House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. Commerce, Consumer Protection and Commerce. I always get those mixed up. It is Wednesday, March 19th, 2025 about 2:10pm in Conference Room 329. We're here for the 2:00pm agenda.

In order to allow as many people to testify 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 any profanity or uncivil behavior.

Such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. All right. With that, my Vice Chair will be handling the testimony. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. First on our agenda is Senate Bill 137 SD2 HD1 relating to electric utilities. First up, we have DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Angelo, Executive Director, Division of Consumer Advocacy. Stand on our testimony providing comments, available for questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next, we have the Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Leo Asuncion, Chair of the PUC. We'll stand on our written comments providing comments.

Thank you.

Next, IBEW Local 1260 in support.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chairs, Committee Members. Kika Bukoski on behalf of IBEW 1260, standing in support of our written testimony. Thank you.

Hawaiian Electric with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is James Abraham, testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, offering comments on Senate Bill 137 and a proposed amendment. We do appreciate the intent of this Bill to try to preserve important accomplishments in the local Hawaii energy landscape.

And you know, in the case that there was an outside entity that were to come in and become involved in the Hawaii energy environment, we do have concerns about the overbroad definition of "acquiring entity" on page five, lines 15 to 20, because we do think it could touch on purely local transactions.

For instance, if there's a piece of utility equipment on Oahu that needs to be transferred to the Big Island just as an example. That would go through a PUC approval process and it could implicate this Bill when it doesn't seem to be the intent of the this Bill to reach those purely local types of transactions.

So we do appreciate the Committee's consideration of our amendment and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ulupono initiative in support.

Good afternoon, chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Micah Munekata here on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. We'll stand on our testimony and support and really appreciate you folks moving this measure forward. Thank you.

All right, thank you. That's all. I have registered to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing. Oh, go ahead...

Apologize if I pushed the wrong button. Henry Curtis, Executive Director of Life of the Land. We're testifying only on the merger part of the Bill.

There are three separate stages where a co-op could come in. One, a buyer comes in and wants something from the utility. And the utility HEI figures it's a good bona fide deal. So they sign an NDA saying, we won't discuss this. In theory, you could now announce to the world that a co-op can come in, but nobody knows about it.

Second is after the buyer and the seller agree to the sale and speak with one voice.

The utility could then say, any co-op want to come in, we've done the deal, but you want to bid, go ahead.

And the third is when the buyer and seller file a docket with the PUC, a co-op could come in and say, we don't like it. We have a competing bid, but there's no mechanism for that.

So a lot of people like co-ops, but not one person has been able to come up with a viable way for it to succeed. It's still in the Bill. We think that section should be removed. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

I guess maybe Ulupono. I just guess, like, how would you respond to the concerns of Life of the Land?

I think what we'd really like to see, Representative and Members, is really an open and transparent process in which, you know, the PAC does get involved and we can look to see if there are entities that can arise within our communities that could really put together some kind of bid in a co-op model.

I think that the interest there is again to, to really give it a fair playing field, almost like a different approach to what a utility could look like. And to, to really see how community reacts to that and, and really, again, offering that opportunity.

It's not to say that, you know, one way is better than the other, but I think we just got to make sure that we, we allow for something to happen and I think that's where we're coming from with our support.

All right, thank you. I guess, Consumer Advocate, I mean, just to, I don't know if we've yet figured out the right mechanism to kind of just create a little breathing room in that process to give co-ops at least a chance.

But just to clarify, I mean, do you think from the customer perspective that a co-op, you know, tends to be the incentives, you know, behind a co-op and how it's operated tends to be more favorable to the ratepayer in terms of affordability?

I think as a general model, from a co-op perspective, because it's a member-owned, the Members decide and drive the interest of the utility. Under an investor-owned model, they have competing interests, they do act in the interest of their customers, but they also have shareholders that they are beholden to.

And I guess in our current landscape with our, you know, utilities that are under HEI versus KIUC, which, you know, took a long time to pay down their debt and get there, but I mean, we do now see that they have lower rates. So do you attribute that somewhat to the co-op model? Would you?

It's hard to say exactly what is the driver behind those rates. A lot of it, I think has to do with aggressively procuring renewable energy contracts, large-scale renewable energy contracts, and that may be more challenging in different locations than others for different reasons.

Yeah, but also part of their maybe commitment to more aggressively pursuing renewable energy and you know, following the long terms of the RPS might be also related to the ownership model.

Potentially. I mean, it's driven more by exactly what their customers are looking for.

All right, thanks.

Any questions? Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. I guess this is for maybe Ulupono. I mean anyone, any proponent of this Bill. You heard Mr. Curtis's recommendation, which was I think to remove the merger limitation, the parts of the language that would affect the merger acquisition.

So what could the Bill move forward without? Are you, would you be comfortable removing that portion that Mr. Curtis is recommending?

Thank you, representative. To be quite honest, I didn't review any testimony and kind of had a hard time following that particular argument. But in general we don't, we would like to see it remain within the Bill.

We do think that it is an open and transparent process when you involve the PUC and really allowing for folks to really get involved from a community level and is what we're trying to do, or at least what we think this Bill is trying to do.

So I think we're open to potentially amending some language if, if that's needed to clarify some of this stuff. But again, like I'm not up here telling you from the Ulupono side that we're looking to remove that particular section. That's not what we're looking for. Thank you.

Yeah. Mr. Curtis, would you be able to, I guess maybe even cite which page or line you would want stricken? Or do you see this Bill moving forward without that component that you mentioned?

I think the Bill should move forward without that section. I've talked with a number of people who are very, very knowledgeable about contracts and about mergers to make sure that I wasn't just bullshitting on my argument. I have cleared it with some very high level people and there is no mechanism.

The PUC has testified when it was at the parts, when the Bill suggested that they do it, the PUC testified that they would not probably have the authority to handle a co-op intervening at that point, but removing that section, we support the rest of the Bill.

Can I, can I ask. Oh, do you have...a question, a question for Mr. Curtis, since you're up there. The current version though, does have it as something the utility would do and then just, you know, kind of show their....

They would have entertained offers from both parties presumably, and then have chosen one and come to the PUC with that being the application they put forward. But they would just have to kind of show that they considered other offers. So it's not, I think in the current version asking the PUC to do it.

Right. And I don't want to say my source in the HEI, but I cleared it with them on my position and it made sense to them.

What made sense?

It makes sense that there is no mechanism, no way for HEI to consider at any step. Because the first step is you consider whether a person comes in, offers a viable thing. If it's not viable, nothing happens. If it is viable, the mergers run all kinds of SEC violations and other things.

If they broadcast and shares of stock go flying up and down. If you announce that a potential merger is occurring, it affects labor unions, it affects everything else. So there's an NDA put into place.

Once that's done, like in the NextEra case, the NextEra and HECO file a joint filing with the PUC saying we speak with one voice and that one voice is controlled by the entity buying the utility basically.

So within that span there is absolutely no way you could insert a co-op even though it's suggested in here. And we've had this discussion at the last hearing, so I'm surprised that Ulupono didn't pick up on the discussion then.

Okay, quick question while you're up there too. Just about the first section that you do support. I mean, I think some people have expressed they feel like this is already existing law. Why is there a need to restate that existing law should be followed. So what's your position on that?

The Legislature from time to time passes law saying we should continue doing what we're doing, we should continue obeying the law. So we have no problem with the Legislature saying that we should follow the law.

Okay. Okay. I guess quick question. Sorry. Is that okay Chair? Good. Okay, I have questions after. Okay, no, no, you go ahead then because you probably have similar ones. Go ahead.

I'll actually ask the Consumer Advocate. So I find myself in a position where I am in agreement with Mr. Curtis. I did not talk to HEI, but I had a similar train of thought as probably person that he or people that he talked to.

My fear here is that once you sign a purchase and sale agreement or some other document, you're kind of bound by it. And they could put a provision in there to give them an out if another co-op comes in.

But I probably would never advise a client to accept that unless they're very desperate. After that period of time. I mean, you're investing money into due diligence. You probably have some kind of initial payment that may or may not be refundable. There doesn't seem to be a time where you could announce it.

And I actually have the same thought of if they did announce it and said, "Hey, we're open, we're up for sale. Bring us your bids." That's going to do a number on the stock price.

I would assume that that would create havoc not only for the stocks but within the ranks of GI or HECO or whatever electric company is being sold. That is very concerning to me.

And I'm wondering from a consumer advocacy perspective, I would assume that you would be against this mechanism as well, given the amount of chaos that it would cause to the electric company and to possibly consumers of electricity.

I think the way we would handle this, right, is as PUC has noted, whatever comes in we would be able to review. So if there were solicited bids, right, but I see your point. There's not, there's not an advertisement that the utility is for sale, right is essentially what you're saying.

So how do you address that issue up front? Don't have a good solution for you on that.

Nope, me too. If I did, we wouldn't be talking and just be in the Bill. But I mean, does that line of reasoning make sense to you? Because I just can't think of it. By the time they come to you, then it is public.

But at that point you're asking a co-op to not only form but get an agreement to do due diligence to go through that whole process. All the while we're waiting for the person who's buying to just hold on with their financing, with everything.

I mean that to me sounds like a really large ask and might actually deter legitimate companies from seeking to purchase HECO who might be good companies.

I mean, I'm not saying that, you know, every, every offer is going to be good, but for the really responsible companies who are worried about it, I'm worried that it would chill the market for HECO if, if a sale was going to be contemplated.

I think ensuring that...having a mechanism to ensure that the investor owned utility seeks bids from cooperatives is important and having the mechanism built in that the PUC and our office will review those mergers or those change of control transactions or proposals rather going forward is, is important.

So I have nothing, nothing against you folks reviewing it. That's absolutely fine. As soon as they solicit bids from a co-op, that's a pretty big flag that there's some other sale in the water. And I think that would violate SEC guidelines.

I mean that talk about insider trading, you know, that that's concerning, I think especially when so many of our residents hold HECO stock and could stand to suffer very greatly from that. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but I certainly don't want that, that to happen either.

So by the time they, if they solicit a bid, even if they're saying "Hey, does anyone want to buy us?" I mean that to me is a pretty...I don't think they probably can federally. That, that, that's my impression. Do you have, do you have another.

I don't, I don't have another comment on that. Yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 1220 SD2 HD1 relating to renewable gas tariff. And we have DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Stand on our written testimony providing comments. Available for questions.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission with comments.

We'll also stand on our written comments. Thanks.

Thank you. Hawaii Gas in support.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for hearing this bill. Hawaii Gas appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony in strong support of this bill. We appreciate and thank the PUC and the Consumer Advocate working with us on this current version of SB 1220, HD 1, which contains their amendments and provides clarity to the measure.

This bill creates a more efficient, cost effective process for establishing a renewable gas tariff or rate, eliminating the need for an expensive and time consuming general rate case. Current regulations require a lengthy process that can delay customer access to renewable gas options until 2030 or later.

This bill allows for a timely and voluntary renewable gas tariff without impacting other ratepayers. The measure maintains existing regulatory standards, ensuring that all tariffs or rates remain just, reasonable, and in the public interest, while accelerating renewable energy adoption.

Hawaii Gas stands ready to submit a voluntary renewable gas tariff by August 31, 2025, ensuring the PUC has the necessary time for review while protecting consumer interests. Again, we thank the PUC and the Consumer Advocate for their thoughtful amendments, and we urge the Committee to pass this bill. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas in support on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. The Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas strongly supports SB 1220, which establishes a clear timeline for renewable gas tariff implementation while maintaining strong consumer protections, ensures proper PUC oversight, and the program is entirely voluntary, protecting non-participating customers from any cost impacts while also giving consumers more energy choices while supporting Hawaii's clean energy goals.

Current regulations could delay consumer access to renewable gas options until 2030 or beyond, and this legislation creates a balanced pathway that that protects consumers while expanding their energy choices. And this legislation comes at a critical time when federal support for renewable energy initiatives faces uncertainty. Hawaii has the opportunity to lead with practical market based solutions that directly engage with consumers in the energy transition. We respectfully urge the Committee to pass this important legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all I have registered to testify.

Probably just submitted written comments and not saying that I'm going to be here. Henry Curtis, Executive Director of Life of the Land. The gas company pointed out how expensive it is to go through a tariff proceeding and how this is a more convenient way to go. However, the gas company currently has an active ongoing rate case before the PUC.

They could have very, very easily stuck this tariff in because the PUC is looking holistically at everything they do and figuring out what the proper tariffs are. Instead, the gas company is going to the PUC and saying what is reasonable for us and then going to the Legislature and saying give us something extra. The second problem we have with this is they are not saying we're going to increase the use of renewable gas. They're not saying we're going to speed up acquisition.

They have no plans on getting more renewable gas till 2030. So this bill only would allow them to sell renewable gas. It would sort of be like Hawaiian Electric coming in here and saying we would like to raise rates for people who want to buy 100% renewable energy. It doesn't change the mix at all. It just is a gimmick. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay. Okay.

For Hawaii Gas. I wanted to get a response to the last speaker. Do you have, would this actually cause you to add more renewable gas, and if so, from what source?

So right now this bill is basically a mechanism. So that would be determined in the filing. And so right now what we want to do is we want to speed up the filing process within the, within the measures of what we're doing. Within, you know, that we would have, we would have a case that we would open up a docket, and they would have interveners that could come in and that they could then debate whether the merits of the case.

But this is just a mechanism for us to be able to do it without having to a full blown rate case. And I understand, you know, we are finalizing our rate case right now. The reason why we didn't put this in the rate case is we didn't have the customer to band at the time.

We weren't sure that we would have a full subscription, which would then have major implications. And so now that we've got the customer demand based on ESG, based on their sustainability goals that we want to fulfill, we want to be able to do this in a very timely manner. So the bill is basically just enabling us...

I understand that. That wasn't my question. My question is where would you, what source would you be using that's different than what you already have planned?

Yes. So it would be renewable natural gas, and then that would be determined in the filing. So we would go through all of that and provide all the details in the filing.

Not sure you totally answered her question. But yeah. What source would the... Well, first, is it true that you're not going to add more renewable natural gas until 2030? Was that statement previous testifier made true?

We have two projects currently that we put out a bid for RFP. One of them is bana grass and the other one is Eurus for hydrogen. We're also, the integrated research planning docket is opening up for us in a couple of months, and we're going to be going through that process right now.

So we do have plans to add on renewable natural gas and hydrogen. This would enable us to then increase the amount of renewable natural gas that we're able to provide to customers that want to voluntarily opt into this rate. So, yes, it would add renewable natural gas to our system and accelerate the clean energy goals.

Is 2030 the date that that's going to happen? Is that kind of the, is that a fair projected date from the previous testifier?

So these projects are really large and they took a lot of time to get done. They're pretty new technology. So we're trying to accelerate as fast as we possibly can within the confines that we have. So I don't have a date that we're going to say we're going to have a certain amount by certain amount. We are going through an integrated research planning docket. Right. And we provided a certain amount of scenarios of how we plan to get to the state's goal of 2045. So we will be going through that in terms of an open docket.

Is it fair to say not in the next couple years? I mean, is that reasonable?

You know, it depends. If we're able to get this filing in and we're able to accelerate this process, then it's a possibility.

But for the... Not for the filing, not for the tariff, but for the actual putting more renewable gas into the pipeline. Is it fair that that's not going to happen in the next two years, even if this bill passed?

Sure. I say, I mean, there's a possibility, right. We are working actively with some developers right now that we're trying to accelerate our process and to adopt renewable energy. We're doing it as fast as possible with the confines that we have. We put the RFP out.

We're doing it and trying to do it in a fair and balanced way so we don't increase rates to our customers. So yes, we are doing the best we can as a company. We're trying to accelerate our efforts. This bill will help us to accelerate our renewable energy procurement.

You know, the word tariff is getting thrown around a lot, unfortunately, and being use. Can you please explain though what this tariff is? Just to clarify.

Thank you very much. Yeah, so this is not, this is a, this is basically a rate. It's like a rate that you would offer to a customer that they could voluntarily opt into. So it's not a rate that would be forced on anybody else. It would not impact any of the other customers on our system or that we have. It's just a voluntary opt in rate that a customer that wants to procure renewable natural gas to meet their ESG and their sustainability goals can then opt into.

So to clarify, because when I was talking to you folks earlier about this bill, it sounds, and just, you know, correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like the mix of the gas in the pipe is not going to change with this bill. But they can, people can, or entities can voluntarily pay more money to count the gas they're already using as part renewable to meet their renewability or the sustainability goals. Is that fair?

Again, the details will be worked out in the docket in the filing. And so we would, we would then go look at kind of what that rate, what that rate would be in the filing. This is just a mechanism to be able to accelerate.

If your restaurant is buying gas and my restaurant is buying gas and you opt into this program, you're going to be paying a higher rate. But I'm going to be getting the same gas, right?

Not, no, not necessarily. Not necessarily. We, that's, that is going to be determined in the, in the filing.

Okay, but, but we will be getting the same gas whether you opt into this thing or not.

No. Because the issue is that you're procuring renewable natural gas. So you're going to have to, you're going to have to as a customer say that this is 100% renewable natural gas that is coming to your facility to meet the ESG and the sustainability goals.

More than one pipe? There's not... The same pipe, right? It's the same gas that's coming to your restaurant. Right? That your restaurant is mine.

Again, those details are going to be worked out in the filing. This is just the mechanism. So all we want to do is to be able to file it by a certain date and have the PUC come in and make a decision by a certain date. So all of those details will be worked out, and the regular process of going through a docket with the PUC...

Why wasn't it put in with the regular filing?

Because we didn't have the customer demand at the time. So we didn't want to put out something that wouldn't be subscribed that we would have to go through a lot of time and effort and right payer money to offer something that nobody wanted. Now we have customers that actually want this. So we're trying to address that.

Follow up. Yeah. You're saying it'll be worked out in the docket, but, or in the proceeding. But what is the position? What's the gas company, are you going to ask for a rate increase or are you just going to ask for the ability to call it renew, like to have a separate line item for...

So again, it would be a voluntary rate for customers that would opt into it. So it would not impact any of the existing rate payers.

No, no, no. Would you ask for a higher rate for the renewable?

Not necessarily. And again it's voluntary rate. So it's a customer that would want to buy this specifically at a price.

And you're saying the mix of the gas and the pipe is determined through the proceeding, but is it? Is that the case? I don't think that's the case.

So the tariff and the project and how it's going to be designed is going to be done within the, within the application and we're working those details out right now.

Do you have the ability to offer sale? I mean on the books, you can say you're paying for this, you're paying for that, you're buying renewable, you're buying regular or whatever. But I mean you don't have to, like as Rep. Matayoshi was, I think making that point already, I think it just didn't get answered clearly. You don't have two separate systems for delivery of two separate types of products. It's more in the accounting.

Again, those details are going to be worked out in the filing. This is just a...

The details of whether you have two separate systems for delivery will be worked out in the filing?

Potentially, yes.

You have the capacity to do that though? You have the capacity to do that?

Yes. Again, that's what we want to propose to the PUC and the CA is that particular, all those details within that filing. Right now we just want to be able to, if we're going to go through all that time and effort and process, we want to be able to know that we have a pathway forward to get a decision within a certain timeframe to meet a customer demand.

Yeah, I think I understand that. I just think we're just trying to be clear, and I don't take issue with it necessarily. Just that it's the same gas in the same pipeline and it's X percent renewable. And some people are going to pay the renewable part of it and some will pay the other, I guess. But you have a ability to sell gas to a facility that you can actually deliver them that product and you can separate it out. And how?

That's what we're trying. That's, again, what we're working out right now. And we're working out the details with several of the customers.

Are you selling it like they're not hooked up to the infrastructure? Is it like... Like a tank?

I mean, this is just a mechanism. This bill is just a mechanism.

We understand that. We're just trying to get a straight answer.

Yes. And I'm trying to say that we're going to be providing all of that detail in a filing and going through the whole intervening...

I mean, I feel like you should know the answer to that question now. I mean, does Hawaii Gas have the separate infrastructure to deliver different kinds of gas to different customers, not to bill them for different kinds of gas?

Currently not now, no.

Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.

So the tariff rate, too, I mean, you guys are coming to us. And it sure seemed like when we met before that it was going to be a higher rate. I mean, why even do this if it's not going to be higher rate or even the same rate? If it's going to be the same rate and the same gas coming through the pipe, where it's like an exercise in futility. I mean, it's almost a waste of our time. So I'm presuming that it's going to be a higher rate. And again, I'm not necessarily faulting you for that.

You could use that higher rate money that's being voluntarily paid to build out infrastructure to maybe lower costs for other customers. So I'm not here saying that this is a terrible idea because if people are willing to give you more money... If someone is willing to give me more money, I'd take it. You know, I mean, same with you guys.

Again, it might not necessarily be a higher rate. Again, we're trying to work out those details right now. What we just want to do is have an accelerated decision because if we have to wait for another rate case to propose this, it's going to be 2030 and we're going to lose the customer.

We're going to lose the customer demand, we're going to lose the desire to provide renewable gas to this customer. So we're just trying to accelerate the process, and then the details are going to be provided in the filing which we're working out right now.

Okay. PUC, are you here? You guys seem to agree in your testimony that a nine month timeline was sufficient and you were totally fine with that. I just wanted to confirm that with you. That seems like faster than normal.

It is an accelerator like we said in our testimony. Right. The rate case, you know, a full blown rate case is probably the best place to do it because we look at things holistically. But we also understand, right, to what Hawaii Gas just testified. Right. There's this demand, potential demand right now. Right. So then there needs to be that process. I mean, we went back and forth on how long it should take. Right. So the nine months for us is a happy medium that we could do and process this particular tariff.

Okay, thank you. That's all for me.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure.

Oh, on the gas bill?

I'll translate for myself. Good morning. Afternoon. Time is relative. But my name is Grace Bezilla, and today I am here on behalf of Keaukaha Action Network. And in hearing what's going on my organization looks... I'm from Keaukaha and I live and I've lived my whole life surrounded by over seven toxic inventory infrastructures.

And in hearing that we're making decisions to pass this today without knowing what is happening when it comes to this gas, what kind of gas it is, how it's been delivered, if it's renewable gas being mixed with what's currently happening in the same pipe. And in my mind thinking to Lahaina, it's not clear what that is.

We're asking right now to accelerate this process. I would, that doesn't sit well with me at all. Accelerating a process that will have an effect on people. You have gas pipes running under. I don't know what you guys under looks like, but it'll affect people. Nine months to me is too fast if you're going to build up infrastructure that will affect people for the next... I don't know how often you guys go under the ground and change infrastructure, but I would advise that you look closely at the future.

You have the future in mind, not just work fast now to get these things laid in for something that we don't even know what it is. If we're looking at sustainability happening now, trust me, in 10 years we're still going to be looking at sustainability. We were looking at this 10 years ago.

We've been talking about sustainability since I was in diapers. So I would rather say that you not accelerate that. That your company look at what you're really doing, what that looks like, what you're going to pull out of renewable energy. What does that mean? There's so many different types of renewable energy. And then what are you going to have in place? Looking at Lahaina, I'm just thinking of Lahaina. I'm thinking of California.

Could you please start to conclude?

Yes. Thanks. So I just want to conclude that Keaukaha Action Network does not approve of this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Members, going to move on to the next measure. We have Senate Bill 1500, SD2 HD1, relating to electric utilities. First up, we have DCCA in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Michel Angelo, Executive Director, DCCA. We stand in support of this measure. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, PUC comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. The PUC will stand on its testimony providing comments.

Thank you. Next, we have IBEW Local 1260 in support and present, Hawaiian Electric with comments.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. James Abraham, testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, offering comments on Senate Bill 1500 with a requested amendment. We do appreciate the intent of this bill which seeks to protect utility customers. When a utility has, you know, imminent threat of failing.

We are providing amendments for the Committee's consideration to simplify the Bill to make it clear that the PUC can take this action for all of the public utilities that it regulates. And with that, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. That's all I have. We register to testify. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 191, SD1 HD1, relating to energy assistance. Yeah. DCCA in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee stand in support of this bill available for questions.

Thank you. Department of Human Services in support.

Hi. Good afternoon, all. Kelly Kilmartin, current state LIHEAP coordinator. DHS stands on it, submitted testimony in support. We are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. The PUC will stand on its written testimony providing in support of the measurement.

Thank you. Hawaiian Electric in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Noel Kakimoto. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric in strong support of SB191 SD1 HD1, which would create a state run Hawaii Home Energy Assistance Program.

Aloha United Way's Alice report in 2024 highlights 33% of Hawaii households as in need or living below the asset limited income constrained unemployed category, which does present a critical need for ancillary utility assistance.

This program would contribute to the economic stability of our communities and could potentially reduce customers energy burdens or their percentage of household income going toward energy costs. Once again, we're in strong support of this Bill and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Hawaii Workers center in support. President, Catholic Charities Hawaii in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larsen with Catholic Cherries Hawaii. We all know that people are moving out of Hawaii. And besides rent and food, I think utilities is the next biggie. Maybe not enough attention is paid to that because it's kind of a silent epidemic. People are disconnected.

This not only affects them, affects the utility company, but it could affect their housing for many subsidies. If you don't have electricity, you know, you might lose your housing. And so it's a widespread issue. We participate also with the Aloha United Way on the initiatives that help the Ellis population.

And this population is really struggling with all the cost of living increases of which utilities is a big one in Hawaii. So we support this program and we ask you to put significant money into this to really help people stay because other resources have gone away, they've closed down. And so we really need this at this time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hawaii Energy in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Chester Carson on behalf of Hawaii Energy, we stand in our written testimony and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments. Okay, maybe he can come back. Next, we have Ohana Unity Party and Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands in support on zoom not present.

I have to have to go. I'm sorry. I'll call you right back. Oh. Oh, Yamachika, go ahead. Tom, can you hear us? Tom, can you hear us?

Yes, I can at the moment. So we're on the Energy Assistance Bill.

Yes, SB 191.

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The comment that we had is that the standards that are contained in the Bill as it's now written are really, really big. It's probably impossible to give a revenue score at the moment in this current version.

And we really think that guidelines should be presented to the agency before as opposed to giving it unlimited discretion. Feel free to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have. We Registered to testify online or in person. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Sorry. Public Utilities Commission. Just to clarify the appropriation of 5 million. It's not in the Bill but was requested. That's for each year.

Correct. It would be on an ongoing. Well, because it is in a Bill. Right. We would probably, budget wise, we would probably need to come back.

So it's in the Bill for two fiscal years.

Right.

5.0 million for each year. So the package of this Bill would be 10 million. And then you would anticipate for the program to be meaningful, it has to be recurring.

Correct.

Okay. All right, thanks.

Sure. Question? Oh, no, that was my question, actually.

Oh, okay. All right. Seeing no further questions. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up we have Senate Bill 1269 SD1 HD1 relating to geothermal resources. And first up we have Ulupono Initiative.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Michael Munakata here on behalf of Ulupono Initiative in strong support of this measure. We believe that we should be looking at everything across the entire state. So there is a request to open it up to statewide exploration and you know, understanding the economic realities. We're in this session.

We'd still be very much so proponents of a more robust funding to really go after this firm renewable resource. It's something that's out there very cheap. It's something that we should be going after across the islands and really looking and exploring. The geoscience work is ready to roll.

So I think that we should be really investing that money into that particular portion. Thank you very much.

Thank you. DBAD didn't sign up to testify in person but did you want to, on DBED?

Oh DBED. Sitting next to Dane. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee and apologies about that. I think I did follow Mr. Curtis and not clicking the in person and that's been happening all day. It's just been written. But we stand on this version. We're offering comments. The prior versions we did support.

What we're asking is for consideration to go back to the SD1. We are looking at doing RFP to do the exploration of several sites and the community engagement. And I think if we start to put limitations now, we might put ourselves out of potential areas.

We still have to do heavy community engagement but as previous speakers have said, this is a source of energy that can help with economic diversification. There are several resolutions coming up on Friday that call for the state.

State to diversify using AI manufacturing, that includes product and non product as well as advanced manufacturing, which all are heavy energy consumption activities. And if we can't stabilize our energy prices, we will have a difficult time in looking at some other industries that diversify. So asking for your consideration to support the Senate draft and moving forward, mahalo.

Great, thank you. Energy Justice Network in opposition not present. Ann Chung in support. All right, thank you. Tara Rojas, in opposition.

Aloha. I signed up to testify.

Yep, go ahead.

Okay, wait one Sec. Can you see me? Okay, so aloha, Tara Rojas.

And I'm in strong opposition for this geothermal and I was looking, you know, I always like to look at the testimony, look at the Bill, of course, do my due diligence and the best way I can describe this is unless you're living next to it 24/7, the drilling, unless you're living the effects of the air we get when it's Kona wind.

Yeah. When we get the fog, how it affects us. Now, can you imagine you're ground zero for over 40 years now when you look at the testimony, the people who are in support are going to benefit economically and they're not going to be living there, they're going to be making money off of it. Yeah.

And also people who are looking for alternative sources of energy, you know, are saying that this is a good way, but it is not one. Whose lands are we on?

I know there are now some people who are cultural practitioners that may have been against it before, but now they are benefiting, you know, economically, so they're for it. So I'm going to say this, that you protect the sacred, you protect your health and leave the AINA as it is.

Do not frap, do not put, you know, toxic gases and chemicals which there are blowouts and the fact that HB 1307 was fast tracked and was amended to do, you know, an EIS before exploratory drilling and the fact that DBED tried this, you know, many years earlier and now bringing it back, they failed earlier.

In addition to there's injunctions and court cases. You need to look at the people, you need to look at the health. There has been no long term studies of the community in Puna who have been gassed, have actually some passed away and are continuously, you know, subject to this toxic air and the noise pollution as well.

So no, please, please, please do not fast track this. Nor for areas under 300,000, nor for all of Hawaii without, how you say, the community consultation. But the fact that no to geothermal, it's do not frack. Do not desecrate. Do not destroy what will be permanent and have health effects. So again, just.

There's much more I can say, but just no opposition to this. Please do not passes through. Mahalo.

Okay, thank you. Next, Terry Napeahi in opposition.

Terry, are you there?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, can hear you.

All right. Terry Napeahi from Hawaii island, representing Pele Defense Fund, an organization that was created to protect the desecration of a deity to Pele and whose home is on Moku or Kabi. Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee. I would like to start to first say a way away to all the legislators of Moku Oklahomi who.

Who fast tracked Senate Bill SB 1269 and HB 1307 concerning the geothermal appropriation monies to do exploratory drilling on Moku Okabe and you have not listened to the numerous testimonies of your constituents. Shame on you. Your fellow legislators would have appreciated knowing the years of resistance geothermal has had on Hawaii Island.

To sum it up, 50 years and you failed to do so. The State of Hawaii has evidence of the resistance of geothermal development. All these years on Moku Okayabe and you have not educated not one of them. You passed this. You passed this. You passed this.

So I wanted to tell you that you should go and ask Iligan Representative Iligan of what happened when IDG came to Puna to go.

Can you keep your comments restricted to the Bill, please?

It is the. It is. Okay, okay. It is the Bill. The Bill is. Excuse me, I'm talking about the Bill. This is SB 1269 doing geothermal and exploratory drilling in in on our moku.

In 2016, Pele Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in environmental courts challenging the University of Hawaii to do an EIS before any exploratory drilling can be done on Hualalai. Just a reminder that the House Bill 1307 was amended to do an EIS Chapter 3 of 3343 before drilling the pele practitioners. To the pele practitioners, the drilling is desecration.

Just a reminder that every step geothermal projects will take on Moku Okabe, Pele Defense Fund will follow with litigation. Thank you.

All right, thank you. That's all I have. Who registered to testify online or in person? Oh, life of the land.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. In order to reach 100% sustainable renewable energy, we have to have firm renewables. There is no way around that. The only firm renewables that are viable right now today are geothermal and biofuels. We certainly respect communities. We don't think any drilling should occur where communities have concern.

We certainly want full environmental protections and a full EIS ahead of time. But in order for the state to reach 100%, we're going to have to either Go to geothermal if it's available. We don't know if it's available in other places. This should be a statewide issue and not just isolated to a few islands.

But we have to first discover it's there and then decide if we want, if it's cost recoverable. The only other alternatives are biofuels, which right now would be far more costly and have far greater impacts. Mahalo you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and the Members of the Committee. My name is Ryan Matsumoto and I'm here to stand on my written support on behalf of WICA Consulting. And if you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you very much.

Aloha Grace Bazilla on behalf of Keaukaha Action Network in opposition of this measure. We look at the effect on people and there's been so much that has happened to the community of Puna.

Imagine not being able to have a kid because you were in the area where there is a facility and you, you're just born a little girl, wanted to have a family and you just can't have babies because of what you've intaked being around a facility. That's just one example. And so Kilco Network says no.

On my personal side, I think that we're talking energy in here. I want to remind you guys that we're in Hawaii. Things are different in Hawaii. If you're talking about geothermal, you're talking about Pele. You want to talk about firm energy. I don't think that Pele acts the same here anywhere else.

So this is my reminder to you guys that you're in Hawaii. This is Pele territory. You don't know what you're working with. Even if you're just drilling for exploratory reasons, you could be really messing with something you don't know. An energy that you don't know. And I would put people above that.

Exploratory efforts, even if it's just to look what there is. Some things, you know, you just don't need to know what's there. It's not our space. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none Members, any questions? Question? Go ahead.

I mean, just to clarify, I know that when I talk with my constituents that a majority of them do support continuing to figure out if geothermal is viable on Hawaii. You know, my district is on Hawaii island and I know that Ulupono did a survey. Can you talk about the results of that?

Sure. You know, happy to provide a little bit more intel to the Committee. As well on that survey at a later point as well. So just want to highlight, I think everybody, I think from our survey we estimate that about 91% are very supportive of exploring any kind of renewable energy generation here within the state.

I think when we've posed the question around geothermal and the potential within certain communities across the state, I think what tended to be the case was that if folks were aware of projects or knew about it, so some folks like on the Big island, that they were actually a little bit more supportive of the project and I think it was more an educational thing.

So they were aware of what geothermal offers. I think that there's other islands across the state where they're just not aware of that technology and they could definitely benefit from some of the outreach that has been described today from other testifiers.

But again, I think when you start to bring in some of these trade offs that exist around renewable energy is no matter what project you bring on board, there's going to be some sort of impact to communities.

I think when we talk about our renewable energy goals, we talk about solar, we talk about wind farms, the potential of offshore wind, there's always going to be some kind of trade off that a community has to go through.

We do think that, you know, when we're presented with this challenge of how we're supposed to live in Hawaii and you know, a state that deals with the highest cost of energy out of anyone, how are we supposed to do this?

Well, we should be exploring those viable forms, technology forms that are actually pretty cheap for us to produce geothermal. Is that. I'm not trying to discount a lot of what the communities, you know, that are directly affected have really gone through. But I think we should at least.

It's responsible for the state to at least explore what the opportunity is across all the islands. Again, not to. To single out one particular community or whatnot, but just seeing where we have the opportunity to really develop a cheaper renewable source that would help us meet a mandate that we set here for 2045.

I think is is responsible policy moving forward.

All right, thanks.

Okay, you can go.

I have one other question. I'm sorry, dragging out you're hearing for DBET. Just. I know that without doing studies you can't know for sure, but I think that you have some, there's some idea and some maps have been generated.

A lot of preliminary studies have been done and I think there are a lot of potential locations that there's a desire to explore further that are not located near any residential areas.

And I think that part of the concerns that we see come from the siting of PGV next to residential area incompatible land uses for any kind of energy project really to be right next to where people are living. So yeah, I guess that was the question.

Just there are many sites on potential sites that are not near anywhere that people live.

Thank you representative to the discussions we had right now. A prior study has identified about five sites. Further exploration needs to be done on three of those five. But then to the point about impacted communities. The purpose of requesting these funds is to look at other areas outside of where current facilities might be. But if that's the.

And as Mr. Curtis said, we need to get to the commercial viability and that's what DBED is driving towards.

We just want to get to the point is the resource there for commercial viability and where is that resource at that point it's the private sector that can come in and help build those facilities, as Ulupono saying, to bring that energy generation. So allowing us to get some appropriation is to further explore.

Now we will be paralleling efforts with Hawaii State Energy Office who is looking at neighboring islands as well, not just Hawaii Island. So thank you.

So one, I have a question for you as well. Thank you. So if as this Bill was amended to prohibit the use of funds for drilling exploratory test or production wells, what would you use the money for?

Okay, so yeah, we're not there yet for the actual drilling. This is for surface exploration to look at potentially subsurface where those sites may be and then to do the community engagement as well as access to the areas to do further due diligence on the surface side.

In our framework for our geothermal exploration to commercial viability, we are looking at four different phases. So this would take us through second phase which is just identification of four to eight sites, the surface exploration for those sites and then the community engagement of those regional areas.

Can I ask a clarification? So in your testimony you say that you don't like those amendments, they'll delay things. But what you're saying now in person is that they're not problematic because you're not ready for those anyways.

We're not. We wouldn't have enough funding to even get into subsurface drilling. But we caution is when, if we start to put restrictions up front, are we going to start to limit ourselves where that viability might be because there is a mandate in place and if the viability shows, okay, it's in that community.

And if we're not able to get in there, then we're going to have to change that mandate. Or are we going to be serious about renewable portfolio standards? The state energy office's maps show a significant portion comes from geothermal.

And if we go to biofuels, if we go to solar, there's a land use competition there, competing with food security and housing. And we're doing that now and exploring that in deeped biofuels is an option, but comparing biofuels to solar, it's a much more intense land use demand.

So we have to look at all options on the table and provide that information back to the policymakers. Thank you

DBEDT if it's so it seems like the testimony has been that this is very. It could be a profitable source for private investors who want to get into selling this. Because comparative the other sources in comparison. Why do we need to invest state funds into this?

So the states. Our view is the state's responsibility is to reduce the risk and reduce the cost of finding that resource. And at that point we can then share that information to a utility entity and say, okay, there's potential here.

Our feasibility shows 5100 megawatts please going forward with developing the infrastructure and facility to generate the power and distribute it. But without reducing that risk and cost, we will never get there. And that's the portion we're looking at. From just the state standpoint, how do we reduce that risk and cost?

And so our framework goes just up to the feasibility and commercial viability. Yes, this resource is here. Here's what the potential is.

Okay, so then is it worth it to do all of this investment of state resources if you're only going to use it for Hawaii Island? Are you thinking about using the energy and moving that energy to other islands long term?

There's always been that discussion about undersea cable to transport that capacity, if that capacity is there. Hawaii State Energy office is looking at Maui County, an Oahu based off of future leads that there might be potential on on these counties as well for direct geothermal, to drill for geothermal and then to use that on the island.

I believe their intent is to eventually do slim hole boring to figure out if the water is down in these areas on Oahu and Maui.

Thanks, chair. Oh, thank you.

So you said DBEDT was. I appreciate you being here. Did you say you have an RFP out for drilling right now?

No, no, no. If we are asking for an appropriation to do an RFP so we can go out for the community engagement and the surface exploration, as well as identifying the four to eight sites.

Will this money, I understand it was $6 million. 3 million was released previously. This Bill is now asking for another 6 in $3 million increments. Why are we asking for another 6 million instead of just the rest of the three?

We wouldn't be able to spend all of that in the phased approach. So the overall, if we go through the phases, we want to get to the feasibility study, it's about, I believe just about 20 million total. But this is going to take about five years through all the phases.

So we're incrementing, we're going in phases on what we can spend on the task that's due in that time period.

Okay, so this Bill will take us. Will this Bill take us to the point where the next step is drilling?

This Bill will not. No, no, no. This Bill, we will not be drilling with these funds.

I mean, will it, will it take us to the point where you or someone other, another company could start drilling? Or are there more phases after that before we even break ground?

It may, it may lead into the idea or the lead to say, okay, let's go subsurface work. But again, you're looking at the surface. And then the risk is if you start, is that resource there? If not, then go to the next site.

So you could put that risk out there and say, okay, hey, we think there's potential here. Go down, but not with these funds. We would only be getting to identifying four, to what we project four to eight sites and doing the subsurface research.

Okay, so after the conclusion of the expenditure of these funds, after you spend it all, get all the data. Is that data being made public for companies to consider at that point jumping in?

We would be asking for reports as part of the RFP and then the companies. That wouldn't probably be the jumping in until, I think, until we get the feasibility out and saying, is that resource here? Then companies would probably come forward. We haven't gone that far in detail of that phase yet.

We're still like two phases out from actually going subsurface.

From somebody going subsurface, right? Yeah. Is it fair to say that this data will be out there in case someone else wants to take the rest of the steps themselves and thinks that it's data, or is that not a possibility?

I would say they could be. That's a financial risk probably on their end, but they would be more than welcome to say, no, we, we would take it.

So the data is going to be Publicly available? Okay. To a weird conversation the other day about the first $3 million that was, that was released. It seems like there was a pretty significant amount of money held back for some kind of administrative fee, something on the order of about 20% or more withheld.

Can you tell me more about that? That seems odd.

The initial appropriation from the ledger was 6 million. It was reduced to 3 million. There was collectively, I think it came out to about maybe in that area, 15 or 20. There's a standard 10% reduction or restriction per the Administration on the overall budget. Plus there was a, I think 5% administrative cost to Hawaii Technology Development Corp.

Where does the 10% go?

10% is held within a General Fund. So every year there's a line item, 10% across the board for all operating. And then just my experience and ways and means based on counts on revenues, the Administration or the Governor can decide to take the 10 release 5% of that depending on what the financial outlook is.

But there's always a 10% restriction in the across the board for a general fund.

So if we award $3 million for a $3.0 million project, we're holding back 10% of that just in the general fund. I mean that doesn't, doesn't the project cost 3 million? And if so, then obviously they know you're going to hold back 10%. So yeah, wouldn't they ask for 10% more?

I mean, this seems like a silly, kind of a silly shell game you guys are playing.

This is this, that's not our call on the restriction. We go forward. We, when we, when we get the appropriation, release the, the, they could go back and adjust on their deliverables, whatever those, whatever we put as the required deliverables and how that would impact. We would want to make the case to release the full appropriation.

But that's a call between Department of Budget and Finance and the Governor.

I'm just kind of surprised to hear this is a happening at all. Honestly. I mean, if we're asking them to honestly bid out their, their costs and then we say, well, thank you for telling now, here's 15% less. That's for what? I mean, honestly, like what is this money being used for?

It's being withheld for the Governor to do what with it, Kent?

Not speaking for the Governor, but given my experience with the budget, they do that just in case of uncertain times where you have, if you have a natural disaster, if you have a financial recession, a financial crisis that you have reserves that you're not expending the whole bank or, I mean, we have reserves for that.

But to give someone or some company 15% less or 20% less or more to cut that much, I mean, you're almost cutting their legs out. You're almost.

We do, when we do requests for allocations, we do ask for the full for appropriation.

So let's talk about this one in particular. The 3 million happened or what was approved, I guess went out. They withheld, let's say 15%. Did any of that money get released?

We're still working. No, we're working with BNF on the release.

So no.

Yeah, we're working with BNF on the Release now.

So if we appropriate another $3 million and another $3 million, 6 million total, can we expect the same thing to happen?

I wouldn't know the answer to that right now, Chair. But you're saying that what it sounded like was they're automatically going to withhold 10 to 15% if the past practice is, if they do release, there is a 10% restriction. Yes, that's best practice.

Okay. Ryan, can you speak on this, please?

Yes, but I mean, all my comments are. I would echo Director Wicker's statements regarding the administrative fees. I don't have any additional comments to provide.

How much was, how much was taken out of the first $3 million?

It was a little bit more than 15%, but it was pretty similar to what Director Wicker had explained exactly that none of that 10%.

I mean, 5% for administrative fees, I can understand. Another 10% for fun. Was it, was any of that ever released?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, DBEDT, one more time. So we're talking about, and we've certainly heard from the communities that it's a hardship to live next. I wouldn't want to live next to them. I understand the representative from Puna put in a restriction, a geographic restriction that I'm not against here.

But I'm wondering if we should expand that restriction to a certain radius around any residential areas to reduce the impact. How many of the potential sites that you've identified are within a, let's say a five mile radius of residential areas?

We haven't identified. Sorry, we haven't identified any sites yet. If we were able to get this appropriation that would be part of the request is to identify up to 48 sites.

Okay. I do understand that you folks want to get, want to drill or potentially put the power plants where they're mostly, you get the most bang for your buck. But we as a Legislature have to also protect our communities, too. I mean, we can't.

I'm honestly surprised this radius restriction is not already in there, because why would we even consider a site and have you folks waste my time and money examining a site that's close to residential areas that we know is not a viable site? Like, why even bother?

You know, has there been any community engagement so far that has said that has indicated to you how far away from residential areas you could place a geothermal plant?

And granted the new geothermal technology is very different than what was used, you know, way back then, I'm assuming the new plant would not have the same kind of emission problems or discharge problems that the old one is facing. But still, given the new technology to.

Given the new technology, do we have any idea how far the plant would have to be from residential areas to not. I mean, I don't want to say no adverse effect, but, you know, not significantly impact the residents?

No, we haven't had that information or that conversation yet. We haven't asked for that information because we haven't even gotten to that point yet with the funds. So to get that information that's part of the community engagement that we want to use the funds for identifying sites. And then what is that?

What is the community engagement and community impacts? So I don't have. I apologize. I don't have that information right now.

Okay. Laika, do you have any idea? You guys have been talking with the community?

I think at this moment, there's not specific information in regard to a quantifiable radius amount at this time, but we can assure you that we have started community engagement both on Hawaii island and here in Oahu to kind of have these conversations and address the concerns of the community proactively.

Okay. In other locations that are using geothermal, what kind of restrictions do they have?

In my experience, I'm most familiar with the area of New Zealand, specifically the North Island. And in that community, there's people living right up to the fence line of geothermal power stations. And it's you know, there could potentially be differences within the geothermal resource characteristics.

But to my understanding, there's a lot of similarities between the New Zealand geothermal and the Hawaii geothermal. Other than the lava cap that prevents the surface features, geothermal features, from being visible.

You're talking about geothermal features, not the power plant themselves. Yeah, they're using newer power plants than the one we have in.

Yeah, it just depends on the type of technology used, which is determined by the Temperature and the vicinity to the surface.

And so one, the two most popular within the industry is the, the binary system, which is what Ormad uses, which actually takes the geothermal fluid and heats another type of fluid to create the steam that goes to the turbine.

And then there's another type called the flash, which is more related to high temperature, which the geothermal steam goes directly through that turbine. And within the binary system, there's actually zero residual runoff or anything coming out of the plant. Within the flash system, there's about a 5 to 10%.

But you know, in the experience of New Zealand, that's significantly, significantly lower than just the natural emissions that come off of the geothermal steam field without any kind of power station or development infrastructure placed on it.

Is there any guarantee that whichever private company possibly drills and puts a power plant there, what technology they'll use.

No. That in the industry is all based on the science and the resource characteristics specifically related to the resource that you're trying to target.

Okay, PUC, I'm assuming you guys would have could be able to tell them they can't build a really crappy power plant, right? Is that fair? Okadi permits. Okay. Thank you.

One more question. Okay.

Excuse me, DBEDT regarding the state's investment in this process. You know, when I think about the continent and all the fracking they do everywhere, many, many states are those states investing their taxpayer monies into going around and determining where fracking, where fracking people, companies should be fracking.

I mean, it just feels like there's already going to be a profit margin for any, any person who goes down that path.

I follow the question. I don't, I don't know. I would have to go look into that.

Okay, Members, let's move on to the next measure. Next we have Senate Bill 5.

Wait, do we do that?

1 589 SD1 HD1 relating to renewable energy. You have DCCA the comments.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee stand on our testimony providing comments available for questions. Thank you.

Right next we have Public Utilities Commission comments.

We'll stand on our testimony providing comments.

Thank you. IBEW Local 1260 opposition. Not present. Hawaiian Electric in opposition.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, my name is James Abraham testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric in opposition to Senate Bill 589. We oppose this measure because we feel like it is unnecessary. The PUC has ongoing administrative proceedings that are addressing the issues that are the subject of this bill.

And we believe that that's the appropriate venue for the interested parties to look at these complicated issues and the PUC to make a determination on what is in the public interest. I just wanted to touch on the retail wheeling provision.

There's a wheeling docket that's been ongoing before the PUC for a while now, and the current provision would frustrate the progress because it does not align with the schedule that's ongoing in that proceeding. So we prefer that the committee defer this measure and allow the PUC to continue its efforts in the proceedings that are already ongoing.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Solar Energy Association in support.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Rocky Mold, Hawaii Solar Energy Association. We stand in strong support of this bill. We do need this accelerated DER target in order to address challenges with our grid energy adequacy and grid stability. The primary feature of this bill is setting this ambitious but achievable installation target.

And then again, we do need this and then setting the compensation structure and the program structures underneath and sufficiently calibrating them so that you can achieve this target.

And we don't think if we don't set those, the compensation rates effectively and sufficiently, we're not going to see consumers of the energy, the customers, giving their energy back to the grid as part of these grid services programs. So it's really about creating these grid service programs where customers are incentivized to participate in them.

I'll stand on my written comments in support and here for questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Holu Ho' U Energy LLC in support.

Aloha. My name is Ted Peck. This bill has three purposes. One, is establishing the installation goal. Two is authorizing retail wheeling, and three is ensuring the compensation for distributed energy resource export is fair and based on market. The first two. I'm sorry, the first and the third objectives are related.

The retail wheeling I do not comment on because I don't feel like I know it well enough to be able to comment on. But I do know that it will largely serve large customers.

I also know that it will change the business model for the utility and I know that it is not related to the first and third objectives. So even though they're in the same bill, I would encourage the committee to consider them as really two different components.

The first and third and the second, and the relationship between the first and third is that the third objective of fair compensation will help enable the first objective. Historically, over the last 15 years, we've seen about 80 megawatts of rooftop solar a year on average come onto the grid which is about 8,000 rooftops.

So really what we're talking about is a 25% stretch goal. But it's going to be critical in order to reach that stretch goal if the compensation for people participating would help.

And then my last comment to buttress what I said is when you're getting to at the end of this goal, 25% of the energy on the grid coming from rooftops, it's really important that the utility has a hook to be able to manage that rooftop energy in conjunction with the other energy and grid services is a pathway for enabling them to do that.

I'm available for your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify this measure?

Aloha chair, vice chair and committee members. Henry Curtis, Life of the Land. While we think about wheeling and the concept of wheeling as electrons moving down a line, really it's simply an accounting trick. You produce energy in one place, you get credit for it in another place.

A few years ago we were in a docket lifeland consumer advocate here, Hiko and the University of Hawaii, because the University of Hawaii has a mandate to reach 100% net zero before the state. And the idea was you'd have a large solar farm in Ewa and you would count the credit towards the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

And the effort was to figure out whether you could set up a mechanism where UH, would actually financially gain from it. It would be profitable for them but it would not negatively impact other ratepayers. And in conclusion was no. So the PUC now has an open docket to look at on more general terms.

Look at intra governmental wheeling. And it's interesting because there are a number of parties in the docket were on the sidelines looking at the docket and making comments.

But the number of parties in the docket that actually want to pursue wheeling and indicated they want to pursue wheeling are just a few because a lot of people love the sound of wheeling and figure it's, it's just something to do. But the mechanism and actually getting companies to commit to it is very small.

But the PUC docket is the way to go. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

So Mr. Curtis, your position is you're in opposition to this bill?

What take calls part two of the three parts.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Members, let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 1365 HD1 relating to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. First up, we have Hawaii Medical Board in support.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, Chelsea Fukunaga on behalf of the Hawaii Medical Board. The board will stand on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Queen's Health System in support.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I just want to thank you for hearing this important bill that makes the IMLC fully, you know, able to work. And we're in strong, strong support of it. Thank you.

Thank you. HMSA in support.

Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chan, members of the committee. Walden Au behalf of HMSA, we stand on our written testimony in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Kaiser Permanente in support, not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Go ahead.

I think I submitted testimony, but maybe made a mistake. This is Jack Lewin here, Administrator of SHPDA. When strong support of this bill. It's an important additional protection we need to add. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Jack, just a quick question. Why wasn't this included in the, was it just an oversight?

You know, who knows why it somehow fell through the cracks. I think what happened is these. The doctors in other states were probably, they probably had a background check in their state when they got licensed.

Years may have passed and now they're coming into our interstate pact and it was just sort of an element that wasn't included, which we now we need to put in statute. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1429 SD2 HD1 relating to medical cannabis. First up we have Department of Health in support.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair and Members. Andrew Goff, the Office of Medical Cannabis Control and Regulation, Department of Health. This is a very important bill for our Department. Firstly, it would give care to restore caregivers the ability to grow cannabis for their patients.

That Authority did Sunset December 31, 2024 and we do believe it is an important access point for patients that cannot grow their own. That being said, we would note that the current law allows only one patient, one caregiver to assist only one patient.

And we would ask that that one to one relationship be maintained to reduce the risk of commercial operations and diversions. The bill also extends our interim rulemaking authority and most importantly extends six exempt P positions. These positions would be up at the July 1, I believe and it is my entire dispensary staff.

So without those positions being extended, we can't really operate. So it be really important to get that in. Thank you. Very much.

Thank you. Wahoo. Cannabis Farm Alliance in opposition at present. Akamai Cannabis Consulting Comments.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Dr. Clifton Otto offering comments. You have my written testimony. I just wanted to highlight that this is a very important bill for patients who need help with cultivation on islands with the dispensary.

So much so that the Governor issued Executive Order 2406 and asked the Legislature to address this issue this session. There's also another way that we could help patients with cultivation, and that would be to expand the ratio of patients to primary caregiver from 1 to 5.

This provision was adopted by HHS in the Senate and carried by JDC and unfortunately removed by Health before coming to you there. Agencies are making arguments that it would be dangerous to have a caregiver take care of five patients because this would mean 550 plants on one property.

But the law already allows five patients to grow together at 10 plants per patient. Patients are already allowed to have 50 plants on one property. It's also argued that expanding the ratio would encourage commercialization. But patients are already allowed to assist each other with the costs of cultivation growing privately on one property.

In addition, an argument's being made that if a primary caregiver was allowed to take care of five patients, they would be transporting 20 ounces of cannabis from a dispensary. And from my own experience with my patients, patients rarely purchase more than one ounce at a time, and that often lasts them for a couple of months.

So I think it would be very unlikely that a primary caregiver purchasing for five patients would be carrying more than what's probably allowed for one patient.

And I'd also like to note that it could be very helpful for patients who cannot travel to do a dispensary to have a primary caregiver who could purchase for more than one patient. So this bill also includes enforcement measures that I think will discourage criminal activity and make it easier for the Department to enforce the law.

And so I'm asking that you please consider adding back the provision to allow a primary caregiver to care for and cultivate 45 patients. Thank you for considering my testimony. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Kira Oahu comments. Thank you. Robert Bentz on Zoom.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Bentz. I'm in opposition in the current form with a very important amendment that would protect patients that require this to survive, such as myself. The Section 2 that was added adds huge fines to this already dwindling program.

No one's going to want to find a sign to have a fine. A lot of people are not even using a card because they can just grow. And chances of anybody busting them for 10 card or 10 plants in their backyard, pretty little small. And the dispensaries have really low quality.

And the import market is so much cheaper, even in the black market, locally, so much cheaper. But I need cannabis to survive. I had a birth defect and it. I had to learn how to walk and talk after brain surgery. There's four different times that it saved my life. And everyone's endocannabinoid system is very different.

Growing is really therapeutic. So it's a very important program. It's kind of made national news, the local news. And it was originally designed just to restore the program to what it was. But adding up to $5,000 fines will really discourage patient participation.

I was also a Member of the hemp task force, and as a hemp farmer, I can say the majority of hemp farms in Hawaii are either having their processing done in different states or pretty much going out of business because even if there was unlimited resources to enforce of these things, it still wouldn't work because the illicit operators don't have cards.

So please protect patients and remove the fines model. Thank you.

That's all. I have registered to testify in person online. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Yes, please Chair to the Department. So I think we heard Dr. Otto's testimony about how there's a lot of. There's already embedded in the law, these accommodations for growing and caretaking. So if it's possible, then why limit it in this bill?

So currently the current law doesn't allow for a caregiver to grow for more than one patient. So that is the State of the law. And that's. We're just asking to maintain that State of the law. Dr. Otto was asking to increase that for a caregiver to grow for up to five patients.

And we have in the past stated that could present enforcement concerns because while caregivers might not normally buy more than an ounce for each patient, the authorization for a caregiver would. Would be to buy up to 4 ounces per patient.

So a caregiver could purchase from a dispensary up to 20 ounces, they could create up to 20 ounces of usable cannabis product, and they could grow up to 50 plants. And the concern is that that authority for that kind of that size could be abused and could be turned into a commercial operation.

And realistically right now with the program, if, if you are growing and selling to somebody, you have to have a license for a dispensary, not a caregiver.

Okay. I mean. Okay, so it just seems like you guys are talking about different laws, but there's still that. Was anything that he said, was it not accurate?

I mean, I don't know about the accuracy of everything that was in his testimony because I haven't reviewed it. But what he shared here on the screen. Patients are able to grow at a. So the limit of patients that can grow at a single location is five patients.

But currently the law only allows a caregiver to grow for one patient. So if you have five patients, they can either grow for themselves or they can get a caregiver to grow for them. You can have five caregivers growing for each patient, but you can only have five patients at one location.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's move on to the next measure. We have Senate Bill 1281 SD1 HD SD2 HD1 relating to telehealth. First up we have DCCA insurance division.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Chun, members of the committee. The, the insurance division stands on its written testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Health in support.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Wanda Naonishi with the Department of Health. We stand under written testimony in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Human Services in support.

Hello chair, members of the committee, Department of Human Services stands on it's written testimony and support. Thank you.

Than you. State Health Planning and Development Agency in support.

Aloha again chair, vice chair. We- We think that there's. It's a bit of a complicated bill. We don't know what's going on with federal funding in this area so we'd like to extend the benefits here.

Obviously there's, there's some issues in there about audio versus video but for people on the street or for end stage renal folks in home, we, we need, we need the audio for now. We don't know how that whether federal funding will continue for that.

So we'd recommend that we give it at least two years before we sunset this. But sunset it at some point since policy and funding policies are likely to change.

Thank you. Hawaii Primary Care Association in support. Not present. Aloha Care in support. Not present. Hawaii Association of Health Plans with comments.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Rachel Wilkinson on behalf of the Hawaii Association of Health Plans and we stand in our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you. AARP Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Audrey Suga Nakagawa from AARP and we stand in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Mental Health Coalition in support.

Aloha. I'm Melissa Pavlicek for the Mental Health Coalition. We represent the Hawaii Psychological Association, the Hawaiian Islands Marriage and Family Therapists Association, Hawaii Counselors Association Association and the National Association of Social Workers. This is National Social Worker Month. We support this measure.

We also support 100% reimbursement and removing of requirements that would require video only or video included with audio only for initiating the patient relationship. But this is an important measure and we do not want to see the reimbursement for audio only sunset. So we ask that you support this. Thank you.

Thank you.

HMSA in support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Walden, on behalf of HMSA, stand on a written testimony in support of this bill. I think it's very important that we continue the intent of Act 107 from 2023 to provide audio only telehealth for behavioral health services. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Next up, we have Senate Bill 1509 SD1HD1 relating to prescription drugs. First up, we have SHPD in support.

We stand on our testimony in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Walgreens in support.

You're muted.

Sorry. Can you hear me now?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, thank you. Tiffany Ajima. On behalf of Walgreens, we stand in support, inn support of the study and in support of the SD1. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Pharmacists Association in support.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Corrie Sanders, Director of the Hawaii Pharmacists Association. I'll stand on our written testimony. I had provided some additional comments about the study and some amendments we could make to make some of that data collection a little tighter.

But I was looking at LRB's comments this morning, and they don't think that they have the capacity and the expertise to conduct this study. So I guess my question to the committee, after saying, you know, we're happy to support whatever entity you think is appropriate stakeholders, we keep this bill moving.

Drug pricing without increasing health premium costs is one of our major initiatives and certainly something we want to look at decreasing in the long run. So we're happy to support whatever entity you think is most appropriate.

I would like to propose maybe the Office of the Auditor is the correct office for this to go under if they have the capacity. But happy to stand by for any questions or comments you have.

Thank you. Molokai Drugs, Inc., in support. That's all I have. Who registered to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Yeah, just one for the pharmacy, Hawaii Pharmacists Association. There were issues raised on whether PBMs would be able to or be willing to share proprietary information and how that might hamper the study, whether the study would be. Would get useful information to actually use if they refuse to or not required to share proprietary information.

Can you, can you comment on that? I mean, if.

Yeah, I can tell you what we're seeing in other states. So most states will give some kind of, they'll, I guess, put some money aside so that the PBMs are audited by a third party. So 3 Access is a really common third-party investigator that's looked at multiple states.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure how we would do this internally because of the proprietary information. We could certainly swing the study into looking at what other states have done in evaluating their legislative initiatives. And maybe that's a good place to start.

But I think you're right in assuming that that proprietary information is not going to be released.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Let's move on to our last measure, Senate Bill 332 SD1HD1 relating to foreclosures. We have Lahaina Strong in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, my name is Katie Austin testifying on behalf of Lahaina Strong. We do stand on our written testimony in support. I just wanted to give a quick overview of what we are seeing about the reality on the ground and how imperative it is for these protections to be implemented.

The foreclosure moratorium ending has caused a bit of chaos for our local residents. And our Lahaina Community Land Trust is currently working diligently on even pulling families out of foreclosure. And we do see this looming worry that we are going to have these investment vultures that will be coming through trying to take properties from local communities.

So we do urge the support of this bill, and mahalo for your time.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Only had one registered testifier. Seeing none. Questions, members? Seeing none.

Oh.

Okay. I mean, well, maybe, Katie, I don't know, maybe you can answer this, but do you feel that the second part, does it protect consumers? I guess the second part is about eligible bidders.

Sorry. I do have a question, but I'm not sure who to ask. It's one of those.

Oh, there's only one testifier.

I mean, I think that the main goal is for to give our community every opportunity to be able to purchase these homes if can, or the land trust as well. So I do think that really helps.

And if families are in that tough position to have to sell, you know, the Land Trust is working diligently to try and do everything that they can. I don't know if that answers your question.

Yes.

Okay, thanks.

Okay. But generally speaking, you're in support of the entire bill in this correct form? In this, in this form.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's take a brief recess. Recess.

Reconvening. First up on the agenda, we have SB 137 SD2 HD1 relating to electric utilities. Chair's recommendation after hearing the testimony at this time, is to defer this measure.

The Chair agrees that it would be extremely difficult to not violate SEC rules by allowing this and this, the timeline just, it just doesn't work.

I do appreciate though the concept, and we do want to encourage co-ops, but if there is a co-op listening right now that is thinking about forming, perhaps you could form right now and make an offer. Really up to you. Anyway, Chair's recommendations to defer.

Moving on to SB 1220 SD2 HD1 relating to renewable gas tariffs Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Oh, I'm okay. Okay.

Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting On Senate Bill 1220 SD2 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Chair and Vice Chair will vote aye. Representative Ilagan. Excused. Representative Ichiyama. Representative Iwamoto.

No.

Representative Kong. Representative Lowen.

Aye.

Representative Marten. Excused. Representative Tam.

Aye.

Representative Pierick. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Yeah. Thank you. Members. Moving on to SB 1500 SD2 HD1 relating to electric utilities. Chair's recommendation is to pass this measure as is. Members, any question? Any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting On Senate Bill 1500 SD2 HD1, recommendation is to pass unamended. Noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan and Marten. Are there any Members who wish to vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to SB 191 SD1 HD1 relating to energy assistance. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as-is. We will be suggesting a, in the Committee report, a $5 million amount for the blank. Members, any comments?

Yep. I'd like to thank the introducers of this Bill. You know, the intent is good. We want to help those who have high cost electricity to be able to, you know, meet their needs, have their bills paid.

But I think the, the means and how this Bill is accomplished is basically wealth redistribution or socialism. We let's take tax dollars from people all over the state, let's allocate it towards lower income people so that they can pay their electricity bills. So I don't. I'm not in favor of that.

Thank you Members. Any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Right. Members, voting On Senate Bill 191 SD1 HD1. Recommendation is to pass unamended, noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan and Marten. Are there any Members who wish to vote with reservations? Any noes?

No.

No for Rep. Pierick. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 1269 SD1 HD1 relating to geothermal resources. Chair's recommendation - we will be noting the $3 million a year amount in the Committee report for the blank appropriation. Chair's recommendation two is to add language requiring a blank radius restriction around residential areas for consideration of potential geothermal sites.

And I will be, if the next Chair is listening, I will be working to try to figure out, figure that out before it gets to your Committee. Blank amount for right now though. Members, any comments? Yeah. Vice Chair for the vote.

Members, voting on Senate Bill 1269 SD1 HD1. Recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan and Marten.

Are there any Members who wish to vote with reservations? Any noes?

No.

No for Iwamoto and no for Rep. Pierick. Any other noes? Seeing none Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. Moving on to SB589 SD1 HD1 relating to renewable energy. Chair's recommendation is to amend this Bill to restrict the wheeling just to state and local government.

I'm not super comfortable with this Bill but I do want to keep it moving to continue on the conversation. Members any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting On Senate Bill 589sd1hd1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan and Marten. Are there any Members wish vote with reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations for Rep. Iwamoto. Any other reservations? Any noes?

No.

For Rep. Kong. Any other noes? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to SB 1365 HD1 relating to the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact. Chair's recommendation is pass this as-is. Members, any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Members voting on Senate Bill 1365 House Draft 1. Recommendation is to pass unamended, noting the excused absences of Representatives Ilagan and Marten.

Are there any Members who vote with reservations? Any noes? Seeing none Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 1429 SD2 HD1 relating to medical cannabis. Chair's recommendation is to insert a retroactive date of January 1st 2025 only to apply to Section 3.

We want to extend the rulemaking powers and exempt personnel sections, which are 4 and 5, to be effective June 28th, 2025 to prevent any lapses. Page 5, line 15 we need to change the section reference to 329-122 to accurately reflect the correct section there. Members any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.