Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Environment

Foreign and welcome to this Tuesday, April 1, 20205:10am hearing in the Hawaii State Senate. This is conference room 229 and this is a Joint Hearing between the Hawaii State Senate Committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and Agriculture and the environment to consider one set of resolutions.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 198 and SR Senate Resolution 178 encouraging Hawaii insurers and the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to reduce insurance costs on local residents by pursuing subrogation claims against polluters knowingly responsible for worsening climate impacts affecting Hawaii insurance rates. Safiya Gravel in support.

That's all the submitted testimony we have from individuals who indicated they would be present to submit remarks on this resolution. In total, there were 47 pieces of written testimony all in support and one organization offering comments. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on these resolutions, please? Good morning.

Good morning. Chairs, members of the committee. My name is Josh Danbro. I'm the former Chief Resilience Officer for the City and County of Honolulu. When I was there we did look at the implications of on insurance and the financial implications of the climate crisis. They are massive and I really appreciate that.

The Senate is looking at alternative ways of pulling in funds and offsetting the costs on local consumers and residents to where the profits have been made over the last couple decades. So appreciate your scrutiny on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this set of resolutions? Okay, seeing none. Members, any questions for Mr. Danbro? Okay, seeing none. Having conferred with the co chair we are prepared to make recommendations. Okay, so the recommendation on this on these two resolutions is to pass with amendments.

In recognition of the concerns voiced by the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council we will amend the first be it resolved clause in SCR 198 on page 2, line 20 and the associated clause on in SR 178 to replace references to- to replace the-

the lang- the words polluters knowingly responsible with polluters who knowingly engage in misleading and deceptive practices regarding the connection between their products and climate change which is a reference to the earlier whereas clause. Just to clean it up and be very specific about who we're talking about. There are also technical non substantive amendments throughout. Members, any discussion?

Okay, seeing none. Vice chair passing with amendments SCR 198 and SR 178. Chair votes aye.

[roll call]

[roll call]

Thank you. Thank you. We're adjourned. Okay. Good morning.

It's our 10:02am Joint Committee agenda. This is Senate Health and Human Services and Commerce and Consumer Protection in Conference Room 229, Tuesday, April 12th, 2025. I'll yield to the lead chair.

Okay, thank you very much. So calling SCR226, SR201, urging the med Quest Division, the Department of Human Services and Developmental Disabilities Division of DOH to amend the eligibility criteria for the Medicaid 1915 Home and Community based services waiver. First up, Hawaii State Department of Health providing comments. Okay, thank you very much.

Next we have Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Chairs. Thank you. Daintry Bartoldus, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I'm going to ask my staff, Chase Silvert, give our testimony on this. He's worked with the DD division for the last year on this topic and he could give a better insight quicker than I can. Thank you very much.

Okay. Hi, Chase Silvert. Really briefly. So we. We appreciate the intent of this measure or this resolution, but. So essentially we worked with DDD closely for the last year or so because their administrative rules were not doing the correct eligibility.

There was a memo that we do have copies of that fixes this issue because they were not serving all people with IDD that they were supposed to memo fixes that, but the administrative rules themselves are still incorrect as they are written. The memo is a kind of a band aid fix to that.

And we do just want to clarify that, yes, DDD does not provide eligibility or does not necessarily qualify somebody for waiver services, but you have to qualify for their program to get those waiver services. So their eligibility does matter. And thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Let's go through and then you can ask. Don't worry about it. Okay, thank you. Hawaii Disability Rights center in support. I see. Lois Erchik, please proceed.

Yes, good morning. Thank you, Chair. Just picking up on what Chase and Daintree said. Yes. So I'm glad that you folks have got the memo because the resolution has some factual inaccuracies and the testimony of the Department has some inaccuracies. But the larger issue. Chair, I think we've been discussing this for a while. Trial.

There's a tremendous amount of finger pointing that goes on you have both AMHD and DD are housed at Kino Holly. They're in the same building and they don't really talk to each other. And we have people, despite the testimony of DOH, if someone has a mental health issue, DD sends them to AMHD.

And if someone has a DD issue, AMHD sends them back over there. So they may say that there's no problem in their testimony, but the reality of our experience is that there's been a lot of back and forth. And whether it's the waiver or something else, we need to have some better coordination to get them properly served.

So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have. Excuse me, I was just handed the memo that I was reviewing while talking to you. So next up, we have Hcan Chevelle Davis in support. And we have Cody Sula, Ironworker Stabilization Fund and support. Cody, are you present on Zoom? Anybody else wishing to testify on SCR226SR201.

Okay, you have one minute. Angela.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of CARES in strong support because the goal is to be helpful of those with disabilities. And so I work with seniors at the senior daycare, the senior center. And, you know, health conditions, it's a very sensitive topic.

So if we were to lower the eligibility requirements, then more people can get benefits. Right? So according to this, there are a few disabilities that are not eligible. And so such as dementia, substance abuse, addiction disorders, sensory impairments, learning disabilities.

If you were to look at the Social Security Act and SSI from the federal office to see what illnesses do qualify, then you can match the definitions and the illnesses and the conditions to the Social Security Act from the federal level because these are illnesses that do qualify for benefits.

Thank you, Angela. I have a human timer here, so. Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to testify? SCR226SR201. Okay, Members, any questions? Senator McKelvey? No, we can pass one question. Okay, I guess the question is for me.

Lois Erhu, Department of Department of Health, Council on Developmental Disabilities just provided us with a memo from Director Frank basically saying that which they testified to fixes the, the what the resolution requires. And. But I'd like to point out that this resolution is asking Department of Human Services to and they didn't testify to change the rule.

So do we. Do we even need this considering that the memo with Department of Health that apparently DD Council, they finally did talk is saying that that that fixes the issue.

Yes.

Well, let me go talk. Okay. Louis, you got Time off you got unmute yourself, does it? Well, yeah. No.

Just trying to answer your question. Just to answer your question. My understanding is the memo addresses things like spinal cord and muscular injuries. The memo doesn't impact mental health issues. That's my understanding.

Okay, thank you.

And I think that's the key. I think that's the key. We're getting sidetracked on this whole thing about neuromuscular. That's kind of been resolved by the memo. Apparently. Maybe DD didn't get the memo from their Director. I'm not sure, but they should have. But the issue today is really the mental health and the DD dual diagnosis.

The neuromuscular is not really the issue before you today.

Why do we even need the Department of Human Services involved in this thing?

Well, because they're the state Medicaid agency. Yeah. They're in charge of the waiver. They actually submit the waiver to CMS because they're the state Medicaid agency. But DD essentially does the groundwork to actually implement it on behalf of them.

Okay. So thank you very much, Shay Silver. Coming up. Do we even need this resolution? Because the memo you provided us says that the. You testify that rules need to be changed. The memo from Director Fink says this memo serves until they are able to fix the rules. So do we even need this resolution?

I would say it wouldn't necessarily make too much of a difference either way. They are trying to serve people with intellectual and development disabilities. Now, based on that memo, there are concerns and issues with how mental health is treated as a co diagnosis, but that's a larger conversation.

Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Respond to Mr. Uruchic's points. I mean, do you agree with him that the memo kind of doesn't and then this, the resolution deals with mental health?

Yes, I do agree with Lou that there are mental health concerns and issues, and he would be able to speak better to it since his agency directly handles the issues of the reso.

Is. Is that.

Yes, that if that is the value of the reso. That is a value. And it is correct to name the Department of Human Services in the reso because they handled the waiver. And technically, essentially, DHS handles it above DDD, who does the implementation.

Is this tied up to that whole electronic system migration thingy that was in the news? I don't sit on the bracket. But dealing with similar terms. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Stick around. Okay. I'm looking at the actual resolution because I'm thinking about deferring it as not being Needed because all it does is basically urge the Department of Human Services and you. Really? Developmental Disabilities Division. That's not me. Well, the. Excuse me. The development. Sorry, Council of Developmental Disabilities.

But I'm sorry, it's a Developmental Disabilities Division to amend the eligibility criteria. And it sounds like if they're not going to amend the disability criteria more than this memo. I mean, it sounds like you need a Bill that's more comprehensive rather than just telling them we want you to do better, which is what this resolution says.

Yeah, My. My take on that would be two things.

The first is that if the resolution being passed would allow for a better conversation to happen in the interim to address these issues, that would be a value, but to actually have an immediate effect and force anybody to do anything, you'd want to go the measure route if you did see something going wrong and we needed to force them to change their eligibility.

Okay. So thank you.

Thank you. At the end of the day, all residents urge. Do you need any of those?

No. But they're finally talking. Okay. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Okay. Seeing that right now, at this time, I am deferring this resolution and hope that during the interim, you folks work towards a more comprehensive Bill that would do exactly what you folks need instead of what we have right now. Thank you very much.

Or we'll just write it anyway.

Yeah, well. But we need your help to write us. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you very much. So with that, the joint session is adjourned.

Good morning and welcome. This is our Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection 10:05 am decision making agenda. It's Tuesday, April 1, 2025. We're here to make a recommendation on House Bill 799, HD 2, SD 1, relating to healthcare.

This measure was heard on March 27th, and we deferred decision making till today. We're ready for TCA whenever there are. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments. With the prior concurrence of the HHS Chair, we'll be making the following changes.

In section 2, page 3, lines 9 to 11 of the measure, we'll strike subsection B, which would have required a written transfer agreement to transfer a patient from an organized ambulatory healthcare facility to a licensed hospital. We'll also shorten the sunset of the measure to three years, sunsetting on June 30, 2028.

And since the period of this bill is shortened, we'll remove the timeline proposed in section 3. There are also some technical, non-substantive amendments throughout. And there is a defective effective date in the measure. These, I just note for the Members.

These are the latest version of compromise changes between the parties who have now begun to finally talk to each other, which I'm very appreciative of. Any discussion? Going once. Good. We're in... We're in the DM already. Yeah. Yeah.

We're just a work in progress between the parties. I realize it's a pretty significant measure. So we plan to keep the discussion going as we move into conference. If there are no comments, then Vice Chair for the vote. With amendments, Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Measure's adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Good morning. We're convening the committees on Transportation, Culture, and the Arts and Commerce and Consumer Protection on our joint 10:04am agenda here in state capitol conference room 229. We have one set of measures on the agenda.

We'd ask everyone to make sure you have your written testimony submitted, and we will be asking you to keep your testimony concise to make sure there's time to get to everybody. That being said, we're going to take testimony on both the Senate Concurrent Resolution and Senate Resolution simultaneously, if it's all right with you.

...Chair. So up first is Senate Concurrent Resolution 222 and SR 197 urging all twin companies to have on site automated tele machines to ensure accessible payment options for vehicle owners. And testifying first is the Office of Consumer Protection. Good morning.

Thank- in opposition. Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify. We have testimony from one other individual in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this morning? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

OCP? I'm just, I'm just, I mean wouldn't behoove consumers to have ATMs at these tow places so they can get cash when they're on Sand Island and discover that it's a cash-only operation.

Most of these tow companies already do have ATMs on site. There's Act 60 that was passed last session active July 1st which requires toll companies to accept credit and debit card payments. So any toll company not allowing these types of payments are in violation of state consumer protection laws.

We are concerned that encouraging the tow companies to have the ATMs would allow them to continue to skirt around. I would just say that since the effective date of - I'm sorry Act 60 last year - we've received from one particular to a company 20 complaints, half of which dealt with refusing to accept credit card and debit card payments.

So it is still an ongoing issue. And they do have an ATM on site. I think we need to look about, you know, ways to better enforce that and to make sure the toll companies are...

It's like it seems to be the theme of the day with resume. So next year we should do a Bill then, Right. To give you guys more teeth and enforcing.

Perhaps. Yeah.

While you're at it, you also could probably look at the, at the fees that these ATMs that they...I think this is the hidden story is that the ones that do have ATM, some of them, the fees are just like, wow.

Yeah, the fees are an area of concern. In addition, Most of the ATMs cap how much you can withdraw at $200. Most of the toes are over $200. So you're making multiple withdrawals, multiple...

So we were- This Committee's had the time and the motivation to amend the reso. They should perhaps focus on addressing them to have reasonable fees and to utilize ATMs that don't have caps or something to that effect...

Perhaps.

...to help you. Okay, thanks.

Are there further questions?

I have a question.

Chair.

This one operation in question, what's the status of the enforcement now and what is the challenge?

The challenge is, as we continue to try and reach resolutions with this tow company, more complaints are coming in. We have a variety of different complaints dealing with this company. We've gone through subpoenas, examinations under oath. They've expressed a willingness to try and settle these complaints. So we're in the process...

Do you have no immediate enforcement mechanism to require compliance?

We do not. Typically, enforcement would come through civil action, civil litigation. We don't have the ability at this point to, you know, impose fees or, if they're not licensed, to revoke any licenses or anything like that.

So we require, wrely on the consumers to make the complaints to us. So it's likely that the complaints are underreported as well.

Have any of the, are the...the way your statute is situated, are any of the complaints you've received at any different part of the process publicly available? Public....you know.

I'm not sure if the complaints are public. I would suspect they're not. We could certainly provide them to the Committee.

You could just provide the name of the tow company in question.

I would. Because we're in ongoing negotiations with them. I would prefer not to do that. I'm happy to discuss with the Committee companies that we're having issues with. Maybe not in session, but as of right now we are actively trying to...

Pursuant your statute, you're not at the point where you can publicly disclose. For RICO violations that have come to a conclusion, they publicly publish the results of those enforcements.

Yes.

And so that's the question here and I think it's pertinent to the discussion.

Yes, we're not at that point where the discussions have closed or will be settled anything. We're on back and forth negotiations about settlement opportunities, trying to gain restitution for some consumers, some civil damages to vehicles as well.

So there, there are a lot of complaints that we're trying to solve. So in addition to the 20 that came up since last July, we have about 20 additional complaints that came before that. Yep.

Yeah, it seems like the system isn't working.

Yeah, it's like they're gaming. I mean what's the negotiation going to stop and you guys are just going to drop the hammer and refer this to prosecutors...I mean, or would.

It's still productive at this point. We are reaching a point where we would look towards filing some civil actions.

Respectfully, it doesn't seem to be productive if you're continuing to field new complaints while you're working up. And these are probably complaints, you know, of nominal amounts until you get into the, these complaints about damages and things like that.

It does just feel like there either needs to be some sort of threshold where your office can elevate the, the immediacy of your enforcement or the level of punishment available to the operator, or we need to take some closer look at the leg- your statutory authority. I'll stop there.

Just one follow up. I may have missed this in the conversation, but are you aware if this company has state or county contracts?

No, no state or county contract.

Okay, thank you. Okay, any further-

Senator DeCoite. I mean DeCorte. Apologies.

Question, Chair.

How many of the tow truck companies are, like, repeat, having continuous repeat complainers?

I would say we have about...aside from the city contract, we have about four on island. We're looking at two or three on the neighboring...each neighboring island. So Kauai has two or three that we're looking at. And I believe there are some complaints coming out of Maui.

So the worst case scenario for a tow company to have continual complaints is how many complaints at a time? Maybe two complaints at a time, four complaints at a time, five complaints at a time. I mean are they, do they really feel the wrath of any kind of warnings or consequences?

We have had tow companies, we send them, you know, demand letters and they have made reimbursements. I would say most of the companies we have complaints with, generally it's five or less. The one that we are dealing with has, like I said, close to 40.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay.

Further discussion. Seeing- Oh, Senator Richards.

Yeah, just discussion. No, no further question. Doesn't sound like we need to do this. So I'm not sure a...

...I don't think that this is the right thing. It sounds like there's a better way to fix this stuff. So.

Thank you. If there's no further questions, why don't we go straight into decision making?

Okay. Chairs having conferred, want to recommend that we, I think in spite of the - or in light of the conversation, turn this into a task force to dive into some of the issues that were raised and see if we can get some recommendations for next year's Legislature to address some of these issues.

And we'll add OCP and our good friends over there as the conveners and appropriate stakeholders or government operations. That said, any discussion about that? If not, I'm going to make that recommendation.

But just for the record, because we don't have quorum for TCA Committee, we'll defer decision making on our end to today at 3:03pm here or in conference room 224.

CPN, same recommendation. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, passing SCR 222 and SR 197 with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none, measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Okay. Good morning and welcome. It's Tuesday, April 1st, 2025. This is our 10:06 a.m. agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. This is the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. On this agenda we're considering five resolutions, concurrent resolutions and their accompanying Senate resolutions.

The first is SCR 57 and SR 41, urging the Congress of the United States to enact a national reinsurance program to address the multi-state insurance crisis resulting from catastrophic natural disasters. We have written testimony submitted on both measures from Elliot Miles, B.A. McClintock, and Jeff Sadino in support.

Mr. Sadino. Okay. Is there anyone else? All in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this set of resolutions? Okay. Because he's present, although he's stood in his testimony. Anybody want to ask Jeff Sadino a question? No?

Okay, we'll move on. SCR 70 and SR 54 requesting the DCCA to establish and convene a pharmacy reimbursement working group to explore and propose legislation for the 2026 legislative session. Insurance Division and with comments. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Walgreens in support. Thank you very much.

We also have written testimony from the Hawaii Primary Care Association and support and Ronald Taniguchi in support. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on these resolutions? Members, any questions? Okay.

Seeing none. We'll move to SCR 123, requesting the Attorney General to convene a working group to develop landlord tenant code improvements to increase the supply of housing in Hawaii. Attorney General's Office with comments. Good morning.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Jordan Ching on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General who has comments on these measures. Just briefly. Just given the proposed subject matter and scope of the working group, the Department believes that the Legislature may be better served appointing a state agency with specific expertise in the landlord tenant, with landlord tenant issues.

Generally speaking, the Department does not handle landlord tenant issues. And as to proposed legislative resolutions, we believe that the legislative reference bureau may be better situated to assist the working group and the Legislature, given their general grant of authority to conduct research on the legislature's behalf. I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Realtors in support.

Sorry. We stand on our testimony in strong support offering amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move into... We'll move to the next set of resolutions. Sure.

Attorney General's Office. I'll make it fast. I know the reso, you didn't want to be in charge of the working group and I can see why. Do you think that if would the head be OCP? Would that be a better head if they deal with the landlord tenant code?

I can't speak for other state agencies as to who may be better situated, but just generally someone with more experience in that specific landlord tenant issues and who deal with these issues more predominantly.

Well, it seems to me the DCCA would be likely place but. Okay, thanks.

Follow up. The realtors are proposing that we have the Attorney General's Office and the Judiciary just swap positions. You remain on in the Judiciary, serve as the Chair. Are you opposed to that approach?

I would have to speak with the Attorney General as whether we're officially opposed. I would just say that the same issue would still be there that...

You don't want to do it.

More so that we don't have expertise on it.

Any other comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move to the next resolution set of resolutions SCR 155 SR 125 requesting the Insurance Commissioner to produce a detailed report regarding the state of the private property insurance industry in Hawaii. Insurance Division with comments.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. The department stands on it's written testimony in opposition.

Thank you very much. Jeff Sadino in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair and members of the committee. My name is Jeff Sadino and I support this resolution. Between 2022 and today, my master insurance policy from a regulated carrier increased by 300%. I'm the treasurer of my Association. We just renewed our coverage a couple of weeks ago. This year our premium increased $70,000.

Of that 60,000 is the result of increased building replacement costs. This increase was not because of natural disasters. It was not because of water leaks. To quote Sue Savio's response to me, quote, the main reason for the significant property premium increase is due to the 43% increase for higher material and labor costs.

So I checked this against CoreLogic's information, an appropriate source for this problem. Over the past year, construction costs nationally have only increased 5% and here in Hawaii they've only increased 11%. So the insurance company's claim of 43% does not match the data does not even match our intuitions. Ms.

Savio explained their formulas based on, quote, replacement cost estimation, cost per square foot, detailed cost analysis and adjustments for inflation and local market conditions. End quote. So an answer that is not really an answer and no way for the general public to push back against.

It's disappointing that the previous insurance commissioner approved a rate increase based on obviously suspect data. So after passing this year's legislation, which is needed, I hope the Legislature will demand better answers than in the past from the insurance commissioner, specifically their rates and policy analysis branch and the actual insurance companies themselves.

Thank you for letting me comment on this resolution.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on these resolutions? Members questions? Vice chair.

Mr. Sadino, can you come back? You know, did your insurance provider, or I guess broker in this instance conduct a site inspection of your property or did they just give you their analysis based on site something else?

Yeah, there is no site inspection done. Just based on whatever formless they have in their computers, I would assume.

Okay, thank you very much.

Members, any other questions? Okay, seeing none.

I will recess for decision making.

Okay, reconvening on our 1006am agenda to consider resolutions. The first set is STR 57 and SR 41, which we will take together. We'll be taking all the Concurrent Resolutions and their accompanying Senate resolutions in tandem. So on this first resolute set of resolutions the recommendation is to pass with technical amendments. Any discussion okay.

If there are none Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. If the CPM Members present are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none, your recommendation is adopted.

It thank you very much. The next set are SCR 70 and Sr 54 relating to the Pharmacy Reimbursement working group. The recommendation is to pass with amendments adopting the DCCA's proposed amendments allowing the insurance Commissioner or their designee to serve as a Member of the working group.

Any discussion if not Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present any voting with recommend with reservations or objections? Hearing none your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The next set of resolutions are SCR123 and SR103. This is requesting the Attorney General to convene the working group on the Landlord Tenant Code Members.

The recommendation is to pass with amendments adopting the Realtors proposed amendments essentially swapping the Judiciary for the Attorney General's Office, keeping the Attorney General's Office on the working group and adding the Office of Consumer Protection as well. There are also some technical non substantive amendments throughout the resolution. Members any discussion? Okay.

If not Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the CPM Members present are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing None. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Last set on this agenda is SCR155 and SR125. This is requesting the Insurance Commissioner produce a detailed report regarding the State of the private property insurance industry in Hawaii. The recommendation on this the recommendation is to pass these two resolutions unamended. Any discussion okay. If not passing unamended. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

Foreign this is our Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and consumer protection.

Tuesday, April 1, 2025. 10:07 a.m. Decision making agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol Members were voting on recommendations made to bills and resolutions that were heard in their respective subject matter committees prior We've received written testimony on these meas and we'll be voting them out today. The first measure is HB256 HD2 SD1 relating to environmental protection.

The recommendation on this measure is to pass unamended. Any discussion okay. Vice Chair passing unamended Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the CPM Members present any voting with reservations or objections?

No.

Thank you. Four in the affirmative, one no. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next measure is HB 1051 HD1 relating to energy efficiency portfolio standards. The recommendation on this measure is to pass with technical non substantive amendments. Any questions or comments Members? Okay. If not Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting reservations or objections?

No.

Thank you. Four in the affirmative, one no. Measure your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is HB 1379 HD2 SD1 relating to health. The recommendation on this measure is to pass unamended Members. Any discussion? Seeing none. Passing on amended. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. If the Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections?

No.

Thank you. Four in the affirmative, one no. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have SCR 10 SD1 and SR6 SD1 urging the Director of Health to establish a working group on prior authorization requirements after receiving the prior concurrence of the HHS Chair, the recommendation is to pass with amendments adopting the proposed amendments submitted by the State Health Planning and Development Agency regarding the composition of the group Members.

Any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. If the Members present, were there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none measure is adopted.

Thank you very much. And on the last item on this agenda, SCR44 SD1 with a posted proposed SD2, I will yield to the Vice Chair for the recommendation.

Recommendation is to pass this resolution with amendments changing the composition of the working group and clarifying the scope of the working group to be developing recommendations for modifications to family notice and standardized consent.

Members, any comments or questions? Okay. If there are none. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes Aye.

Thank you. Of the Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none measures adopted.

Thank you very much Members. We're adjourned.