Senate Standing Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs

Good afternoon. We're convening the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs for our three o'clock agenda on this February 10th in room 224. Members, we have one measure on this agenda. It's only for decision-making. This is Senate Bill 2033 relating to renewable energy.

We had a hearing with our friends from the Committee on Consumer Protection last week and they have passed out. You might recall this is the one about rooftop solar.

It was a little bit confusing and the CPN chair asked for a couple of days to come up with amendments and he came up with those amendments, which I will read now. We're going to clarify Grid Ready Home. These are for retrofits for new homes.

Clarify provisions relating to cost sharing program and that such requirements apply to interconnecting customers. There's also another amendment that adding language to clarify that the established process must ensure that relevant safety standards or certifications are complied with per DCCA testimony. And we're also going to defect the date of the measure.

Those are the amendments for Senate Bill 2033. Members, any discussion? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you, we are adjourned.

Thank you for your patience. We are convening the Joint Committees on Energy Economic... No Economic Development anymore, sorry. Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs on this February 10th, Tuesday, at about 3:07pm in Room 224.

This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube, so if we have any kind of technical difficulties, we're going to post a notice as to when we're going to reconvene. And we are going to limit testimony for to each individual to be one minute.

Having said that, we're going to move into the first measure, which is Senate Bill 2363, relating to the counties. First on our testifiers list, which I hope I can find. City and County of Honolulu.

EIG Chair Wakai, Vice Chair Chang, and Committee Members. PSM Chair Fukunaga, Committee Members. Gene Albano, Director and Chief Engineer of the Department of Facility Maintenance, City and County of Honolulu. The City and County of Honolulu strongly supports Senate Bill 2363. In addition to our written testimony, we appreciate the opportunity to provide further in person testimony.

Granting the city the ability to manage access to encumbered properties such as streams is essential for protecting public health, ensuring safety, mitigating flood risk, and curbing illicit activities that threaten our environment. Honolulu streams become extremely dangerous during torrential rain. Unstable embankments, rapidly rising water, and flash flood conditions create life threatening drowning hazards.

SB 2363 would give the city the authority to restrict or close access to these waterways quickly, preventing injuries and loss of life before an accident occurs. Trash, debris, and abandoned equipment left in streams obstruct natural flow. I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you for the opportunities. And if there are any questions from the city and county, we appreciate the opportunity to respond. Thank you, Chair Wakai.

Department of Transportation has submitted testimony in support. Ryan Kanaka'ole from DLNR, or his representative. They've submitted testimony in support. And we have the Department of Prosecuting Attorney also in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2363? Members, any questions?

If I may, Mr. Chair.

is there someone online?

Yes, sir. Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I also sit on the LNC, Region 1 member. And I would just point out that this problem that they're trying to solve, the power that they're grabbing here is created from mismanagement. We have a problem of lack of enforcement and lack of proper management of some of these public spaces.

And I don't think they need sweeping new powers in order to accomplish what we really need them to do and what needs to happen. And I know there's a complex problem here, so I'm not trying to oversimplify it, but I don't think this bill is the way, and so I'm opposing it today. And thank you for hearing me.

Thank you for your comments, Austin. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2363? Members, questions? If there are no questions, I'm going to hand it over to my capable Co-Chair, Co-Chair Fukunaga.

Okay, thank you. Turning to item two on today's agenda, Senate Bill 2054 related to public safety. I believe we have a whole list of people testifying on this measure. So in person we had Senate Bill. I'm sorry, Brigadier General Walter Ross. General Ross, please join us.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the. Committee, I'm Brigadier General Walter Ross, Director Of Joint Staff of Hawaii National Guard and we stand on our written testimony and here for any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. If you could stand by, we would really appreciate it.

Yes, ma'am.

Next we have among our testifiers Cap Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons on zoom

Not present on zoom Chair.

Okay. Austin Martin testifying for Libertarian Party.

Aloha Members of the Committee, thank you so much for hearing me today. I am absolutely excited to be here and support this measure.

I think it's really important that we maintain constitutional checks and balances against federal overreach that can violate our state's self determination politically and present existential risks to the decentralized form of government that's enshrined in our Constitution. So I want to thank those who brought this Bill.

I actually was part of the original effort to spearhead this all the way back when I first saw the adverse deployment against Gavin Newsom's objections in California.

And so we went to the Democratic Association of National Governors and two others and, and it was a really big effort and I think only a little bit of the original language is actually still in there, which is fine.

I still think it's a wonderful job and a wonderful Bill and it accomplishes a, in my opinion, a good thing. It's not a reaction where we're trying to create a one size fits all rule to a government created problem so much as it is.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. We appreciate your testimony.

And thank you for hearing me. Have a great day.

Okay, next we have Liza Ryan Gill for Hawaiian Coalition, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'll be very, very quick. We unfortunately we don't want to put any of these bills forward. Right. Unfortunately, we are seeing these types of movements across the country and incursions and the breach of sovereignty that states have in lots of different places. I recognize that this is an awkward thing.

We are in an awkward time and we're going to have to make some difficult decisions. So we thank you so much for your consideration and we hope to move this forward.

Thank you. Okay. Next we have Mandy Fernandes testifying for ACLU of Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Committee Members, Vice Chair Mandy Fernandez. On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii. We're a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that seeks to defend the rights guaranteed to us by the state and federal constitutions. We strongly support this measure. We've seen domestic deployment happening in other jurisdictions.

We cannot control what this Administration is going to do. We can't control if they deploy troops to our state or try to try to send in ICE agents to our state or direct all sorts of actions.

But what we can do is make sure that we're doing absolutely everything that is within our power as a state to protect our residents and our communities. I'll be available for any questions. Okay, thank you.

Next we have Francis Nakamoto. In person or on zoom. Is Mr. Nakamoto present? This is SB2054. Okay. All right, let's see. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2054? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Chair Wakai and Chair Fukunaga. Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. I'm Ana Flores here on behalf of the Legal Clinic and our Board President Amy Agbayani. TLC is a non profit organization that works to advance immigrant justice in Hawaii through legal services, education and advocacy.

We stand on our grid and testimony in support of Senate Bill 2054. And to highlight a few points from our testimony, this Bill creates a clear and necessary boundary when the Governor formally objects to a federal or out of state deployment for immigration enforcement or otherwise. Hawaii's resources cannot be used to support that operation. That clarity matters.

Over the past year we've seen federal Administration attempt to larger scale deployments in other states over the objections of their governors and how the stabilization that can be for our communities. So this Bill reforms the democratic accountability and community trust. We urge your support for this Bill and thank you so much for the opportunity to to testify.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2054? Okay, Members, any questions for any of the previous testifiers?

Chair.

Certainly.

General Ross. Appreciate you coming today. It's a hot seat. Your testimony talks about the paradox between obeying a order versus obeying an illegal order, as I read it. And so your concern is that this law would challenge the service person, at whatever rank to make a determination whether or not this is a legal order.

Is that the gist of your concern?

Yes, it is, Senator, that is the direct outline of my overall testimony and to further clarify, too, I brought. Our state judge advocate here to go more into depth if that was. Yeah, why don't we bring him.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Phelps. I'm the state judge advocate for the Hawaii National Guard.

Okay. Appreciate you being here and answering this question. I think we're not going to waste time explaining why we're here because we all know why we're here. I don't think anybody in this building wants to put our service people in jeopardy, but we also don't want to put our constituency, our citizenship in jeopardy either.

So, you know, borrowing from a President some time ago, where does the buck stop? If that's the question. Who makes that determination.

With regard to the mobilization and deployment of National Guardsmen, it really based on the title of the authority.

And that's where I think, in my testimony, I tried to articulate the difference in distinction between authorities that the President has under Title 10 to deploy service Members and then what Governor has as his prerogative to deploy service Members within. The state of Hawaii? You want to elaborate more on that?

Yes, sir. So in the Title 32 realm, sir, the President can't call up, call us up under Title 32 and send us off to another state. Basically, Title 32 requires, already requires the governor's approval, whether it's us Title 32 Members going off somewhere as a unit or Title 32 Members from another state coming in, they can't.

They're still state actors under that. That status, so they can't just come into the state of Hawaii under that status over the governor's objections. The Governor essentially already has this power to object as far as Title 32 deployments go.

In General Ross's testimony, he delves more into the Title 10 realm, which is where your concerns are going to come from.

POTUS, President of the United States, calls up whether it's out-of-state people under Title 10 or even in-state people, whether it's under 12406 that he tried to do in California, and eventually the Supreme Court said, no, that's improper. Your reading of forces available does not include Title 10 forces. So he couldn't do that.

That one worked out. The other option he has is under the, what General Ross described as the Insurrection act, if he were to call them up, if he disables, if he decides under his definition that there's an insurrection taking place, he could federally activate troops.

And it's been done before and they can potentially come in over the governor's objection.

Some of the concerns we have is as an organization we have like I'm a title 32 full time AGR soldier, we've got any number of AGR soldiers that if an activation were to come up, you know, if you read the Bill the way it's worded right now, it's very broad assist do all these things that we pretty much inevitably do as Title 32 soldiers.

If a federal activation comes down, we've got to prepare the force to go on to Title 10 orders and there's a whole lot of assisting and things going on in our Title 32 status to get these people prepared to go on.

Like way back when we went to Iraq back in the day, sir, there was a lot that went on before we actually assumed Title 10 orders and went off and did what we did for guy the country.

So there's just a lot of gray areas here where you would, you would probably see some assist and some other things going on with Title 32 forces that would be violative of the law. The way I read it, the way it's currently written.

Okay. I'm not sure if it's clearer or muddier, but I appreciate that it's very muddy.

Apologies, I don't mean to interrupt. It just there's a whole lot of second and third order effects that we're concerned with as an order this.

But again, we all know why the intent of this Bill is here. Thank you. Thank you. Chair.

Maybe to follow up on Senator Richards line of questioning. Do you see ways that the Bill could be clarified to provide specific guardrails?

Because in any instance in which the Governor were to issue an order, except as required by federal or state law, in which case it would seem that, you know, the language could be tightened up to make clear that you are following the Administration. I mean the governor's orders in terms of specific actions that are taken in Hawaii.

Yes, ma', am, I think it probably could. It would take a whole lot of minds considering it and a lot of people smarter than me, but I would think it would need to be tightened up. But I think we could you maybe be able to get there just that would be in the details, ma'am.

Because I think you, you've you know, in the testimony that General Ross presented, you know, he provided specific examples that were very pertinent to instances in which, you know, there were very valid reasons for presidential action in the face of opposition at the state level.

However, in this instance where we have such a strong immigrant population and people are very fearful, you know, the goal is really to try and allay many of those fears by striking an appropriate balance between our military as well as our civilian population. And so if you have any recommendations, we would certainly welcome them.

And highlighted as well in the testimony looking at the California the timeline matters. Those service members on the ground who are ordered to execute a valid as it was initially instructed on order, it was subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision that that was deemed not so.

So within that gray area is where when we talk about can this law or can this Bill be addressing the gray area? I'm not certain that it can. It would be a lot of effort and energy to find what that gray area area could, could possibly be for any service Member and the commanders on the ground.

Okay. Well, we'll certainly have to explore the best way to address that.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Any further questions? If not, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in person.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, next we have Senate Bill 2057 relating to law enforcement. We have, let's see, 108 testimonies in this Bill as well. And first up, we have Mandy Fernandez, ACLU.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Mandy Fernandez on behalf of ACLU Hawaii. We support this measure as well.

The reason being that ICE is the highest funded law enforcement agency in the United States right now with a budget exceeding $85 billion per year. As its funding has grown, so has the harm has inflicted on our communities, and this Bill would prevent or limit agencies at the local and state level from cooperating in this type of harmful agenda.

Across the country, ICE has fatally shot innocent bystanders during lawful protests, entered homes without judicial warrants, separated and traumatized families, and jailed immigrants who posed no threat to public safety.

By cooperating in this type of behavior and these types of actions, state and local agencies would be exposing our government to extreme liability for those un—for anything unconstitutional or illegal that happens. And lawsuits have already been filed against localities that have done so. I'm available for questions. I hope you pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. I skipped over inadvertently Office of the Public Defender, Lee Chang, in person. Okay. If not, next. Kat Brady, on zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, next, we have, in person, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Services.

Aloha, Chairs, Members of the Committee. Liza Ryan Gill with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We represent about 30 immigrants serving in that organization across Hawaii. We're in strong support of this Bill. And I'll tell you a little bit, very quickly, about some of the context of this.

So, I've been working in this field for almost a decade now and there's a type of cooperation that the Federal Government has sought under Department of Homeland Security from local law enforcement called a 287 agreement that seeks to deputize our local law enforcement as a force multiplier for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.

And previously, most local jurisdictions had not taken the Federal Government up on that because they'd be giving their own police officers to do the Federal Government's job for it and they didn't get reimbursed. Since January 2025, we have seen the number of memorandums of understanding.

So, local law enforcement agencies that have been deputized with the powers of ICE and are conducting ICE operations on their behalf go from 35 to over 1, 300. We are very aware that this is the prerogative of the Federal Government that they want to create full force multipliers by using our police officers. Mahalo. Thank you.

Let's see. Next, we have, in person—oh, sorry. I believe that comes—that is the end of our in-person testimony. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on Senate Bill 2057?

Aloha, Chair Wakai, Chair Fukunaga, and Committee Members. My name is Tina Sablan. I'm here on behalf of the Legal Clinic and our Board President, Amy Agayani. We stand in our written testimony in strong support of this Bill. And just briefly, some highlights from our testimony, this Bill strengthens public safety and protects companies' constitutional rights.

It ensures state and local agencies are not co-opted into activities that exceed their statutory authority or infringe on First Amendment rights. It also limits state and local involvement expressly in Federal Civil Immigration Enforcement, including and especially in sensitive community spaces like schools, hospitals, and courthouses.

This is an important safeguard for community trust to ensure residents can access essential services and seek help without fear here. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2057? Okay. If not, Members, are there any questions? Perhaps if I could ask.

Let's see, Liza, to come back up and speak a little bit about some of the concerns that were raised among between some of the prior testifiers, you know, in terms of framing the legislation in such a way as to avoid placing our Department of Defense personnel in really difficult situations.

Do you have any recommendations on this measure that you think might be helpful to them?

I'll just point to a little bit of the process that is going on right now. So, we recognize this is a very fast changing landscape and we are seeing, you know, new lawsuits and new actions. Thanks to some of our colleagues here, you know, I have a whole chart of about 15 different states that have moved forward, Executive actions, on this front just within the last two weeks or so.

So, it's a really evolving case. What I'll say is that we are in close communication with the Attorney General's office.

They are providing notes and feedback on all of these pieces of legislation so that we have the strongest defensible bills possible. And some of that is based on real time information that is coming from lawsuits across the country.

So, unfortunately, it is difficult to pin down at this exact moment in time because the target is definitely moving very quickly. And I think we all share the same concern that we want the strongest possible protections for our, for local people here in Hawaii.

At the same time, we also want the strongest part possible bills that we can defend in court.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry if that doesn't answer your question.

Okay, if no further questions, we'll turn to Senate Bill 2377, relating to property damage of critical infrastructure facilities. And on that bill, we have Office of the Public Defender, opposition testimony. If not, next we have Rebecca Lieberman testifying for Charter Communications. Welcome.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. Rebecca Lieberman from Charter Communications. I stand in strong support on this bill and on my written testimony. And I'm available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have, let's see, Hawaiian Telcom.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeannine Souki here on behalf of Hawaiian Telcom. We too stand in strong support on this bill and ask for a small clarifying amendment to include broadband in the telecommunications. And I'm here for any questions as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on Senate Bill 2377? If not, Chair has a question. I guess for Charter Communications. This is partly in response to the Public Defender's testimony in which the concern that they expressed was that this was really kind of singling out.

You know, this particular category of infrastructure for a higher penalty and pointing out that typically this type of damage would be covered under the broad category. Is there a specific reason that you can advance as to why broadband infrastructure deserves a higher penalty?

So the existing property damage statute is tied to the value of the property that's been damaged. And our concern is that with regard at least to tell to communications infrastructure, right, those wires might not have tens of thousands of dollars worth of value, but the impact of severing those lines or damaging those lines is significant. Right.

It could interrupt public safety, it could interrupt, you know, hospital practices, schools. There's so many down the line issues that the actual property itself does not have significant value, but the down the stream impact is critical.

Okay, thank you Members. Any questions? Okay. If not, thank you very much. Okay, turning to last Bill on today's agenda, Senate Bill 3322 relating to law enforcement. This measure also had 108 testimonies in support and 4 in opposition. Three comments we see had testimony from the Office of the Public Defender in support.

Next, Cat Brady for Community Alliance on prisons on zoom. Not present on zoom. Chair. Okay, thank you. Next, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Thank you so much. Chair and chair Members of the Committee, Liza Ryan Gill with the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We stand in full support of this Bill. And there's a couple of things that I just want to highlight in there around the reasoning.

One of the reasons why it's so important that we distinguish between what our local law enforcement is and federal agents.

And in fact, I think I've seen multiple Instagram posts from police departments across the country that are taking pictures of themselves and posting them and saying this is what we look like in Charlotte, this is what we look like in Santa Clara.

Don't get us confused with somebody else because unfortunately, Department of Homeland Security federal agents will often wear flak jackets that say police. Right. Imagine now that you are someone whose English is not their first language.

And what we have seen and why we partner so much with domestic violence survivors and organizations that protect domestic violence survivors is that when it becomes indistinguishable between our local police and who is a federal agent, then women who who are predominantly immigrants do not come forward to report crime and do not come forward to report their abusers.

So having this very, very clear line, this is our local police. These are federal agents. They can still do their job. We have a job and it's always safe to report crime. That's what we're looking for.

Thank you so much. Okay, next we have ACLU of Hawaii.

Afternoon, Mandy Fernandez on behalf of ACLU of Hawaii, we support this measure. I want to just give a quick update because I don't think written testimony would reflect this. It just happened. And that is that the California. The lawsuit challenging California's mask ban, part of it was struck down, but there's an important distinction.

I just want to clarify that here. So it was challenged on the basis of the Supremacy Clause because the state's cannot directly regulate the Federal Government. However, we have broad policing power to regulate what happens in our state. A federal agent can't just be running red lights because they feel like it right.

They still have to obey laws. And the mask ban was struck down, but only because it was discriminating between treating federal agents and state law enforcement differently. And the judge implied that it would pass constitutional muster and survive if it just treated all law enforcement in the operating in the state alike. And the ID requirement was upheld.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Mr. Nakamoto. So sorry, we. Have you listed erroneously on the other Bill?

Yeah, I think I listed myself for the. For this Bill. All right, I'll make it quick. Madam Chairman, Chair Wakai. In the long history of the United States and law enforcement, law enforcement officers never wore masks. In the old days, the sheriffs and the constables and the marshals never wore masks. FBI officers don't wear masks.

Highway patrol officers don't wear masks. Military police don't wear masks. Law enforcement and local and state don't wear masks. The only people in government service that are allowed to wear masks in our history were executioners. They put on masks.

And in reality, this Committee, the three Ayes agents or CBB agents who shot Ms. Good in the head and shot Mr. Pretti 10 times in the back were executioners. Two of those people are no longer able to be identified because they weren't wearing masks. Very brief.

We should be ready to stop this, to ban masks from being worn, because not only does it allow for accountability, but it encourages or discourages the abuse of power. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Nakamota. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure?

Good afternoon again, chairs and Members of the Committee, Tina Sablan, on behalf of the Legal Clinic and our board President, Amy Agbayani, we stand in our written testimony in full support of some Senate Bill 3322.

Briefly, I'll note that the provisions in this Bill are among the top priorities of the Campaign for Immigrant justice, supported by tlc, the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the ACLU, and dozens of other community organizations that have signed on as co-sponsors. These include no secret police provisions.

Restraints on state and local participation in immigration enforcement and interrogation and protections for sensitive locations and personal data. We hope to see these critical safeguards enacted as soon as possible. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you. Please come forward.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Chair Wakai. Senators, my name is Jared Redula. I'm the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. Our Department offered comments on this measure. I just want to briefly summarize for you our comments. So we're concerned about the masking of officers and some of the limitations there.

We only have a small amount of detectives, for example, narcotics detectives, that we have to use continuously in our service. I only have 10 narcotics agents. They don't often work undercover, as this proposal says. They can wear a mask, but I still have to preserve their identities, especially when we're out on the street doing work. So.

So we're concerned that the exemptions in this measure are just too narrow and that we have to broaden them. We'd like for you to consider, Senator Rhoads amendments discussed for Senate Bill 2203. The last is conspicuously marking vehicles. This measure requires that law enforcement vehicles be marked.

We have a large number of unmarked vehicles that we use for surveillance, fugitive tracking, fugitive investigations and that sort of thing. And the cost to mark those vehicles would be astronomical. So thank you very much for allowing me to testify this afternoon.

Thank you. See, Is there anyone else, if not Members, Questions? Senator Lee?

Thanks. Thanks. I was gonna make a joke about having your vehicles marked. I'm sure there's some folks out in the public that would do it for free, but that's it. I just want to go to your page two of your testimony, bottom of the second paragraph.

I don't know if this is an inadvertent oversight or somebody didn't catch something, but quoting here, the Department of Law Enforcement strongly opposes Senate Bill 3322 relating to law enforcement facial coverings, visible identification, civil immigration.

We're just offering our comments this afternoon. We completely understand the reason for the Bill. The actions of federal agents on the mainland. Like, we're not down with that. So that's just type yes, Silver.

Yeah, Sorry about that. No, no, that's right. Maybe we could get a corrected.

Certainly submit that to the Committee. We're just offering our comments.

Okay. Any further questions? Okay. If not, thank you very much. This brings us to the end of our agenda. We will take a brief recess of and come back for recommendations on decision making. Can we borrow this?

Thank you for your patience. We're reconvening the committees on Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs and our good friends from the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs to take the vote on a number of bills on this 3:07 agenda. First is Senate Bill 2363, relating to the counties.

The two chairs have conferred and think that there's a real public interest that is going to be safeguarded by this bill. Would like to pass this measure out as is. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang? I vote yes.

[Roll Call]

For PSM Committee, same recommendations. Chair votes aye. Vice Chair Lee for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Turning to the next bill, Senate Bill 2054, relating to public safety. We do acknowledge the concerns raised by Hawaii National Guard, and we would like to kind of keep the bill moving and would like to express the concerns raised by the National Guard in the committee report. Include a defective date and move this on to Judiciary Committee to see how best to strike an appropriate balance. Any discussion?

Chair, I support the intent of the bill, but listening to what National Guard has said, I'm going to be voting with reservations because of that.

Okay, thank you very much. Let's see. For PSM Committee, Chair votes aye. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2054. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting Senator Inouye excused. Are there any reservations or no votes? No vote for Senator DeCorte. Noting all others in support. Recommendation is adopted.

For EIG Members, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2054 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present. Noting all Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Noting reservations for Senator Richards and objections from Senator Fevella. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Turning to Senate Bill 2057 relating to law enforcement. On this one, again, we would like to move this package of bills forward, noting some of the concerns that were raised. Chair would like to recommend that we pass this with amendments to add the word "Officer" to page one, line six.

Law enforcement to substitute the words "exceeds the federal agent statutory authority," on page one, and substitute the words "federal immigration agents" for "federal agents," and change the effective date to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Questions? Okay. If not, then for the vote, Vice Chair Lee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

For EIG, members, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang. I vote yes.

[Roll Call]

Turning to Senate Bill 2377, relating to property damage of critical infrastructure facilities. On this measure, Chair would like to recommend that we change the date to defective date to September 1, 2050 to promote further discussion.

And noting the concerns raised by the Office of Public Defender. Hope that the Judiciary Committee may be able to help address that. Any questions, concerns? If not, then for PSM Committee, Vice Chair Lee, take the vote. I vote yes.

Voting on SB 2377. The recommendation is pass with amendments. Noting Senator Inouye excused. Are there any reservations or no votes? Seeing none. Recommendation is adopted.

For EIG Members, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2377 is to pass with amendments. Noting all Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Reservations for Senator Fevella. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay. For the final bill on the agenda, Chairs would like to take a closer look at the bill and harmonize or address some of the concerns being raised. We propose to defer decision making to February 17th, which is the next EIG.

Okay, so for EIG Members, same recommendation. We're going to meet here in this room on February 17th at 3 o'clock to offer you amendments that we hope you will find acceptable.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

Aloha.

It's almost 3:08. We're the Committee on Energy and Intergovernmental affairs. On this February 10th in room 224, we have one measure on this agenda. That is Senate Bill 3183 relating to renewable energy. On our testifiers list we have Department of Taxation.

We'll stand on the comments.

Thank you. Mark Glick or Monique.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Monique Zampis. On behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office, we stand under written testimony providing comments and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Monique. And on Zoom, Rocky Mold from the solar energy industry.

Hello, Chair Wakai, Rocky Mould with the Hawaii Solar Energy Association. We'll stand on our written comments on this measure. And I'm here for any questions, if you have them. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Rocky. That's all we have is individuals hoping or indicating they'd like to testify in person or via zoom. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 3183, if not Members? Any questions? Thank you. So, excluding taxpayers with income over 250,000 from claiming the tax credit, how much will the state see See if the Bill passes?

We don't have those numbers yet. I can confirm that we do have an analyst assigned working on the numbers, and we will have the numbers available before it gets to the Money Committee. But I don't have an amount to report.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Not. Ah, no need. Break. Let's go into the vote. I would like to pass this measure out Members with. With just one amendment. Just to defect the date. I'm going to defect the date to April 19, 2042. Members, any discussion? If not Senator Chang? I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation For Senate Bill 3183 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator Coit? Aye. Senator Richards, Senator Fubella? Aye. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members. were adjourned.