House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

Good morning, everyone. It is Thursday, February 12, 09:30am. We are in Conference Room 325. We are here for a hearing of the joint committees on energy and environmental protection and the committee on char tourism. I'm here with my joint committee chair, rep Tam.

And first up on our agenda, we have house bill 1949 related to the green fee. This establishes the green fee transparency and accountability for everyone dashboard. And first up to testify, we have the climate change mitigation and adaptation commission.

Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, Leah Laram, and state climate change mitigation adaptation commission. We stand on our testimony in support and available for questions.

Thank you. Office of Planning and Sustainable Development.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. My name is Danielle Basti, sustainability coordinator from the Office of Fine Sustainable Development. We're gonna stand on our testimony expressing support on this measure. We believe that a dashboard for transparency purposes is a great thing for the green feet. We would like to provide the committee's one recommended amendment to place this dashboard at the Department of Budget and Finance.

We find that they have better have, more expertise in terms of fiscal accountability so that we can move forward having that transparency and financial accountability. I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then, life of the land, not on Zoom.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, and committee members. We had proposed a different movement of where it should be, but we support the previous speaker. Mahalo.

Thank you. And

then Care for Aidanau Coalition.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Carissa Cabrera. I'm testifying on behalf of the coalition. We've long advocated for the green fee and are standing in strong support of this bill. I did just wanna add that, we're also in strong support of the project recommendations that came through the governor's message.

They were factored in by a council of experts and also informed by over 600 proposals from the community. So we strongly recommend that those remain unamended, to help realize the potential of the green fee this year for the first year of implementation. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Climate Action Coalition in support. Kevin Chang. Aloha.

Good morning, community members. Kevin Chang for. We sent out our testimony. Just wanna reaffirm the points that, made about the 30,000,000 recommendation for a fund for community stewardship as well as the budget recommendations.

Thank you. And then Trust for Public Land in support. Hawaii Land Trust in support. Maui Bicycling League, West Maui Greenway in support. Hawaii Community Foundation.

Hawaiian Council Malama Pupukea Waimea all in support, Hawaii Green Growth present.

Voluntary members, vice chairs, members of the committees. Kalenika Anana with Hawaii Green Growth. Really just wanna echo our support for this measure. The transparency and accountability that comes from a dashboard is a really important mechanism to ensure not only that the visitors understand what their, tax is going into and what it's benefiting for them as visitors and their experience, but also for us as Kamaaina to understand how tax dollars generated by tourism are benefiting our quality of life.

So wanna just really echo the accountability and transparency that a dashboard would bring.

It's also important, I think, that community driven projects like the ones that went through the recommendation process of the Greenfield Advisory Council are considered heavily. When you have the people who care for that place guiding this work and of those communities, I think it's a really important way, to make sure that the change and the benefits last. So just wanna echo that as well. Mahalo.

Thank you. And then Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Global Preservation Initiative, Aaron McGee.

Aloha. Aaron McGee. I'm speaking in support of HB 1949. With last year's historic establishment of the green fee, it's critical that we build a public dashboard to clearly track how these funds are used. I'm the executive director of Global Preservation Initiative, a local nonprofit that already uses a public dashboard to remain accountable to the communities we serve.

Our lifetime impact report shows our revenue expenses and the environmental impact we create every year since our founding in 2022. And I strongly believe that when people contribute their money, they deserve to easily understand how it's used and the results it creates. I hope we can hold ourselves to that same standard when it comes to the residents and visitors who are funding these green fee projects.

I also believe state agencies should leverage the proven solutions of community organizations through contracts and grants because collaboration is what creates lasting impact. Global preservation initiative leads restoration efforts at Maui Ola or Sand Island State Recreation Area, as well as Makapu'u Beach Park.

And these public lands benefit from our consistent community stewardship and show how government and community partnerships can succeed. I hope you will commit to building transparency and public trust by passing this measure. Mahalo.

And we have, our activities and attractions association of Hawaii, Antoinette Davis in support. Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committees. My name is Hannah Liziak, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force in strong support of HB 1949. This measure would ensure that the public can see how green fee funds are allocated and how exactly those investments are impacting Hawaii's environment. We also support this measure because it will help the public and lawmakers understand how funding recommendations from the Green Fee Advisory Council align with our state's critical environmental needs.

Some of the recommendations that our task force supports are community driven coral reef restoration, monitoring and assessment of reef and nearshore ecosystems, and pilot cesspool conversions in priority coral hotspots. Our task force represents over 150 individuals across over 20 organizations, and we wanna thank you for hearing this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have, Nature Conservancy.

Aloha, chairs, members of the committee. Tito Miranda with Nature Conservancy. TNC will stand on its, test written testimony in strong support.

Thank you. And then we have Kupu Keone Nicola.

Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. My name is Keone Nicola, representing Kupu's great trust and a strong support for HB 1949 and highlight two things from the testimony. One was the importance of having community driven projects that actually make a difference in our green fee budget and making sure and then the second thing is making sure that the impact from these budgets can be known. And that's where the dashboard really comes into play.

Telling the story about how the visionary impacts that your HP that your Act 96 had in the in the community and in the environment and work for for making the climate actually better can be replicated and taken across the country and across the world. So I think the dashboard can really help tell the story of what we did.

Thank you. Hawaii Conservation Alliance Foundation and support Hawaii Bicycling League.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Eduardo Hernandez on behalf of the Hawaii Bicycling League. I will stand on my written testimony. I just wanna, excuse me, highlight, the role of the bicycle in sustainability. And if we're not looking for bicycles and bicycling infrastructure, then we're gonna fail to see the role that these played for our community to for transportation, recreation, and health.

So I urge you to consider that. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Then we have a couple people signed up on Zoom. Individuals, Carrie Ostrowski on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, chairs, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Carrie Ostroski. I strongly support house bill 1949, establishing a public, transparency dashboard to track the allocation and the use of the revenues, by the green fee.

I'm personally engaged with many community driven coral restoration, Cesspool conversion, and Malca to MacKay project that I'm looking forward to be benefited and impacted by the fee, Ensuring that the legislature follows the expertise and recommendations of the green fee advisory council and the governor is critical to success. Granting decisions in the advisement of a highly skilled advisory council ensures that the investments reflect the community priorities, empower the local practitioners, who we rely on, and maximize conservation outcomes for the future of Hawaii.

I believe transparency is key. The publicly acceptable resiliency impact dashboard, will easily allow the public to see where the funds are going, consistently and how decisions are being made, as well as the outcomes achieved, which I think will, grow the support of the green fee in the future. I respectfully urge the legislature to pass HB 1949, and mahalo for your leadership and for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. And then Angela Young on Zoom? Not present. And we have 18 additional individuals, all in support. Was there anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Alright. If not, members, questions? Oh, please go ahead. Greg ilagan.

Thank you, chair. Sorry.

Could I have the commission over?

Hello?

Good morning. Hear me.

I wanted to ask regarding the dashboard. Has ETS been consulted on being able to help actually procure the necessary vendors for this dashboard?

We haven't taken those steps so far, but I have worked previously with ATS on setting up websites and vendors. So familiar with the process.

Is was that the preferred pathway is to actually work with ETS and have them help you or facilitate with that process since they have the expertise? And I'm sure I'm not sure if you do.

Yeah. Abs I mean, we have to go through ETS just to ensure that, you know, it meets all of the requirements as as to state that we would probably do the contracting and drafting of our have you to actually build the dashboard. So I I don't think ATS would build it themselves.

I see. You you feel like you have the the resources and expertise to be able to do that procurement?

Yes. And also couple of positions, so we'll have the the capacity in order to do procurement. But, yes, I personally do have the the paperwork here ready.

Okay. Thank you. Yep.

Rep Kush, please go ahead.

Hawaii vice cleaning. Thank you. Thanks for coming out. I I received emails from you and other folks on that topic you mentioned about, bicycle access and paths. It's kind of not clearly mentioned or outlined.

Did you have any possible, amendments specific to the bill or just in general?

We want to make sure that we're elevating the role of bicycling and bicycle infrastructure. For instance, recently, destination management action plans came out for each island, and they, see seems to have moved away from specific mention of bicycling, even as they talk about traffic and traffic mitigation.

So we wanna, make sure that bicycles remain part of the conversation because they're such a great way to for visitors to enjoy, Hawaii in a safe and sustainable way and a great way for, residents to lower their transportation costs, get exercise.

Sure. But no specific language to this bill? No, sir. Okay. Great.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, chair.

Any other questions, members? Please go ahead.

Question for the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. That was a great idea for transparency. My question is just on funding. And instead of appropriating new funds, you think it would be feasible for the program to be funded by the green fees itself?

Yes. If if the if the legislature decides to, yes. I think that that would be a reasonable use of green fee

Perfect.

Just a quick question. There was a testimony, I guess, suggesting of having BNF do this. Would that be in place of the commission?

I would have to defer to Okay.

Or let okay. Let me ask, I guess, OPSE. Your question, Sherry? Sorry. Was it BNF that you guys suggested or TBEK?

Yes. We are suggesting an amendment to relocate this dashboard with BNF since they have been, working in conjunction with the governor's Green Feet Advisory Council, especially during the administrative request for these projects during the review. So since they've already begun that process, we find that to be a more fitting location for this dashboard.

Okay. Thanks. And then I guess for Leah, like, why would you say it's appropriate for it to be under the commission?

You know, I think that BNF has definitely the the fiscal tracking, but I don't know that they have the capacity with for relationships or possibly the desire. I'd have to defer to them on that on, you know, following up and tracking with all of the awardees. That's pretty significant work. And I think outside of the scope, I think, you know, we call this the green fee, but it's a climate impact fee. You know, it's the official title, climate commission.

Members of our commission are, you know, on the the three kind of pillars the, represent. So we have HTA, DLNR, you know, the energy office, all the folks, Department of Transportation, or House, the commission. So there's a lot of multiple expertise coming in.

You would be, like, working at consulting BNF for some of the fiscal tracking aspects of it? Absolutely. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Any other questions? Go ahead.

Thank you.

Could you come up one last time? So under this bill already, it states a cooperation by state and county agencies. So it already mandates all the different agencies work together so you can receive that information. I guess my my point in this is that, DBEDT already has all these different dashboards.

And my concern is that we have all these different dashboards in the state, and I think ETS needs to have a mindful understanding of how these dashboards are being hosted because there's reoccurring, cost of hosting these online platforms that we would have to take into account in the future.

There is a one time appropriation for this dashboard. However, there's gonna be recurring costs every year to maintain the dashboard, and that money is gonna dry up at some point. So I I just want you even though you are gonna, use the money that is in this bill to get the expertise, required for you to, procure this dashboard, could you be mindful of reaching out to ETS first and see what sort of services and expertise they have to offer currently?

And just so they because they already are mindful of all the cost that it takes for hosting. Would you be willing to reach out to them right off the bat and work with them right away?

Absolutely. And we have just had a working relationship with them to build our new website, so very familiar with the process and context.

Thank you.

It's just one last question. The language relating to saying the commission should make assessments of effectiveness, gaps, and opportunities for improvements, I mean, this funding is gonna this funding is gonna be flowing through DLNR. Is the commission administering the grants? Because technically, we cannot give this money directly to NGOs even though it's sort of earmarked that way in the language. From the governor's messages, it's actually not would not be legal to do it directly.

So we'll go through DLNR, presumably, and then they will put out requests and and put give this money out in grants. So who will be administering those grants directly?

It would still be DLNR administering the grants. We would work in partnership with them to, you know, identify who's received the grants and ensure that, you know, the funds are effectively being used. So it'd be, you know, in consultation with DLNR and the other agencies that receive funding. But it

would be DLNR whoever was administering the grants would be the ones who had the oversight authority and Yeah. Could determine the effectiveness, etcetera. Yeah.

I think with the idea was just to report on the effectiveness, but it would still be DLNR and other agencies to determine that effectiveness. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. That's all my questions. Any questions, Keith members?

Any questions? Any in terms of any other questions? Okay.

We will move on to the second bill on this agenda, relating to the environment. This is House bill 2618, and this requires the governor to request through a bill separate from the budget or supplemental budget an amount of funds that approximates the additional revenue generated by any increase to the TAT. So instead of, it would just help the legislature get that information a little earlier and provide, I think, a little more transparency.

So, first up to testify, we have climate change mitigation and adaptation commission.

Chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee, Leila Lerman with the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. We sent out our testimony with support and available to push this. And

then Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition, Ted Bolen in support, Care for in and Out Coalition in support.

Vice chairs and members of the committee. I'm Hannah Lissiak here on behalf of the Care for INNL Coalition Leadership Committee, and we stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Thank you. And then Doug Perrine in support. That's all the testimony that we have on this measure.

Members, are there any questions? I guess, have some questions. Maybe, Blair, your star is hearing today. You know, we're still, I think, in the process of reviewing all the recommendations because we're very it's a very busy time of year for the legislature. And we hear that all the that a lot of NGOs are happy with it, which is you know, we're happy about.

We think they're good recommendations also, and we think all these organizations do important work. But I also see that there could be value in static you know, when we passed this measure last year, we knew we were gonna come back and reconsider. The collections annually are a $100,000,000. And right now, it's very discretionary process about how those sort of get handed out.

And there's not any dedicated stream of funding that kinda comes out at the top right before the advisory council allocates the, you know, this and that here and there.

And then it goes to direct directly to the finance committees kind of as a secondary budget. So, I mean, given things like conservation efforts are kind of core to the intended uses of of this, I guess I'm just curious with your knowledge of conservation. I know you've worked in that area even prior to the commission. I mean, would you see that as valuable, just, you know, funding for watershed protection, funding for aquatic resource protection that flowed directly to the agencies?

Yeah. I I definitely, you know, don't want to take away from all of the hard work and, you know, great, excellent work that was done by the committees. I also recognize, you know, when there's dedicated funding to action, you can do long term planning. And so one of the benefits of having consistent funding going

Can you speak up a little? Sorry. Our new mic system is not we're working on getting it adjusted.

There are definitely benefits to knowing that funding is coming in long term because then you can make long term planning. I think also benefits of having the funding, you know,

in a in a special fund or in a fund where as things shift and change, you're able to reallocate that funding because sometimes contracts fall through or, you know, weather might happen that will prevent you from those actions. So that just has a lot of fail safes that can really kind of protect the funding so it doesn't just not go towards its intended purpose.

So I I definitely see the benefits of having identified funds for certain actions, and that could be, you know, watershed fencing, and that could go to DLNR and also to community organizations, what have you. Right. And and I guess with DLNR, I guess it would depend on how we set up

a special fund. You might not know the answer to this, but if we gave some money for that purpose, it could also potentially some of it could still be granted out. Absolutely. Yeah. And that's a lot of how DLNR does their work in partnership with organizations, I think.

Yes. Okay. See everyone nodding? Alright. Okay.

Thank you. That's all my questions. Are there any other questions, members? Alright. Then we will take a brief recess and be back for decision making.

Alright. We are back for decision making. First up, we're decision making on House Bill 1949. This is the Green Fee Dashboard bill. On this, we're gonna take out on page seven subsection five and let the admin do their own PR with their PR people.

And then on page six to seven, we will instead of saying the commission--the language implies the commission shall be assessing the effectiveness, we'll say "reporting on the effectiveness,"--"reporting on the effectiveness gaps and opportunities." So presumably, that would come from the agencies who are directly involved and knowledgeable on the grants that they're administering. And then, we will defect the date to the year 3000. I think the dollar amounts are already blank and move this forward for further consideration. Members, any discussion? Alright. For EEP, vice chair, please take the vote.

On House Bill 1949, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Rollcall]. Chair recommendation has been adopted.

For the Committee on Tourism, same recommendation.

Voting on House Bill 1949. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Rollcall]. Chair, your measure is adopted.

Thank you. And then moving on to hospital 2618 relating to the environment. So we're going to add a bunch of language to this bill. And so this will apply to future collections, not to the recommendations made in this year, which is which are being considered by the by the finance and WAM committees. But for future years of of those funds collected, we're going to allow some of the some lump sum amounts to be allocated to special funds starting with sorry.

I have a lot of papers here. Starting with creating a a few special funds under DLNR. So one will be called the watershed biodiversity and wildfire risk reduction special funds. So this will essentially give funding through DOFAB for the state of purposes, the watershed protection, etcetera. A lot of this could be used for fencing and directly for wildfire mitigation work that we know needs to to happen and needs better funding.

There will be a bunch of enabling language in there. I'm not gonna read it all out right now. And we will put in the committee report a recommended amount of 25,000,000. And then we will also create a fund called the aquatic resources conservation special fund, and this will be for aquatic resource work, through DAR. And the recommended amount for this would be 15,000,000.

And then we also wanted to do a coastal restoration special fund, and this is addressing, some things both in conservation and the tourism side. We're working out still working on figuring where that will be housed exactly and what the amount might be for that. We wanted to make sure that that was included.

And then we will also put some amount add some amount to or create assessable conversion revolving loan fund that's gonna be under the Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, and this was also something we worked on in another bill relating to cesspools, and the recommended amount for that will be 1,500,000. And then finally, we'll create a green fee special funds where the remaining funds will be deposited.

This will be This will be in the state treasury, and this will be the amount that, you know, presumably, the advisory council will still have a lot of discussion to make recommendations over. That will still be, I think, almost half of the total. It's still a fair amount. So, you know, we think this is just a good balance of ensuring those funds get directly used for intended purposes and supplement departmental budgets as well.

We will also defect the date to the year 3000 and is there anything I'm missing?

I think that covers it for now. There's there's that's the general broad strokes of it, anyway. So with that, members, any discussion? Seeing none, for EEP, please take the vote.

On House Bill 2618, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye, noting the excused absence of representative Kahalua. Are there any noes or reservations? Seeing none, chair your recommendation has been adopted.

The House Committee on Tourism, same recommendation. Any discussion? Seeing none. Vice chair votes.

Voting on House Bill 2618. The recommendation is to vote with amendments to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye, noting the excused absence of representative Paul. Any noes? Any reservations?

Chair, your measure has been adopted. Alright.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Convening the committee on energy and environmental protection. Today is, Thursday, 02/12/2026, 09:45AM. We're in 325, at the State Capitol, and we are going to begin our hearing with a discussion of House bill 1644 relating to consumer protection. Requires any person or entity selling a residential solar energy device to comply with consumer protection laws.

Laws, prohibits the sale of a residential solar energy device without a contractor's license or contractual affiliation with a licensed contractor, and requires a standardized disclosure form to be developed by the Department of Consumer I mean, Commerce and Consumer Affairs for use in all residential solar proposals and proposals and contracts.

First to testify, we have, Jenna Siegel from Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Jenna Siegel with Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, and we stand on our written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you, and I'm available for questions as well. Thank you.

Next, we have, Melissa Enright from DCCA Office of Consumer Protection in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, Melissa Enright, from the DCCA Office of Consumer Protection. We stand on our written testimony in support. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Next, we have Photon Works Engineering, Paul Gorham in support. Green Power Projects LLC, Alan Leonard in support. ELCO Inc, Neil Martin in support. High Power Solar LLC, Cruz Romero in support. Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Scott Sato in support on Zoom.

Morning, chair Luann, vice chair Perusall, and members of the committee. Scott Sato from KIUC. KIUC stands on its written testimony and strong support of this measure. KIUC has received many complaints from our members here on Kauai regarding the types of actions this bill addresses and feels this bill is a step in the right direction. So thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Solar Energy Association. Rocky Mould in support, in person, not present.

I'm on Zoom.

Yeah. On Zoom. So sorry.

Thank you. Hi, thank you Chair Loewen, Vice Chair Peruso. I'm Rocky Mould with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on my testimony in strong support of this measure, but but just note that you know, in HSEA, we have a code of conduct, and we enforce that code of conduct with our members. We did start getting reports of an uptick in in some not great practices in the market, and so we strongly support this bill.

This bill most of the behavior in the market was attributed to third party door knocking, you know, organizations. And so this bill really targets those third party sales organizations to bring them up to parity with with solar contractors. And it also tightens up disclosure standards, particularly around financing products. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you so much. We have Independent Energy, James Rudolph in support, EP Cube in support, Energy Advisors in support, Sunsphere Energy in support, Chris Chopin, individual in support. Oh, with Alternate Energy Inc. Not present. And a few other individuals in support.

So we have six individual additional individuals in support. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to the next measure. So that will be HB 2243 relating to electric energy, requires all electric utilities to provide transparent customer bill impact analyses that are accessible to the public in an electronic format, reasonably usable by ratepayers.

Establishes requirements for bill impact analysis. Requires electric utilities to submit annual reports to the PUC. First to testify, we have, DCCA, Michelangelo with comments in person.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Michelangelo, executive director of Vision and Consumer Advocacy. Stand on our testimony providing comments available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have testimony with comments from OIP, Carlotta Armino. The PUC, John Inamura, in person with comments.

Yes. Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. John Ito, chair of PUC, stand on our written testimony, supporting the intent of the measure, and will be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Life of the Land, Henry Curtis, in opposition. In person.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and committee members. This is the bill to simplify everything. Right? Our analysis has indicated that if PECO turns over all of the information available, people can either through self education or through college and graduate school take 14 courses in accounting, finance, economics, regulatory law, math, and statistics, and they should be able to understand this. But if they have that much, they probably don't need this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. KIUC, Scott Sato in opposition on Zoom.

Chair, vice chair, members. KIUC stands on its written testimony in respectful opposition to this proposal and notes that the PUC has established procedures and the expertise to balance the public interest regarding transparency regarding transparency along with the legitimate need to protect sensitive information on behalf of the utility. Thank you again for allowing me to provide testimony.

I left out one important thing.

Go ahead.

Most Hawaii residents use only electricity, but 75% of all people across the country use both electricity and gas. So an apples to apples comparison is looking at Hawaii's electricity versus the nation's electricity and gas. And when you do that, you discover that Hawaii's bills are one or just 9% above the national average and that eight states have higher bills than Hawaii. Places like Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire.

So that our if you simply look for a number and you say our rates are high, that's not really important.

What's important is how much you pay out of your pocket. And out of your pocket, we're part of the entire mess in this country that pays too much for electricity, but we're not an outlier. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Hawaii Clean Power Alliance, in support. And then finally, Hawaiian Electric, Shana Shana Abadu with comments in person.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. James Abraham on behalf of Hawaiian Electric, expressing concerns about House bill 2243. You have our written testimony where we highlight various issues that we have with this bill as it's written. I'll just focus on a couple of more significant ones. You know, this bill is framed as transparency for affordability, but we see the consequences could be increased costs for customers.

The type of information that and and data that this that this bill is seeking to make more transparent isn't the type of information that'll be, you know, helpful or useful for your typical residential rate pair. But it would be helpful for more sophisticated, players in the market, and they could potentially leverage this data and information, to, you know, frustrate our competitive bidding process.

Essentially, you know, what could happen is they could see, you know, what price does does their project need to be bid at in order for it to be selected instead of providing their cheapest price, you know, that they're normally incentivized to provide in order to get selected into our RFP.

You know, the the Public Utilities Commission and the Consumer Advocates Office already review the, you know, detailed information that is, you know, protected under confidentiality in order to have their positions in the proceeding and to make determinations on our projects. And so we think that the PC should retain its its oversight of this information and the determinations on confidentiality.

Again, we see the risk of this bill as higher cost for, customers and frustration of our committed bidding process. So I appreciate the opportunity to testify and have open any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, member, are there any questions?

Do you have questions? Okay.

I guess, consumer advocate. Maybe maybe he go later. But can you just explain I mean, I don't ever look that closely at my electric bill, I guess. So what is it that customers see on their end?

You get an aggregate price break breakdown by different components of usage based charges in some of these that reflect different components of different energy projects.

Is it is it misleading? And I mean, I've heard this before, and I have to go look at it myself, but I think there's sort of a separate charge for the cost of PPAs, which are mostly renewable energy, but the fuel pass through cost isn't itemized. So people are seeing a separate cost for the clean energy, but not the

On on their

bill, they're they're they're seeing an amalgam of fuel costs, some PPAs. There's two different charges, the ECRC and the PPAC that recover different aspects of information projects.

How do you think an average person who's not super well informed on how to you know, what all these things mean might interpret the information?

I mean, I would interpret it as this is a usage based charge. This is what I'm paying for different elements of my bills. I would look at the effective rate and try to lower my bill based on the the usage charge, the total aggregate usage charge.

I I guess, what would it really people to believe about the cost of renewable energy versus fossil fuel energy?

I don't think looking at those charges, you could determine one versus the other.

Okay. But I've definitely heard it before. Like, people do look at it and decide they think that renewable energy is costing them something extra.

Yeah. I I don't know how to respond. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Can I ask him a follow-up question, please? Mister Ansible? Yes. So what do you make of HECO's concerns, Hawaiian Electric's concerns around this kind of measure providing just creating material for their competitors?

I think it depends on how deep into the analysis one wants to go because the most informed people take advantage of that. It's true that, as mister Curtis pointed out, there's detailed information, production simulation modeling, those type of things. The average customer is not gonna benefit from that information. I think having information on and and I'd like to hear more of the perspective of whether this would harm the competitive bidding process because it's that is an important component of keeping prices more competitive.

I would argue that they're going too high, but keeping that more competitive.

So an application that goes before that's been selected from out of the competitive bidding process, I would like to understand how having the bill impact just the dollar amounts and what's, like, an annual savings would be harmful to the competitive bidding process, and that might be an effective compromise. That would have a dollar amount of projected savings for an application that goes before the PUC. But there may be bonafide.

To be transparent, we don't wanna inhibit competitive bidding in any way, but I would welcome to to hear that perspective. Okay.

Thank you.

To your planning, follow-up? Yep. In your opinion, I mean, is this just, like, an extra layer of to dos? Will this, like, result? Will a consumer be able to take any kind of action to reduce their energy bills or shape their behavior to reduce energy or make any kind of definitive move on their part?

Just a layer.

What is this?

Project. I I would the debate what matters is the effective rate, and that's the total aggregate usage rate, kilowatt hours, which is why we always advocate to have as much of the costs in that so that customers have the opportunity to decrease their usage and increase their overall bill. So does this This this wouldn't help? I don't think it would help because you're just gonna you gonna look at the overall bill itself, right, the overall rate itself, which is an amalgam of different charges.

So no no meaningful change from existing? Correct. Thank you.

Thank you.

I I'm not sure who'd asked. Maybe life of the land. Do you have a different take? Because like I said, I just don't I have to go look at my next electric bill more closely, I think. But I've definitely heard this from from people, This impression that renewable energy is more expensive than it is at least currently.

Do you are you familiar with what's on the electric bill? Like, does is it is there an issue with the way the electric bill is presented to customers that is misleading in some way?

The other day, I decided to go and look at my electric bill rather than just paying it to try to understand the different charges on it. And to tell you the truth, it totally confused the heck out of me. So it it doesn't help me any. I I think what what gets confusing for people is that the total energy charge, as Rick Rocheller mentioned yesterday, is only about a third of the bill and two thirds is other stuff.

So even if if you made solar free, it's a small fraction of one third and it's these other stuff that that is has a far greater impact.

So I think people think that because renewables are supposed to lower rates, it's supposed to drop it way down, and and that adds some of the confusion to the whole mix.

Okay. Thank you. I guess, wine electric? What is the other two thirds? I mean, I know some of what it is, but just curious what's listed on bills.

So we actually do have a a on our website, we have a breakdown of how to read your bill, you know, the different elements that it tries to break it down into, you know, layman's terms, Severn can understand. I know it's it's trying to turn take these kind of complex regulatory concepts, right, and break it down into something that's more easily easily digestible. Sorry. I'm not

I don't follow your

Well, no. Just what is listed on the bill specifically.

I I mean, I couldn't talk to the elements now. I'd probably refer you to our website. But, again, it is our, you know, our purchase power costs, our energy. Oh, sure. Well, again, I'll refer you to our website, which has more information, but there's a customer charge, non fuel energy, energy cost recovery.

Yeah. There's a there's several elements that that go into a bill. We we try to explain it in in more detail on our website, which I refer representatives to.

Do you think there's a way to present the information on bills that is more clear?

I'm sorry. What was that?

Do you think there is a way to present information on bills that's more clear to customers? I mean, I hear that you have it on your website. But

Yeah. And I mean, there have been efforts over the years to adjust how our bill you know, what appears on our bill, to try to ensure, like, all the pertinent information is there, you know. But as far as because the bill that's before the committee, Aye, you know, don't know if that really applies to what's appearing on customer's bills. You

know, I think the PC has authority to, you know, open that discussion and, you know, we'd be willing to work with the the PC and the consumer advocates office to make sure our bills are more clear for customers.

K. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, sorry.

Go ahead, Christian. Any other questions?

Yeah. I for oh, HECO, HECO. I'm just looking at my bill right now, and I don't know if I've even looked at the back page before. What the RBA so there's a couple of acronyms in here that don't appear to be defined anywhere on the on the page, like RBA, PBF, surcharge. I mean, they're small amounts in total.

Really, it comes down to the energy cost recovery, purchase power adjustment, and RBA rate adjustment. Those are the three looking across a couple bills, those are the three big numbers on there. Can you detail what those are?

Again, I would I would refer

to it. Sorry. I didn't mean to stop you. Yeah.

No. I mean, I have a similar I think a lot of people struggle to understand what specifically goes into their bill. I don't think that's, you know, unique.

But we do try to explain it on our website. I'm sorry. Okay. It can be to our website.

So would this bill meaningfully change any of that?

I don't think so because what this bill is trying to do is have us publish kind of separately resource assumption methodology, different items that go into our bill impact that we present when we're submitting a project for approval to the PUC. So again, I think this is kinda separate from what's appearing on customer's bills.

Yeah. So Yeah. I think Or institutional or people who are deeply involved in energy space. Yeah. Thank you.

Oh, this is the next book.

Hey, the chair.

Is there anyone here from White Clean Power Alliance? Okay. Alright. Never mind.

Okay, then we're gonna move on to the next measure. House Bill 2244 relating to Public Utilities Commission clarifies that for electric utilities, performance-based incentives include revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, reward for security performance, and penalties for subpar performance. Confirms that the PUC may adopt alternate alternative rate making procedures to establish electric utility rates and performance-based incentives.

Requires the commission to apply a presumption in favor of considering historical cost trends and external indices that reflect incentives to control costs if the commission resets an electric utilities allowed revenues based on consideration of the utilities costs.

First to testify, we have DCCA Michael Angelo. Comments in person.

Actually left it up here. It's true. Yeah. In fact, I was looking for this.

Hi. I'm Michael Angelo, executive director. Stand on our testimony, providing comments. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the PUC, John Itomura, Itomura in person with comments.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, member of the committee. Again, the PUC stands on its written testimony is available for questions.

Thank you. Ulupono Initiative, Micah Munakata in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Colon. I'm the energy director at Ulupono Initiative, appearing in strong support of this measure, standing on our testimony that, you know, this bill is really important because we are trying to achieve the mandate that the legislature provided, in designing and directing the commission to enter into a performance-based paradigm.

What's important here is the mandate that, you know, the utility, along with stakeholders on the commission break that direct link between allowed revenues and investment levels. And we're seeing a bit of backsliding as of late.

The utility requested and was approved to return to a cost-of-service rate case. And we are looking at this bill as an opportunity to strengthen and reaffirm the mandate given go beyond just designing performance incentive mechanisms, but to actually fully create a structure that is Harabedian will direct the utility to enter into a true performance paradigm.

There's a little bit of conflation you'll hear from other folks saying what Ulupono is currently negotiating with Hawaiian Electric and with Blue Planet on a settlement of their current rebasing request. But, again, against the backdrop of what's already happened, the bat alternative is the cost of service rate case because the commission has already approved that. So what we're talking about here, this bill is going forward and looking forward towards something that can truly be designed more tie performance with outcomes.

So the question will be whether, you know, the stakeholders support the mandate for performance-based rate making or something different. And I believe and that you this process that we're talking about, you can address all of the concerns about due process, about scrutiny, and access to data and questions through design of the process, but we need to actually do that design process. For the time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Life of the Land, Henry Curtis, with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee members. Performance-based regulation proceedings opened at the PUC in 2018. That's eight years ago. This has been the single most complex proceeding that Lifeline has ever been involved in in the PUC. It's a monumental transformation moving the utility from the past to the future.

What this bill says is right now, the PUC is saying to all the parties, where do you wanna go in the future? And there are two paths being developed. Some parties favor one path. Some parties favor the other path. So what this bill is saying is that the legislature should step in and tell the PUC which path to pick.

And believe me, that is that would be a monumental task. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Hawaiian Electric. Shannon Alivado, with comments, in person.

Vice Chair, member, Shannon Alivado for Hawaiian Electric, standing on our comments. Here for questions.

Thank you. And last to testify, we have Isaac Moriwaki from Earthjustice, in support, in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. Isaac Moriwaki, Earthjustice, in support of this measure. We stand on our written testimony and just want to clarify something. So the point of this measure is to clarify and reaffirm the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2018 with the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026. If you look at the bill's terms, it's really basic.

It should be uncontroversial here. And reading the testimony, I'll get to Mr. Curtis' comments in just a second. But the written testimony says, really, this is not necessary, right? And I don't want to get into the semantics of necessary, but I believe this bill really would be beneficial and helpful, because there is some confusion swirling around here.

The PUC and, more so, the consumer advocate have said in that docket that maybe our hands are tied, and we need to be tracked into a traditional cost of service regulation rate case, which is what we definitely don't want. I'm not sure if any of the parties want that at this point, and that would set us up for an epic, historic rate hike, right? And, you know, we're locked into that cost of service paradigm.

It has to be based on this wish list for test year approach. And so, yeah, there's been some noises that our hands are tied and we're handcuffed, and we have to drag ourselves back to the cost of service paradigm when we should be going forward with this performance based regulation paradigm that the commission itself has established. So this bill makes clear that we're unhandcuffing, we're unstraitjacketing the PUC. Contrary to what Mr. Curtis just said, we're not dictating the PUC to go one path or another.

We're saying, hey, you don't have to track us into this cost of service paradigm and drag us back to that framework. We can all focus our eyes forward, like we should. So, again, just reaffirming the progress since 2018 and ensuring that we're all on the same page going forward, letting the PUC have the discretion to do the right thing and uphold the principles and the process of performance based regulation.

Mahalo, and I'm here for any questions.

Thank you. That's all I have listed to testify. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, are there any questions?

Sure. Yes. Earthjustice, could you just explain how the prior legislation, if it remained unamended, handcuffs the PUC?

We don't believe it does. Yeah. In fact, we thought that Act 5, that was the original enactment, which was codified in 269-16.1, was clear enough that we're supposed to forge ahead on a new path that's performance based. But again, there have been signals from the PUC and the consumer advocate that, no, the existing laws, like Section 16 in the PUC statute, as well as the rules, require us to drag ourselves back to a traditional cost of service rate case, require us to do a four test year system.

And as the preamble in this bill recognizes, that four test year approach is really, call it a minority approach, but it's not best practice in the whole.

Explain what a four year test year approach is.

Right. And as the bill explains, the concept is the utility comes in with a rate increase proposal, with its wish list of future projects going forward, rather than indexing it to objective measures based on its past cost control performance, based on other utilities. For example, a historic look that is based on your performance, ultimately, in controlling cost. But the four test year approach flips that, and then it's basically this wish list approach.

And that is documented to, you know, obviously, boost rates, because it's all dictated by the utility's request.

So, again, the PUC, the CA, have indicated, well, that's what the rules are. Okay? So maybe our hands are tied here and we have to do that. Now, I saw the PUC's testimony saying, oh, maybe not now, and we do look at historical cost. I think this bill just makes it clear.

Okay. Let's just get all on the same page. Let's ultimately look at performance and controlling cost, you know, and do it the right way.

Do you think, I mean, this is a question over the long term, have they performed, not just in performance incentives, but regarding the performance of HECO, HELCO, Hawaiian Electric, have they, in your opinion, been motivated to improve their performance in things like moving forward more quickly on achieving renewable energy mandates and keeping costs down?

Maybe you should also ask them as well, but I believe so. Yes. And how I know this, especially on the cost control aspect, is because before PBR, heading into PBR, HECO had on the table a combined rate case or a rate increase of, I believe it was about $100,000,000 every single year, you know, year after year.

The PUC held the line on that. Instead, with the direction of the legislature in Act 5, said we're embarking on this performance based approach and kept rates at those levels. And then going forward, it was escalated according to inflation, which is an objective index.

Right? It's not subjective in terms of here's all the projects we're going to load in and how we're going to boost rates, right? And so PBR worked in terms of containing that cost increase and cost upward pressure. And now, right, the prospect is we're staring down at this potential traditional cost of service rate case where all this stuff is going to come rushing back in.

And all this bill is saying is that, no, let's stay the course on performance based regulation. Keep those cost control incentives front and center.

I guess what I'm asking is, was the initial setup of the PBR framework strong enough?

It was strong, and I think the objective here is to make it even stronger and to improve it. I mean, there were intervening sort of complications, like COVID, like the supply chain problems, like inflation, you know, what have you. But mind you, this performance based regulation that collectively we all established with the legislature's guidance, with the PUC taking the lead, it ultimately really was their leadership under previous administrations. It's established this framework that is leading the nation, really.

It's recognized nationally as the future of this performance based paradigm. And again, bringing it back to this bill, all this bill would be doing is updating Act 5, updating the Ratepayer Protection Act to what we've already established and reaffirming that this is what we want.

Alright. Thanks.

Any other questions? Seeing none, we're going to move on to our next.

Can I make one comment?

I allowed you to on the last bill, but I think we're going to move on.

That was highly misleading.

One comment. So we'll allow you to revise.

For the last two or three months, HECO and all the parties have been involved in intense negotiations. All cost data is classified within the working group. So any discussion on the previous speaker on what costs are on the table now, nothing is public.

That's a little over our heads anyway.

But I think we might have missed that.

I do have another question, maybe for HECO.

I guess we would like to see the utility embracing performance standards and working to achieve them. And I think PBR has been effective, but it could be more effective. It has led to maybe improvements, or it has kept cost from being as high as they could be, but I think that the utility could still do a lot better in pushing forward on renewables and keeping cost down.

Like, given that, I mean, if we didn't pass this or you are allowed to go back to the old way of rate making, which is not what I intend to do, but, I mean, how is the utility working to move projects forward in a timely way to bring cheaper energy online for everyone and to keep costs down?

Thank you, Chair, for the question and acknowledging your previous question to the testifier with respect to whether PBR is working. And I will, for the record, just, for committee members' purposes, express that the PIMs that Hawaiian Electric has been subject to have resulted in penalties, and I'll just read off what the penalties have been for the last five years. 2021, $4,900,000 net penalty. 2022, $4,000,000 net penalty. 2023, $1,800,000 net penalty.

And 2024 was the first time we received a reward of $2,300,000. And the breakdown, we have it if you want the breakdown, but with respect to whether we're committed to bringing renewables online, the answer is yes. And I think you will see that with our most recent IGP that it's going to be coming forward after the Stage 3 RFPs are negotiated and finalized. And I think PBR is holding us accountable.

And so I can't say anything because, as Mr. Curtis noted, these negotiations that have been going on are confidential, and we're committed, and I think the PUC has been doing a good job of making sure all parties are talking and continuing.

Can you tell us what the penalties were for in the prior years and what the

I can probably provide it to you in letter form, but with respect to, and I think Daniel probably has this, it's SAIDI. There was some SAIDI, so that's reliability. The other ones, I don't think the interconnection, there was no penalty. I've seen it on generation, but we did get pluses for AMI, advanced meter installation, LMI, low to moderate income, working with our LMI communities. So I can give you this breakdown, because we did present it to the Senate in June. Yeah, after. It's very helpful.

Okay. Thanks. And then I'll keep asking another question. Michael Colon, are you still on Zoom?

Yep. I'm here.

Hi. I guess, what do you see as the dangers of going backwards?

So, you know, I think it's good to clarify, we have been working on PBR, right, for a long time. We did a lot of work on designing the performance incentive mechanisms, but we, I guess, collectively, the group kicked the can down the road on rebasing, right? So that pushed this process into kind of where we're at right now. And rebasing is the new word for rate case, like a reconciliation, an increase in rates, however you want to call it.

That new mechanism and structure has been in the process of being designed up until the point where Hawaiian Electric requested and received that approval to proceed under a cost of service rate case.

So the question is, you know, it's front and center whether or not we're committed to continuing forward with that performance paradigm. Now, getting to your question, I think what's important is that the notion of, you know, why we started in the first place down this path of aligning performance was that people were somewhat frustrated with the way the utilities operated and performed and wanted to see more close alignment, but also wanted to see a tangible connection between behavior and consequences, both positive and negative.

And without a structure that's durable and understandable, and I think there's also something to be said about setting up a structure that is more easily understood by the average bear, and I think that's also part of what the challenge of a cost of service rate case is, is if, you know, I used to work at the commission.

When they open a rate case, a truck literally, like, backs up with boxes of testimony and information and work papers for the Public Utilities Commission, the consumer advocate, to pour through. It's a lot of work, and it's a lot of resources on everybody's side to go through it.

I know, I also worked at Electric. It's not fun to do those either. And the challenge is to wade through all that process and then come up with a true outcome that people are going to be happy with, coupled with an increase in rates. Some of the efforts in the PBR design was to create something that is easier, a little bit more streamlined, and also somewhat automated in the way that you can look at some of the cost control mechanisms, right?

And so there's, you know, the one we're talking about, this forward looking versus backward looking. If you, rather than, you know, pile in what's going to be coming in in the future, it's essentially like going in for a performance evaluation with your boss, and you say, you know, I want a raise of x amount because that's how much I'm going to be spending. That's kind of what a forward looking test year is.

Rather than looking at, you know, bringing up your budget, how much you spent, and being kind of real disciplined in how you approach it, which is kind of what we're trying to build in with this performance approach. So I think the real risk is there's a little more obfuscation.

There's a little less clarity on how costs are controlled, and a little less structure to that, tying the performance of the utility to their outcomes. And, you know, I think to be fair to the utility, they are motivated, and it's bad timing with COVID and a lot of other things that really made achieving more of their, you know, accelerated renewable achievement possible, but some of the PIMs are working.

And so, you know, that's not to say we're, any of this is to lock in existing performance incentive mechanisms or anything like that. It's just to stay focused on this process and not backtrack as a whole. Alright.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions, we're going to move on to the second to last measure in this docket. HB 2242 relating to renewable energy requires the PUC to establish a streamlined grid ready homes interconnection process, authorizes the use of Hawaii electricity reliability surcharge for cost recovery of certain expenses of the Hawaii elect electricity reliability administrator associated with the grid ready homes interconnection process, Requires a report to the PUC on the Grid Ready Homes interconnection process.

First to testify, we have DCCA, Michel angelo with comments.

Chair, vice chair, member of the committee, Michel angelo, stand on our testimony to provide comments. Thank you.

Thank you. PUC, John Idemura with comments.

Chair, vice chair, member of the committee. PUC stands for his written testimony and is available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaiian Electric, Shannon Alivado, Alivado, Apones.

Thank you so much, chair, vice chair, Shannon Alivado for Hawaiian Electric, and we stand in opposition, available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony from, Alternate Energy in support, Photons Photon Works Engineering in support, Green Power Projects in support, ELCO Inc. In support. High Power Solar in support. KIUC, Scott Sato with comments on Zoom.

Good morning again. KIUC stands on its written testimony providing comments on this measure. I would like to note that we've offered a couple of amendments to exempt the member owned electric cooperative from this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Malama Solar offered testimony in support. Hawaii Solar Energy Association, Rocky Mould in support on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, and vice chair. Rocky Mould, Hawaii Solar Energy Association. We'll stand on our written comments, in strong support of this measure, but I'll just note that we're really trying to innovate here. Hawaii has really laudable and ambitious renewable energy goals. And in order to get there, we really need to pick up the pace on interconnection of rooftop solar and energy storage.

So this really is an effort to innovate our process to be able to get us there. It's also opening the door for new technologies that are gonna lower costs for that transition, lower costs for customers. So we're in strong support of this measure. We've also listened to some of the comments we've heard from folks and offer a few amendments that I think are responsive to those comments. I'm here to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from EPQ, energy advisers, climate protectors, Sun Spirit Energy, and two additional individuals in support. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? No questions.

We'll be moving on to the next measure. Final measure, HB 1980, relating to electrical electric vehicle charging infrastructure establishes a goal of the state to retrofit state facilities to be electric vehicle charger ready, requires the design of all new state building construction where parking parking is to be included to provide that at least 25% of parking stalls be electric vehicle charger ready, Requires HSCO in consultation with GAGS and Department of Transportation to conduct a survey and identify certain high priority state facilities.

Final measure, HB 1980 relating to electrical, electric vehicle charging infrastructures. Establishes a goal of the state to retrofit Requires a report.

First to testify, we have Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Leah Laramie, in support in person. She may have left. Hawaii State Energy Office, with comments in person.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, Chris Yuncker from the Hawaii State Energy Office, here to stand on our written testimony with comments and available for questions. The one thing that I would note is for the new facilities, the 25% make ready, just wanted to note that that doesn't necessarily require, you know, dedicating those vehicles to EVs. You know, that would seemingly occur once the EV chargers were installed. Thanks.

Thank you. We have also testimony in support from DAGS, p three and comptroller in person.

Good morning, Chair Lowen and Vice Chair Perruso. My name is Seema Sueko Lo with DAGS automotive management division. We stand on our written testimony in support, and, we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. First, I have testimony and support from three fifty Hawaii, Imova Alliance Alliance, for auto automobile innovation. Tiffany Yajima in support on Zoom. Not present. Testimony in support from Climate Protectors Hawaii and, one individual in support.

Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members. Are there any questions? Sure.

I guess for DAGS first. And this is a little bit based on because I sometimes torture myself by watching Senate hearings on bills I'm interested in. Sorry. And it seemed like DAGS was interpreting the language to in this bill to mean that that you would only have to look at the parking lots that DAGS is directly responsible for. Is that is that your interpretation?

Because my reading of the bill is it says all state facilities. Seems pretty clear.

Yes. It does look it is all state facilities, but DAGS will only have responsibility on the facilities that we actually control. So, for example, Department of Education, dot. You know, they have parking lots as well and facilities that they would be responsible for.

Is it would it be not appropriate then to designate DAGS? Because DAGS does oversee construction projects at state facilities statewide. I mean, are you I know DOE has kind of their own facilities department, but not every agency does. Correct?

Yeah. We manage 35 parking facilities across the state, and so that's my understanding is that's where our jurisdiction ends. Our reading of the bill, though, is that it is in reference to statewide. I'm looking at my colleague over at HSEO because we've had this conversation in this world. So that's why I keep looking at it.

Chris, if you if you wanna come up thank you. Yeah. I guess I just wanna make sure if we're able to well, first of all, I wanted to ask you anyway. I think there has been some ongoing work that moving us forward on this, even though we haven't passed legislation that we've considered several years in a row. So do you wanna update us on that?

Yes. We've been working closely with DAGS in in looking at workplace charging and charging in state facilities. DAGS has been moving ahead. The state energy office, administers some funds for the Volkswagen settlement. We were looking at doing some charging, but with the rollback of federal, opportunities, we've, shifted to working with with DAGS and other state, agencies on rolling out charging at state facilities.

And so that that's what we're working on now. We can use some of those funds as cost match with them.

Okay. So in your reading of this bill I mean, I'm just trying to think well, clearly, the new construction requirement applies across the board. And then in terms of retrofitting, have you I guess this assessment of facilities statewide still needs to be completed, or has some of that been done?

We're looking at all of these state facilities. As DAGS would know, we'll have to work with each of the individual agencies, in terms of doing that assessment. But.

Would that include working with, like, DOE and DOH and

Yes.

Agencies that are more responsible for their own facilities?

Each one is responsible for their own facilities. And, yes, we intend to reach out and work with all of those. We've been working with DAGS, and we do with DOT quite a bit. But that's where in noting in our testimony, we note as well. It's like we don't have control of all those facilities.

However, we're perfectly willing to support and and do the analysis.

But in terms of doing an assessment of which facilities might be sort of the low hanging fruit for retrofits, that's something that HSEO could do for all state agencies even though you will not be able to necessarily control those construction projects if they happen.

We would be willing to take that on, yes, with the readily available information, and and we feel like we have, enough to go on anyway.

And then the language says, state energy office in consultation with DAGS, DOT shall survey existing state facilities statewide that and so that is clear, but should we add DOE and DOH? Like, what would be the most helpful to you in accomplishing that?

I'm not sure. I'd have to take that back. The one thing that concerns me about calling out specific agencies as opposed to all agencies, like, it the current language does do in terms of the requirements for, like, make ready. Once you call out one, if you don't call out everybody,

then I use with them. Well, because it says all state facilities, but not all state agencies. So should we just say a consultation with all state agencies that have parking facilities, something like that?

That could work.

Okay. Just because it seemed like there was some lack of clarity about who was included. Dollar amount blank dollar amount in the bill. Do you guys have a recommendation?

It we need consultation and talking with DAGS. Some of, like, the detailed engineering studies, if we wanted to do those to really make them ready, could cost anywhere from between 25 to 35,000 per facility. If you wanted to do four to 10, so 10 times 30 would be 300,000. And that would get you to essentially the point where you could do installations of the equipment.

Okay. And then if you wanna I'm actually thinking because there's always so much misunderstanding on this, especially, like, I mentioned when I watched some of the Senate hearings. I'm thinking of clarifying, like, in the definition of EV charger ready, that EV charger ready does not, like, necessarily include the actual charger. It's the wire it's the wiring. I mean, I think the definition as it is right now matches up to, like, federal law at least where it came from.

I come I I think the language is pretty clear, and we we can provide testimony clarifying on that. The one thing, yeah, I get, it's like identifying individual agencies. You know, once you start saying, oh, it doesn't include this, it you get into a situation of, okay. Well, what about the things that weren't mentioned?

Okay.

As opposed to simply saying make ready is this.

Okay. Well, I guess given that understanding that the make the make ready work is a new construction, you put in the wiring that was able to sometime in the future when it there is a demand for it. You are able to install an EV charging system with minimal tearing up the whole parking lot to accommodate the wiring for it, which is much cheaper than than doing the retrofits that we're talking about. Given that, do you think 25% is an appropriate percent?

I could take it back, but I believe 25% is a reasonable for for state facilities to going forward.

Just given the continuing back

and get back to you on

Yeah. Okay. Well, we're gonna pass something out today.

Okay.

So we'll stick with 25, I guess. But okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Members, are there any other questions? Seeing none, we're gonna recess for decision making.

Alright. We are back for decision making on the 09:45am agenda, committee on energy and environmental protection. First up we have House Bill 1644 relating to consumer protection. So we are going to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and to affect the date to the year 3000, move this forward. Members, any discussion? If not, vice chair, please take the vote.

On House bill 1644, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting, aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. For House bill 2243, for now, we're gonna defer decision making on this to Tuesday, December 17 at the end of the 09:30AM agenda here in Room 325 just to decide what we wanna do with this, if anything. So we will not be voting on that right now. On House bill 2244, we are going to defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion?

Seeing none, vice chair.

On House Bill 2244, chair's recommend recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any noes or reservations? Chair, your recommendation recommendation has been adopted

And then House Bill 2242, For this, we're going to adopt the amendments from Hawaii State Energy Association. We will defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none, vice chair.

And then House Bill

House Bill 2242, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, chair and vice chair voting aye. Are there any no's or reservations? Seeing none, chair recommendation has been adopted.

And then House Bill 1980 relating to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. We will clarify the language in section five. So this will be in consultation with all state agencies that have parking facilities, and we will recommend in the committee report an appropriation amount of 300,000, and we will defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none, Vice Chair.

House Bill 1980. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair going aye. Are there any noes or reservations? Seeing none. Chair, recommendation has been adopted.

And this hearing is adjourned.

K. We are convening the joint committees on agriculture and food systems and energy environment protection. This is our Thursday, February 12 hearing. This is the two oh, sorry. 10:15AM agenda, and we have one bill on our agenda, just House bill 2548, relating to sustainable food systems, establishes the climate resilient food systems grant program within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and appropriates funds.

First up to testify, we have Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity.

Hello, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Cedric Gates here on behalf of DAB. DAB stands in strong support of this measure. We wanna thank the author for introducing this measure as well and hear for any questions.

Thank you. So we have Brian Miyamoto, Hoyt Farm Group.

Next up, we have Hunter Hedwin, Hoyt from Michigan. Support. Present. We have the testimony from Angela Young from CARES. Not present.

And that's all I have for you to testify in person or online. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Any questions?

The tax department is here. ...

Okay, oh sorry

Okay. There's a lot.

Yeah. Any questions, members? Seeing none, we're gonna move right into decision making of this measure. So numbers for house bill 2548. We're going the recommendation is to pass out of house draft one, and they already have some blank appropriations, so you're just gonna, defect the date to 07/01/3000.

Any questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none.

Thank you, chair. Voting on HB 2548. Chair's recommendation is passed with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Oh, for committee on energy and environmental protection, same recommendation.

On House bill 2548, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, chair and vice chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation has been adopted.

Alright. Thank you. We're adjourned.

Alright. We are gaveling in for a quick decision making agenda, which was scheduled for 10:30, Thursday, February 12, Room 325, can be on energy and environmental protection. We are voting out house bill 2486 relating to solar energy. And for this bill, we're just going to take the, recommended amendments from the Public Utilities Commission and defected date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion?

If not, vice chair, please take the one.

On House bill 2486, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, chair and vice chair voting aye. Representative Chen? Aye. Representative Cabello is excused. Representative Kusch?

Aye. Representative Clement is excused. Representative Matsumoto? Aye. Chair recommendation has

been adopted. Alright. And this hearing is adjourned.

So reconvening the House the Committee on Energy and environmental protection to hear, one measure, House bill 1617, reestablishes the agricultural development and food security special fund, establishes a carbon emissions tax and dividend special fund, gradually increases the environmental response, energy, carbon emissions, and food security tax rates, and establishes a refundable carbon cash back tax credit to offset increases for most taxpayers. First to testify in this measure, we have Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in support in person.

Thank you. I also have a testimony in support from the Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission. Will, Hawaii Department of Taxation provided testimony with comments. Thank you. We have testimony with comments from the attorney general on Zoom.

Go ahead, Gary.

Oh, sorry. I will send

that our written testimony, and I'm available.

Thank you. I have testimony in support from Kauai Climate Action Coalition, Citizens Climate Lobby Hawaii, Climate Future Forum. We also have the Hawaii Farm Bureau providing comments in person.

Thank you, Joe. The Hawaii Farm Bureau will

stand on a written testimony providing comments.

Thank you. Greenpeace Hawaii offers testimony in opposition on Zoom. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Dave Molnick here. Waste bring peace of light. We we have gone into great detail in our written testimony on why HB 1617 is written. Will be bad for local farmers, local businesses, and low income commuters.

We oppose carbon cashback portion of the bill, but support reestablishing the agricultural development and food security fund for farmers. These are two different bills that should not be smooshed together. We would support the bill if you edited out or added out the carbon cashback portion. The goal of carbon cashback is to raise prices on fossil fuels, which would never really raise prices on all goods and services. The cashback won't cover additional costs, which will financially disadvantage our local farmers, local businesses, and low end commuters.

This concern has been expressed in many times by local chamber of commerce, retail merchants, farm bureau, Grassroots Institute, and tax foundation. That's exactly what happened in Canada. That's why last year, they essentially rescinded their carbon cash back, their version of carbon cash back. But Canadian farmers warned that the tax would raise prices on local produce, which is what it did. And so they had to rescind that tax.

And that's exactly what will happen here in Hawaii. Additionally, the plan is to raise the cost of fossil fuels to force consumers to switch to clean transportation. The problem with that is the infrastructure is not in place for that. Then in rural areas like Hawaii Island, there are severe lack of bus service, also severe lack of EV charging stations. Carbon cashback puts the cart before the horse.

It doesn't provide the infrastructure needed for people to transition off of fossil fuels. Finally, carbon cashback is based on an unproven theory that carbon taxes will reduce carbon emissions. A peer reviewed research paper examined all 37 studies that assessed the actual effects of carbon pricing policy and on emissions reductions, and concluded overall, that reduction on carbon pricing was limited to impact to generally between 02% per year.

The author of the study concluded, we have thirty years of experience in carbon pricing and not a whole hell lot to show for it.

Thank you.

Finally, the the citizen light can't

line me Would you mind would you mind summarizing?

Alright. I think that summarizes it. Thank you so much. Please kill this bill or amend it, take out carbon cashback. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have testimony and support from Imu Alliance, from carbon cashback Hawaii. We also have, KIUC, Beth Amaro, in on Zoom in opposition.

Yes, thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. We are in opposition to the the portion of the bill that, relates to the Carbon Commissions tax and very briefly, aside from the financial impact to our customers, we feel very strongly that since, Kiuc is already in compliance with the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandates, which guides our, actions toward, weaning ourselves off of fossil fuel, in fact, we are well ahead of the state benchmarks that have been set, leading up to 2045.

We feel that this would actually be punitive in nature to electric utilities that are in compliance with that law. So if it does move forward, we feel that electric utilities in compliance with the RPS standard should be exempt, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you. We have women organizing for change in agricultural and natural resource management in support, as well as the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in opposition, Nature Conservancy in support, Climate Protectors Hawaii in support, Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika with comments on Zoom.

Aloha. Colleen Teramai on behalf of our president, Tom Yamachika. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii stands on its written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Additionally, we have, Douglas Hagen in support on Zoom. Not present. Thomas Graham in support on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Thomas Graham, and Aye, strongly support this bill. I'd like to highlight how important carbon cashback is in the state's various climate and energy plans. First, it's run by the state climate commission.

It's a key part of the climate action pathways plan, which was released, just a couple of months ago. Current cashback is also a key recommendation of the state energy office's decarbonization plan. That's the plan to get the state to net zero emissions. And the current cashback is the top recommendation of the state's most recent, tax review commission based on the carbon pricing study that was commissioned by, the legislature and carried out by UHERA.

Couldn't get us off of fossil fuels, but all of these expert state agencies and commissions see it as a key ingredient in the mix of policies that the state needs to adopt if it's going to achieve its climate and energy security goals.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have, John Kawamoto in support on Zoom.

Aloha. My name is John Kawamoto, and I strongly support this bill. This bill brings together two proven policy tools, carbon pricing and refundable tax credits to cut climate pollution while putting money directly into the pockets of Hawaii's families. Carbon pricing is currently used in some form by 55 countries according to the World Bank. It is used by so many countries because it is so effective.

The World Bank states, carbon pricing is widely recognized as an important tool to incentivize low carbon economic growth. Globally, carbon pricing programs now generate more than $100,000,000,000 per year worldwide that is used to fund clean energy infrastructure, support vulnerable communities, and assist families financially. Refundable tax credits are used in Hawaii to provide financial support to specific populations. Examples include the food and excise tax credit, earned income tax credit, and child tax credit.

Refundable tax credits are the most effective mechanism minimizing the potential for fraud that ensures financial assistance reaching those who need it.

This bill combines carbon pricing with refundable tax credits so that climate action also supports Hawaii's families financially. Mahalo for your kind attention.

Thank you. Finally, the last individual testifier is Thomas Milkurek, in support on Zoom. Not present. Is there anyone here wishing to testify in this measure? Please come to the podium.

I'll open the opportunity to testify. Aloha, chair Hong, chair Chun. I know you've heard this bill a number of times for which I am grateful. Reason I continue to come up here every year is I believe it's the most effective, efficient, and equitable policy. I'm very concerned for the future of my children and for the youth that I work with with the Climate Future Forum.

I see this as the, best path forward. I recognize that a policy or proposal with tax in it is very difficult to pass. That is why there is the complimentary piece of this that gives money back to people. Climate change is probably the biggest problem we face as a planet. So I get it again, taxes and all that, but we need to take bold action if we're gonna address this. So I just implore and encourage you all to take that bold action and pass this out of your committees. Mahalo.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? Seeing none, members are there any questions? Representative Krish?

No. I'll pass. Thank you. Okay.

Representative Shalom.

Okay. I think we'll go straight to DM, if that's okay with everyone. Getting late. So I think, you know, we'll continue to have this discussion as we have in other years and defect the date on this to the year 3000 and move it forward. Members, any discussion?

Alright. If not, vice chair.

House bill 1617. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Representative Chen? Aye.

Representative Kahalua? Aye. Representative Cush?

Aye.

Representative Quinlan is excused. Representative Matsumoto has a Chair, your recommendation has been adopted. Agriculture.

Same recommendation for agriculture. Any questions?

Okay. Right, sir. Thank you, chair voting on HB 1617. Chair chair's recommendation is passed with amendment. Chair and vice chair voting, Aye.

Representative Kahalala. Aye. Representative Lowen.

Peruso. Aye. Noting the excused absence of representative Quaylen, representative Matsumoto. Reservations. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Aye.

Representative

We're adjourned.