House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon. I'd like to call the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection--Consumer Protection and Commerce to order. This is our Wednesday, April 16, 2025 hearing, it's 2:00 p.m., and we are in Conference Room 430 at the State Capitol.

In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two-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're 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 trademarked or copyrighted images and please refrain from using profanity or uncivil behavior, as such behavior may be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. Okay, we have three measures on the agenda.

First up, we have SCR 57 SD1, 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. And we had no one who registered to testify in person or on Zoom. Is there anyone here wishing to testify in this measure. Seeing none.

Let's move on to the next measure or yeah, it's no task Questions for so. Next up we have SCR198 SD1 encouraging Hawaii insurers and the Hawaii Property Insurance Association to reduce insurance costs on local residents by pursuing subrogation claims against polluters who knowingly engaged in misleading and deceptive practices regarding the connection between their products and climate change.

And for this one, we also did not have any persons registered in person or on zoom. Is there anyone wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none.

Let's move on to our last measure: SCR 136 SD 1 HD 1, requesting the Hawaii State Energy Office to convene a nuclear energy working group to study the feasibility of using advanced nuclear power technologies in the state. First, we have Public Utilities Commission.

Afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jessica Simon with the Public Utilities Commission. I stand on the commission's written testimony and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is the Hawaii State Energy Office. Comments.

Chair, vice chair, Monique Zanfes with the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony providing comments, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have 350Hawaii, on Zoom, in opposition.

Aloha, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Sherry Pollack, and I'm with 350Hawaii. 350Hawaii stands in strong opposition to this measure.

We realize that this measure would just establish a working group, but why direct our limited resources on something that the Energy Office has already indicated would be an expensive form of energy? And importantly, the text in this measure is rife with factually inaccurate information, including the fallacy that nuclear power is carbon-free electricity.

Regarding small modular reactors, despite the claims, they are unproven, too expensive, too slow to build, have unresolved safety risks worse than the challenges of nuclear waste management and disposal, and are too risky to play a significant role in the critical transitioning from fossil fuels that must occur in the coming ten to 15 years.

Bottom line: if we're already having such an immense challenge just being able to site a landfill on Oahu, how would we ever be able to site a nuclear waste facility that would contain lethal, radioactive waste that scientists say must be maintained and funded for at least 200,000 years?

In some ways, even more important than our opposition for the purpose of this measure, however, is our deep disappointment by the process that was used to amend it from its original intent.

The entire contents of SCR 136 were removed and replaced by new content that is unrelated and either subject or substance to the original measure, using text from a measure that died earlier this session, and without the public having an opportunity to testify on that major change during that hearing, many are tracking specific measures by number at this stage in the session.

So many of those from the public who have an interest in this issue were unlikely to be aware of this hearing and have an opportunity to testify today. Your committee choosing to pass a measure that was amended in this manner, regardless of the measure's topic, would only serve to seriously erode public confidence and trust in government. With that in mind and the overwhelming amount of opposition testimony that was submitted today, we urge you to vote no on SCR 136. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Energy Justice Network, on Zoom.

Sorry. I cannot come on video with this computer, but thank you for having me. My name is Mike Ewall with the Energy Justice Network, representing our member organizations in Hawaii. We share the concerns that were just raised by Sherry Pollack about the undemocratic nature of this SCR resolution. Definitely cut out a lot of people from being able to comment on the nature of this, but nuclear power is not a technology that makes sense for consumers or for commerce.

The Energy Information Administration of the federal government in our most recent report on power plant cost documents that small modular reactors are the most expensive form of power that we can have.

It's also impossible in size to the state's needs without being too large, even on Oahu, and would violate the state's renewable portfolio standard which requires 100% renewable energy by 2045.

And the technology for this would be small modular reactors, as people keep promoting--it does not even exist in a certified form that's licensed or able to be built anytime in the near future, and even the State Energy Office opposed the Senate Bill that this resolution was based on for that reason, calling it premature. So I'd urge you to vote no on this, and mahalo.

And thank you. Next we have Linda Williams. Let's see...have Keith Neal. Don't see him on Zoom. Kimmer Horsen? Not present. That's all I have who registered to testify in person or online. Is there anyone wishing to testify on this measure? Yeah. Please.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jolie Ryff, testifying as an individual in opposition to SCR 136. This resolution represents a disappointing diversion from the meaningful progress that the state has made towards our renewable energy goals.

The Aloha Plus Challenge Dashboard indicates that we're on track to meeting our target of 100% renewable by 2045. Nuclear energy does not align with our renewable portfolio standard and it risks derailing clean energy momentum that we've built.

So rather than reiterate some of the points that Hawaii State Energy Office has made in their testimony and Sierra Club, even on SB 1588 and other environmental organizations, I'll simply echo the clear consensus that nuclear energy is not a viable future or pathway forward for Hawaii, and the time, resource, and attention required from this specific working group would be far better spent supporting renewable alternatives. So I respectfully urge you to defer this resolution, and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Anyone on Zoom? Nope? All right, members, any questions? Rep. Iwamoto.

Is the Hawaii State Energy Office available for--thank you for your testimony. Would there--when would be an appropriate time? I think your testimony basically says this is the time. There's really nothing viable right now that would be the right size for Hawaii or would address maybe Hawaii's resources that we have right now, but at what point in the future--how would we know when we're ready?

Yeah. So when we're looking at resources, you know, costs are one of the biggest factors, and you know, setting aside the huge environmental concerns associated with nuclear energy, the levelized cost of energy is kind of that point in time, you know, thing that you makes it viable.

Right now, levelized cost of energy is around seven to ten times what other firm technologies are, and we continue to monitor that, but until it becomes cost-competitive with other more viable resources, it's just not there.

And then, adding to that, the environmental concerns I think we noted in our testimony, you know, as written, the resolution kind of cites information on conventional nuclear which isn't even appropriate from a technological standpoint, they're just too large, so SMRs would be the technology we're tracking.

There's only three in the world operational and that those are, you know, in China and other countries. So we'd really want to see it built out in the United States domestically before introducing it to an island state like Hawaii.

Thank you.

Any other questions, members?

I have one for State Energy Office. Has the State of Hawaii ever done a study on nuclear energy?

Not that I am aware of, but I can double-check and get back to you on that.

Okay, and given what you said, it sounds very possible that this working group will recommend against nuclear energy. Is that fair to say?

I would--yes.

Okay, so if the opponents of this bill--of this measure--are against nuclear energy, then having a Hawaii-based study against--that comes out against nuclear energy would actually help their side. Is that fair?

Yeah, but you have to also look at the resources that we would have to expend.

That's true, but I don't think this is going to be something that necessarily doesn't come up again unless we have a Hawaii-based study that shows that nuclear energy is not viable.

And at this point in time, you know, I may be inclined to agree with you folks that it, it doesn't sound cost-effective at least, at the very least, but having a Hawaii-based study showing that, I mean, I feel like that would help. So I'm kind of confused about the incredible opposition to this bill.

I mean, I guess I'm not confused. I understand their points, but could go the other way too, that they're thinking, I think, and it sounds like they think they would be inclined to agree. So thank you for verifying--yeah--that there has not been any Hawaii-based study for nuclear energy use.

That I'm not 100% certain on--

Maybe the last ten years.

But yeah, it would say for the modern SMR technology that would apply, no.

Okay, thank you.

All right, any other questions? Seeing none.

Let's take a brief recess.

All right, reconvening the Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. We are in decision making. So first up on your agenda we have SCR57 SD1, recommendation is to pass unamended. Any questions, comments or concerns, Members? None. Chair for the vote.

Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass SCR57 SD1 as is. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. Rep. Ilagan, aye. Rep. Ichiyama is excused. Rep. Iwamoto, aye. Rep. Kong is excused. Rep. Lowen, aye. Rep. Martin, aye. Rep. Tam is excused. Rep. Pierick, aye. Vice Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Great, thank you Members. Next on the agenda we have SCR198 SD1 recommendation is to pass unamended. Any questions, comments or concerns. Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass SCR198 SD1 as is noting the previously excused Members. Any Members voting with reservations. Reservations for Rep. Pierick. Any other Members voting with reservations. Any Members voting no. Vice Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, thank you Members. And last on the agenda we have SCR136 SD1 HD1. The recommendation is to pass out a house draft two and what we will be doing is changing the first be it resolved that states that it's interim report in 2026 and a final report before the convening of the 2027 Legislature.

And we're just going to make it a one year working group so the work will be done in interim and the report will be due before the 2026 session only and possibly tech amendments just in case but that Any questions, comments or concerns Members.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'll be voting no. You know, it is, it is an issue for me of allocating the resources and pulling this group together at this point when it doesn't seem like we're ready to have this discussion. It doesn't sound like the technology is there.

And even, and even though the points were made that the outcome of the study or task force might be favorable to those in opposition, it's still, you know, then it kind of to me makes the allocation of resources at a time when things are kind of dire for state resources and there's this scarcity of resources right now for us to entertain this kind of concept or possibility when it seems on its face to be not something that we're gonna move forward on anyway, for those reasons, I'll be funding no.

Okay.

Brief comment.

Yep.

I just wanna say, while I understand we have an idea of the anticipated outcome, I think that it's valuable to still do a little deeper look and get clear answers so that we can have a definitive answer moving forward one way or the other and focus efforts as needed on technologies and resources that are viable.

If nuclear energy turns out not to be, and if for some reason there's a different outcome, I mean, why would people fear understanding more, having more facts, doing more research and understanding issues better. There can only be value added by having a deeper look at things.

So I do appreciate, you know, moving this forward and I think that we did hear the subject matter in the House. It moved through the Senate. The previous reso was also an Energy Office working group is largely similar. So I'm not too concerned on that front. So thank you.

Go ahead. I just wanted to echo that sentiment that especially on Oahu, we really are having trouble getting enough renewable power from sources that the community is willing to live with. So we need to look at all of our options so people really understand when they oppose particular types of power, what the alternatives might be. Thank you.

Any other comments, Members seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass SCR 136 SD1HD1, with amendments noting the previously excused absences and the no vote from Rep. Iwamoto. Any other with reservations, any other no's. Vice Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, thank you. Meeting is adjourned.