amendments from Crum & Foster, or Forster, which are also recommended by a number of other testifiers. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 544. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair will vote I.

[roll call]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, moving on to HB 983 relating to certified public accountants. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from HSCPA and to defect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments? Yep. Rep. Iwamoto.

Sorry, do you mind clarifying what those amendments. Is this the maintaining the work, they don't need the additional credits, but they should work for X amount of years?

Yes. It's replacing the credit. It doesn't change a lot on the bill, honestly, but there are a lot of different places that it's changed. It's all in the. I don't want to. I mean, I guess I will if you really want me to read through them all.

Okay. Members, any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

That's okay, but it is about the work?

Yeah. And. And the testifier. Who was concerned about that? These are her.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Members voting on House Bill 983. Chair's recommendation is to. Okay. Voting on House Bill 983. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all members, are there any members who wish to vote? No. Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, moving on to HB 1050 relating to Title 24, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Chair's recommendation is to just affect the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments? Okay, Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 1050, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting presence of all members, are there any members which vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Members, Moving on to HB 256 HD1 relating to environmental protection. I do want to move this soon because I am concerned that the federal. We can't. We just can't trust them anymore.

But I do want to defer decision making one day to try to clarify whether we need to raise these standards to the proposed ones being considered by the EPA currently. So we're going to defer decision making on this measure until tomorrow at 2pm in room 329.

So tomorrow's agenda. Moving on to HB 1051 HD1 relating to energy efficiency portfolio standards. Chair's recommendation is to move this as is. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 1051 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the presence of all members, are there any members who wish vote no?

That's a no.

Any other no's? Any reservations? Reservations?

Yes for the reservations.

Is that it? Okay, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. Moving on to HB 350 HD1 relating to energy. I'd like to adopt the State Energy Office's proposed amendments to. Actually, I'm sorry, can we take a brief recess?

Hey, reconvening. Sorry about that. HB 350 HD1 related to energy. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the State Energy Office's proposed amendments to the definition of heat pump water heater for clarity. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 350 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all members. Are there any members wish to vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Members, moving on to HB 951 HD1 relating to prescription drugs. I had conversations with the prior chair and got his prior concurrence. Chair's recommendation is to change the language back to the original bill, but to keep the defective date. Members, any questions or comments? Okay. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on House Bill 951 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the presence of all members. Are there any members who wish to vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, moving on to HB 1282 HD1 relating to certified caregivers. We had a bit of discussion about this. The Chair is concerned that this bill has title issues. If we were to correct it to make sure it does what it needs to do.

I do really like the bill concept so I encourage the bill drafter to fix it and come back next year. But we would have had to change too much and I don't think it would have been constitutional to do so. So looking forward to seeing this next year, but for now we're going to defer this measure.

Next up we have HB 1499 HD1 relating to the Department of Education. Chair's recommendation is to adopt DOH's proposed amendments. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on House Bill 1499 House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting the excused absence of Rep. Lowen. Are there any members who wish to vote no? Any reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to the last item, HB 423 HD1 relating to workers compensation. I'd like to have a little bit more time to work with DCD on some new clarifying language to make sure this is all squared. So we're going to be deferring decision making for this until tomorrow at 2pm in room 329. We are adjourned.