House Standing Committee on Transportation

Today is Tuesday, February 10, 2026. Convening the 8:00am agenda today set here at the Hawaii State Capitol and conference room 4:30 for this morning's agenda on the 8 o'clock. We just have one measure for discussion before us and that is HB2021 relating to transportation. Members. HB2021 related to transportation Establishes safe riding behaviors for electric bicycles.

Prohibits the operation of high speed electric devices in certain locations beginning December 31, 2026 establishes labeling and signage requirements for electric bicycles. Prohibits operation of a moped or electric motorcycle in certain locations Amends the definition of bicycle for purpose of counting vehicular taxes. Defines electric bicycle in place A low speed electric bicycle Defines electric micro mobility device.

It requires the same regulations as electric foot scooters. Prohibits a person under age of 16 from operating a Class 3 electric bicycle. Authorizes a person under the age of 14 to operate a Class 2 electric bicycle under supervision. Prohibits a person for riding a Class 3 electric bicycle on the sidewalk.

Authorizes a person to ride a Class 1 or Class 2 electric bicycle on the sidewalk under circumstances certain circumstances. Prohibits a person from operating a bicycle or electric foot scooter under the age of 18 without a helmet. Propels the requirement that moped drivers use bicycle lane substitutes to term motor driven cycle with the term motor scooter. Vice Chair for testimony please.

Department of Transportation and support. DCCA insurance division insurance commissioner Scott Seitke with comments.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jamie Yamamoto appearing on behalf of the DCCA Insurance Division.

So given the evolving nature of these devices and their power, function and form, as well as the variety, the Division just seeks clarifying language on whether insurance will be required for electric bicycles just to avoid any potential ambiguities or gray areas later on. Thank you and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Police Department in support. City and County of Honolulu Council Member Dos Santos Tam in support City. And County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services and support. Lupono Initiative in support. AAA Hawaii in support. Hawaii Bicycling League in support.

Good Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Eduardo Hernandez with the Hawaii Bicycling League. You have in my written testimony a couple of recommendations that we have that we think could make the bill a little more clear.

And I just wanted to address also we with respect to the insurance requirement, we appreciate the DCCA's remarks on that and as we've been going through this process, we've been trying to put devices alike and motor scooters are vehicles that go faster than 30 miles an hour and that's faster than the electric bicycle class that we're having in here.

So we do agree that there should be clarity for that and that the clarity is bicycles don't need licenses or insurance. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hawaii State Teachers association and support. Charles Cox in support.

Good morning. Thank you for hearing this bill. I strongly support it. This place has become the Wild west like a lot of the United States and probably the world. There are a lot of great new small motorized vehicles that I support in general because they say putting out carbon dioxide and we really have a climate problem.

I believe we which is certainly related to this. But this has really become the Wild West. Probably most of you have seen little kids come zipping out around the corner on the sidewalk with some high speed motorized vehicle. It's crazy. So in general, I mean, I really do support it and I thank you for hearing this.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We also got six individuals in support and one in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB2021?

Sorry, we may have skipped over Department of Transportation. He is in the Zoom call.

Oh, okay. Department of Transportation support.

Direct Vice Chair Members. Ed Sniffin with Hawaii DOT. We stand in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Director. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify?

Thank you. DCCA. I have a question. So I think that definitely as of right now, the intent of the legislation before us is to make sure that the codified classes that we're seeking to define do not have to carry insurance. But there are other to Hawaii Bicycling League's testimony. The devices that go faster than the classified.

So those early they do need to have insurance.

Yes, so my understanding is right. So right now bicycles do not are not required to have insurance under the insurance code. As far as under the insurance code, Article 10C requires motor vehicles and then articles 10G requires motor scooters and then motor cycles, which both of which are faster and more powerful and have different definitions from electric.

From bicycles, which is what the electric bicycles would be classified under these bicycles.

Okay, thank you for the clarity. HBO please. So noting DCCA's testimony, what are the other devices that have to carry insurance? Just for the Members understanding, Motor scooters.

And motorcycles, I believe devices that go higher than 30 miles an hour. Also with respect to bicycles, I don't believe there is an insurance provider in the state that offers insurance for electric bicycles motor scooters.

And are those like the two foot ones. Motor scooters or legitimately just electric motor scooters are.

They have floorboards and you can stand on them. That one, yeah. And they go 30 miles an hour or faster. And that was the. The difference.

Okay, thank you, Members.

Any other questions?

Question.

Rep. Muraoka.

And this is just so I understand, correct, bicycles. Do they use only the bike path when they're on the road or do they use the same roads as vehicles?

So bicycles can use. If there's a bike lane, they're supposed to use the bike lane. If there's not a bike lane, they are allowed to use the road because.

The bicycles get just as crazy. Right. You see, I was just in Waikiki this weekend for an event and they get ridiculous. So knowing that if they're not. If they're going to be able to use the same roads as the vehicles and knowing that they also cause accidents, shouldn't we have some type of.

So the vast majority of accidents are caused by cars. They're not caused by bicycles.

One can argue, because the accident could be caused by that bicycle jolting out like he did from in front of us this weekend. And I had three juveniles in the back of my vehicle, so I had to jam on the brakes. So one can argue that, you know, it can go both ways.

So if they're going to be able to use the same roads as A. Vehicle. They get pretty careless at times.

We don't require insurance for people who walk in the street and cross the.

Street they're crossing, an across walk. Okay, that's my argument. If they're in the bike lane and they're staying to that lane of travel, but if they're going to be able to use the same roads, wouldn't you think they should carry some type of.

I don't think so. We really focus on teaching good, safe behavior, and that's what this Bill helps to do, is to identify what's safe behavior and unsafe behavior.

You know, we don't tolerate it at the bike league on any of our events, and we certainly don't condone it on the part of the public, Members of the public, to do it. Unsafe riding behavior is unsafe for everyone. It's unsafe for the person who's on the bicycle. It's unsafe for people who.

Who may be near that person. But I don't think it's an insurance. That insurance will fix that problem. Wait, I'm going to interject.

So as of right now, there are no carriers for these classifications of electric bicycles. I would foresee that something will come in the future. But I think to Eduardo's point, I think to your point, Rep.

The struggle we've been facing in the interim is that it are the bad actors, right, the non conforming, the non road legal folks that are really jeopardizing people. So I think when we adopt the measure today, the intent is to not have insurance requirements because there is no insurance provider.

But I wouldn't doubt within the next year that something would come forward. But I think to your point, at Ted Water's point, he's trying to make sure that we can advocate for safe roads for all.

But to your point, there there is no doubt, I think we can all agree that there are bad actors in the same way of drivers, in the same way of operators. So I hope when we adopt this, if we can get a path forward, we can start to root out the bad actors.

And if I may just add one little point. So not everything is fixed in legislation and Hawaii Bicycling League has put forward a grant and aid request so that we can do more education and raise awareness about safe riding behavior in more variable venues. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you. Thank you, Eduardo.

Members, any other questions? Okay, at this time I like to recess. Reconvening Thursday, February 10, 2026 ADM.

Agenda for the Committee on Transportation for the measures before us of HB2021 Members, I would like to Sorry, before I move forward, I I just want to thank the many hands that touch this just important piece of legislation from both the Department of Transportation, the Attorney General advocates like Hawaii Bicycling League and many others.

I want to add context that this was a Bill that we had passed through the Legislature that unfortunately was vetoed due to a technicality. So in the interim, it was the directive of both Department of Transportation and Attorney General to make sure we had agreed upon language so that this year we would face the same challenge.

I don't think it's a secret. In the interim, many communities that you folks represent have faced this challenge of trying to find a path forward to allow safe regulation of bicycles that belong on our roadway and a path forward to take those vehicles or devices off our roadways.

I want to acknowledge the counties in the interim for working with the rules that they've had in place to do the best that they could. I want to acknowledge Honolulu Police Department as they've worked expedition expeditiously in District 8 and other communities alike to try to make our roads just that much more safer.

So Members, the intent today, I don't want to do substantive amendments, but I do want to do I want to adopt each one.

So I want to clarify that nothing in this section shall be construed to require insurance requirements for the operation of road legal, permitted and classified electric bicycles per DCCA and I want to make that clear.

I want to also make it clear that other electric mobility devices that are road legal may be subject to applicable insurance requirements as noted in the testimony, but for the purpose of codifying and classifying classes 12 and three electric bicycles they are not subject to insurance requirements at this time.

I will note that there are no operators in the state that provide some form of insurance, but I do foresee that in the near future as we start heading towards a more structured path of regulation that it probably will happen so but at this time that's the Committee's intent. I want to amend hrs.

2491 to ensure consistency in the tax treatment and classifications across all counties to make sure that these definitions are updated accordingly. I want to clarify that all properly classified electric bicycles may operate on sidewalks with restrictions of 10 miles per hour or less. I want to also add that county ordinance may clarify and further reasonable restrictions.

I want to clarify that high speed electric devices as codified in the Bill and other non conforming devices shall not be operated on our public roadways.

And I just want to make it clear we in the legislation we've exempted devices from that clarity that electric vehicles are not considered a high speed electric device and other road conforming vehicles that was the concern last year. I want to clarify that any county or state law enforcement officer or Designated Official pursuant hrs.

24915 may impound any non road legal, non conforming electric bicycle or high speed electric device as well as any device required to be registered that is not properly registered. I want to adopt language to providing that no person under 16 shall operate a Class 2 or 3 electric bicycle unless under direct supervision of a parent or guardian.

I know that was flagged just to and I agree just for consistency. So trying to make sure that I acknowledge that this is a way to get folks to and from their area safely.

But when we think about age when you are lower than 16, I would say operating at 2 or 3 as you codify is potentially dangerous. I want to confirm terminology throughout the measure to include on page 14 that all cross references ensure the consistent use of defined terms.

I want to provide that the labeling signage of public information requirements for electric bicycles set forth in Section 2 shall take effect 120 days after the enactment of this legislation or earlier upon rule adoption. I want to make. I want HMSO to affect the effective date and technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Members, questions, comments or concerns? Rep. Evsiln.

Chair, I just want to thank you for all your work on this bill. I appreciate your passion for the subject. I think that as we all know, electric vehicles, electric bicycles are a critical tool to help people get around, especially those who cannot afford a car and younger people.

But we need a clear regulatory framework to make sure that they're safe. So I appreciate you doing your work on this over the interim and hopefully we can get this build through and pass throughout this session. Yes, thank you,

Rep. La Chica.

I echo Rep. Evslin's comments. Just wanted to mahalo you Chair, for all of your hard work on this measure. I know how it felt when we got it. We got so close last year and almost made it through, but due to technical issues, we had to and possibly to even make the bill much more stronger.

But now that we are able to do this, you know, really our goal is to have zero fatalities on the road and we've waited far too long to regulate this as well as it gives us a tool on the enforcement side to be able to not just educate but also properly enforce the rules of the world.

So thank you so much, Gins Chair. For all your hard work on this.

Thank you. This measure has haunted me and interrupted me in the best way that I now know more than I ever wanted to. But I want to also applaud the Department of Education in the interim adopting a blanket reform to make sure that those students are safe.

And I hope this gives them a path forward to have some safe safety within the school. So again, everyone has worked in the interim without a framework. So as I think I've told many folks, if we can adopt this as our foundation, we can build structure moving after.

But right now we're trying to build a house without foundation. So this is our foundation legislation. So I thank you folks for that. So seeing no further questions, comments or concerns, make sure vote please.

Voting on HB 2021, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Okay, Members, we're going to adjourn this one. I'm going to gavel in the 801 and that is just for the purpose of this inter. Thank you.

Convening the 801 Agenda for the Committee on Transportation February10, 2026 at 08:01am for the purpose of decision making only on this agenda item before US Members, HB 1641 which is related to transportation prohibits of sale, offer, lease, rental, distribution, possession or operation of a high speed electric bicycle established penalties.

So I wanted to defer DM for this one to allow us to move the foundation legislation and this at the same time because I think I understand what the author is trying to do and I think from my understanding the author is really trying to further expand the provisions and restrictions on high speed electric devices as we've codified.

I don't think the author is trying to restrict bicycle purchases, but I think he's looking at the framework of the non conforming one. So Members I would like to do is that I'd like to adopt the HD one.

So I want to clarify that the legislation is to prohibit any person from offering for lease or rent of any high speed electric devices outlined in HB 2021 and require that any person selling or offering a high speed offer selling or offering for sale a high speed electric devices defined in HB 2021 comply with all applicable regulatory requirements established under that act.

I want to prohibit that the operation of high speed electric devices are to be clear are prohibited on any bicycle lane, highway, roadway or or street. I want to establish a penalty of not less than 250 and nor more than 1,000 for violations of this section and clarify that in their in the legislation.

I want to keep that every violation of of a section is individual violation tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style and then HMS the effective date. Members questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB 1641 the recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you Members. I will see you at 9:30.

[Background]

Morning Convening the House Committee on Transportation for our 9:30am agenda today, February 10, 2026 at the Hawaii State Capitol in Conference Room 4:30. I just want to go over just normal housekeeping rules given the testimony that came in today. We're going to start trying to ask folks to convene to the two minute timer.

This is our pilot behind us. If you folks can watch the and then I know folks online we will do our best as well. We have to adjourn before floor session, so please know that testimony be considered.

As you folks know, we've been trying to constitute having things released to you folks in a timely manner and I want to thank the staff on both committees of Transportation and Housing for having those things move forward.

And I would, I would be just remiss to not thank the support staff and my staff that worked yesterday amidst the weather conditions to make sure that we could move today's hearings as smoothly as possible. And so I want to thank them for their support and all that they do for the Legislature.

If you're disconnected, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting and a network failure may be necessary to reschedule. Please don't use trademark copyrighted images for folks on Zoom. Please refrain from preventing your own civil behavior.

And just a reminder, please address your comments to the Committee and if anything we will reschedule if we need to and we'll file those notices appropriately. So we have several measures today on the agenda before us.

If we could start with our first measure, HB 1709 relating to water carriers transfers the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Water carrier after the Public Utilities Commission to Department of Transportation makes conforming amendments and appropriates funds. Vice Chair for the Testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Department of Transportation we stand on our testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Member. Mickey Knox for the Division of Consumer Advocacy I just want to clarify one part of our written testimony on the second page. The third third to the last full paragraph at the end that says without that tithe there is no provision in Chapter 271d that expressly allows for requires protection.

That might not be precisely accurate because keeping water carriers in the definition of public attention utilities in 269 1st of May still preserve the consumer advocates jurisdiction to represent its ratepayers even in front of agencies other than the DOC if it's the Department of Transportation.

But a larger point of this paragraph is that taking out that tie at 269 that's currently 271G3 it would take out a lot of aspects that are currently used to regulate water carriers. 271g is not a complete section for the regulation of water carriers just like the rules for water carriers without 16601 are not necessarily complete.

Now the PUC has pointed out in its testimony that the Department of Transportation does not necessarily have to use the same quasi judicial process that is fleshed out in HR16601. So the Department could choose to make different rules for different procedures. But the point is that right now.

The regulation of water carriers depends a lot on 269 and HCR 68601. And so the Department would have to figure out available for any questions thank you.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission of comments.

Chair, Vice Chair we send our written testimony offering comment available any questions we may have thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry association and support. Are they online.

Not present. Maritime group with comments Young brothers and support. I'll see.

Morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Nakaga.

On behalf of Young Writers with standard I've written testimony supportive intent and I just wanted to make a comment that just wanted to just express my appreciation for the introducers of this measure because I think you know it's important to note that the water care regulation is outdated. It's old, it's flawed and it should be fixed.

And so this I appreciate bringing this to the forefront and there needs to be further discussion to fix this so we can be all sustainable. Thank you very much.

Thank you Chris. Young brothers David, is he on Zoom.

Hi, yeah, this is David. I echo Chris Nakagawa's comments that he just gave. Thanks.

Thank you David. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1709.

Thank you. PUC. I have a question. Sorry.

Yes Chair.

Can you currently clarify what PUC regulates?

We regulate all of the things we regulate. Okay so motor carriers by 271 g or 271 sorry Water carriers as contemplated in this measure electric utilities, gas utilities, telecom very minorly after you know telecom's act partially deregulated water and waste private sorry private water and private wastewater.

So I we did transfer some motor. Carrier authority to DOT right for enforcement I believe. But other than that you folks still have that regulation.

We still do the tariffs and some of the administrative items on motorcare.

So I I don't think this conversation is going away so I I think from I don't think you can necessarily speak and I'm okay if you cannot answer this but I mean I think this continues to come up on the conversation because I want to acknowledge, I think you folks have made headway on regulation on those parts.

But this water carrier, motor carrier thing continues to come up because I think the users aren't feeling that the PUC is giving that attention. So as this discussion comes up, it's been the PUC's position that you folks are okay relinquishing these things.

Well, I wouldn't say okay per se, but we will assist with any transfer of the powers. So, you know, if you choose, if all the stakeholders choose for this to occur, we will be cooperative and we will work with DOT and other stakeholders through a two year process to do this transition.

Two years is the number you folks will come to me with. I believe we can get all of this done in two years. It's, it's a monumental task. We, we are, we recognize that, but that's why we are, we are saying probably two years.

And you know, again, it's contingent on if all the stakeholders agree and this is what they want. And then also we'll help DOT to stand up the system and the type of authority they want.

You know, we recognize a commission like us may not be suitable for DOT to be running in their own facility as like a maritime commission. Maybe they can talk more about what they would like to set up, but I certainly don't want to put them on the spot. So it's very, We've gotta talk about it.

We try to find the best possible solution for all the stakeholders involved that will get, you know, the right amount of customer protection, you know, as the representative from the Consumer Africa points out, and to make sure it works for the users and the utilities that would be involved in this.

Okay.

Does anybody else have a question for dcc? I mean, PUC? I have a question for DOT about the motor carrier enforcement. Then she could speak to it. So since you folks have the motor carrier enforcement, how has that been in conjunction with or conflict that they still have the regulation? Would you be able to speak to it?

Larry Dill is online, so if I can. Larry, phone a friend.

Good morning, Chair Kila. I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to repeat.

Let me repeat the question. So I was asking Tammy, Deputy Director Lee, that knowing you folks have the motor carrier enforcement, what has been the conflict or I guess process, knowing that you only have that part and the regulatory exists still under PUC.

Morning, Chair Kila. I'm afraid I would have to defer. This and get back to you on that. Okay.

I can speak to it a little. So since we've been given the authority for enforcement, I mean, we really rallied and we created, you know, positions to take care of the enforcement. So I think we are managing it.

I don't know that the delineation between, you know, anything else that the PUC kind of has under their authority, but for us, I mean, we would just kind of use the authority for rulemaking and kind of figure it out, I think.

Okay. If there's anything else that legislatively would need support, could you just follow up with the Committee? Yes, I think that's been the conversation. Thank you, Members. Any other further questions? Thank you, dot. Thank you. P. Members, like to move to the next measure before us. HB 2195, relink to transportation.

Requires Department of Transportation to assess a per passenger head fee against cruise ships docking in the state's commercial harbors. Establishes the Cruise Special Fund. Repeals existing law imposing the trends in accommodations tax on cruise ships effective retroactive to January 1, 2026. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Morning Chair and Vice Chair, Department of Transportation is in strong support. We understand that this measure attempts to address the ongoing litigation between the cruise industry, represented by CLIA, and the state of Hawaii. So it, I think, accomplishes two things.

One is resolving these legal matters and second is generating additional revenue that the cruise ships already contribute when they arrive here, but it deposits it into or a special Fund that would be expended by DOT on matters that somewhat align with the green fee. Original objectives available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair Committee Members Garrison, Department of Transportation will stand on our written comments. Wait.

Department of Transportation Taxation I said we had no position.

Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Yvonne Shinmura, Deputy Attorney General. We'd submit and submitted comments and made the point points within the written testimony. I'm available for any questions. Thank you for the opportunity of testifying.

Thank you. Hawaii Tourism Authority with comments. Mckee Hamilton in support. Hike Maui in support. Honolulu Ship Supply in support. Not present. The Maritime group in support. Go Tours Hawaii in support. Climate Future Forum in support. Kao in support and 22 individuals in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this measure.

Aloha. Melissa Pavlicek on behalf of the Hawaii Harbors Users Group. We submitted some written testimony and support. I just wanted to note that we were here and made sure that you had received it. Thank you. I can resubmit or bring it by your office.

We'll double check, but I think your testimony was submitted. Thank you. Thank you.

Aloha and good morning. I'm Tina Yamaki with the Hawaii Transportation Association. We stand on our comments and we. Feel that this is a very clear. Fair and workable solution to address the fees issue. Mahalo.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Maxime Imonot. I own honorary ship supply. So we supply cruise ships. We help a lot of local farmers, local fishermen, distribute the local products to cruise ships coming to Hawaii. And so we stand in support of this bill.

Thank you, Tina.

We submitted a written testimony, so we stand behind it. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. Chair, Vice Chair, Sandy Weir with Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings. I stand in support with my testimony as written and am available for any questions.

Thank you. Sandy, please come forward.

Want to thank the chair, vice chair and Committee Members. My name is Fred Atkins. We have a family business on Kauai. It's called Kalahana Plantation. 245 people. And we also have a lot of lease spaces at Kalahana, which creates with the shops, the luau and some of our tours is additional about 150 people that are employed.

I would say all of them are either directly or indirectly supported by the benefits of the cruise industry. And we do a lot of business with the ships that come in on a, you know, daily basis when they're either leaving Alaska or they're coming back out of Alaska and repositioning. And there's a lot I could comment on.

I know we all have a short time frame to present here, but I want to tell you one thing that's happening on Kauai. A lot of individual smaller businesses, because I've been in this business with them for about 18 years.

They said if Act 96 actually goes in the favor of the state, some of the ships are saying they might leave. And what do you think? I said I'm not here on behalf of CLIO and full disclosure.

I am on the lawsuit for Act 96 and I did that to protect my employees and give them a voice in this matter.

So for you, if we can pass this from the Committee, then it'll give it the proper vetting that needs to be done over the legislative session and all stakeholders involved, including the small businesses and businesses like myself that really depend on this.

But I can tell you from the past fact about what happens when a ship can't find an economic reason or ROI to be here. We were approached by NCL about 18 years ago, and we were only 10 minutes from the harbor.

And they said if you expanded your luau facility up to 800 people, we would like to do the luau every time. These three ships were in Hawaii at the time came into port. And it was a good opportunity for us. I said, as long as you let us create a show, that cast will do the facility.

And so we did. And it took about a year. And we, we still have a great show that was developed 18 years ago. But the night that we opened, NCL representative sat us down and said, this is 2008 during major recession. They say one of our ships is leaving Hawaii in 30 days.

We don't see the booking trend to support it. So we're taking the ship out. And this is after we did everything we did to open. But we felt, you know, actually kind of blessed we had two ships during a recession because it was a lot of business. Right. And then about three months after that.

Sorry, Mr. Atkins, could you summarize?

Yeah. During. After that, one of the cruise ships, the captain got a message that that was going to be his last cruise. They were repositioning that ship. And so we lost two ships within four months. And so I don't know what's going to happen, but I really appreciate you guys moving this bill forward.

I hope so it can be vetted and it can be a good process and hopefully a win win situation. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Open up questions after. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Chair Committee. The testify sheet was out of order. So I do have Hawaii Harbors users group in September. Support. Norwegian Cruise Line holdings and support Mr. Atkins, Kauai Kilohana Plantation and support Polynesian Adventure Tours in support.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. And I first, I want to apologize and pretty embarrassed about cut and paste, but we. Our testimony has the wrong Committee on there. If you'd like, we can revise it and send a new copy in and if not, well, it's you guys, so.

But I'm Jamie Barut, born and raised in Hawaii. I've worked in the. In the visitor industry for. My testimony says 20 years or more plus 20 years, but it's been about 45 years, which dates me. I'm vice President of operations and we have about 340 employees across the state, Kauai, Maui, Oahu and Hawaii Island.

We're here in strong support of HB 2195. We believe that, you know, our cruise ship has given so many opportunities to our local people.

We also provide a lot of business to our smaller vendors such as Millie's and Hilo, provides box lunches and things like that, making, you know, making their business a lucrative one with not just the local folks.

We also, you know, we're in support of it because we transfer our visitors with motor coaches, minibuses, reducing traffic on the, on the highways, but also taking them into places that we are mindful about as a community so we don't take them to the places that we should not be in and so forth.

The cruise industry has just been a huge, a huge part of our business, employing our employees. And we'd like to just reiterate we're in strong support of HB 2195. Thank you.

Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Yes, the Tax foundation of Hawaii stands. On its written comments. Mahalo.

Thank you. Show you Hawaii and support CARE for AINA Now Coalition with comments Hawaii Pilots association and support Hawaii Transportation Association. Tina testified. Thank you. And Matson Navigation and support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB2195.

Thank you. Deputy Director Khalili, if you could clarify, you folks have requested amendments?

Yes, in our written testimony, we request a series of amendments, one of which is we ask the Committee to consider increasing the per head fee from $6.5 to $10. Generally speaking, each year we see about 1 million visitors. So if you just multiply the fee $10 million, we can do something with $6 million a year.

There's not a lot we can do when we think of like the big infrastructure that can. And the Bill also cites shore power. Right. Going $6 million at a time, we may not get there for several years.

In addition, we want to clarify that the fee that is proposed in this legislation is in addition to fees that cruise ships and passengers already paid. And those fees are already set forth in our administrative rules. And those are the key high points of.

Deputy, can you just clarify for the Committee the shore power that you just mentioned or potential future plans for sure, sure.

So in a lot of ports that have emission reduction strategies and goals and targets in place, shore power is an option where the port will provide the infrastructure necessary for a ship when it is at birth to turn off its engines and not emit stuff to plug into the infrastructure and then it is powered by electricity.

And so we have not pursued that because it is prohibitively accepted expensive. But if we have this revenue stream, it is something that we're certainly open to.

And other. So clarifying rate is that other cruise ships or vessels that Come in. They already have the technology for shore power. This would actually allow us to allow them to adopt shore power use.

Not to speak. But our understanding is a significant portion of ships, of cruise ships are equipped with that technology that they can do. They can plug into shore power infrastructure. And I believe there's an IMO requirement that by 2050, someone correct me if I'm wrong, all ships will have to plug in.

Sandy's nodding her head. So I would ask you this, and if you feel it's deferable to either Sandy folks or DOTAX because it's retroactive, we would have to work individually with the companies on what that assessment would have been if this was done previously.

I think that's my read of the bill. Right. So whatever was incurred from January 1, 2026 until this goes into effect, we would collect retroactively. And if we need to create some kind of payment plan to collect that, I think.we are amenable to figuring that out for each of the carriers or the lines.

If I could ask Sandy to come forward just for clarifying questions. So I'm not going to ask you specifically about the lawsuit and I don't want anybody to comment about the lawsuit pending litigation, but you folks are currently the only operator that's assessing a fee under the guise of something that could be collected.

Is that correct or no?

I'm sorry, can you clarify?

So Based on Act 96, right. You folks are currently the only folks with reservations and booking assessment, assessing a potential collection of a fee, noting that it is still pending litigation.

I'm not sure about that. I can only speak for you folks, for Norwegian Cruise Line holdings and our three brands. We are assessing right now on every single reservation, the TAT as amended in Act 96, right? Correct.

So if this was to be enacted, you folks would just go back to fix potentially what would be our new assessment?

We would. We would refund the difference between the new assessment and what we had assessed each ticket. It is. It is going to be some work for the accounting Department in our respective brands, but absolutely 100% we will be refunding guests the difference.

I just want to acknowledge and appreciate you folks are doing your best knowing the pending litigation and are still trying to find a path forward on this. So I do want to appreciate that.

We thank you for the raising the bill.

Yeah. Thank you. Sandy. Members, any other questions? Rep La Chica.

For Department of Transportation. Thank you. On the 1 million visitors, do you know if that's gone up or gone down over the last few years? So I Want to be very clear.

So 1 million is the count of times someone comes off a cruise ship and hits one of our facilities. So it's not 1 million individuals. It's probably closer to like 320,000. Right. But when they go to Maui, that's a count. When they come to Oahu, that's a count. No.

And so the trend is definitely going up from pandemic. So from 2022 to date, we're seeing, you know, an upward trend. And then if you look at what HTA is projecting, that trend is expected to continue.

And then for the $10 fee, like looking at other jurisdictions, like what's the floor as to how much they charge and what's the highest that they charge in other countries, other states to what other ports charge?

Because a lot of times their taxes and port fees, you know, are based on different metrics and need quite frankly for us, we currently charge $15 per passenger in when that passenger lands at Honolulu or $8 when they land at one of our neighbor island facilities.

And that's altogether that's, you know, what we generate into the harbor special Fund to pay for infrastructure improvements and things like improving like the cruise terminal, like we're currently fixing the air conditioner, we're putting in a second elevator at our Honolulu Harbor Pier 2 terminal. And that's how we get the funding to complete those projects. Thank you.

And if I could just acknowledge, right the special Fund that they generate is at the expense of the operators that exist in the harbor. So that normally in the assessment and upgrades it's not being leveraged against General Fund appropriations.

So the Special Fund really is to self sustain the harbors and only really at times if they ever ask for General Fund appropriations or if anything the authorization for bonds via the Fund. So that's what they are doing Members. Any other questions? Rep Muraoka.

Is this is just based on what your last and this is just for my knowledge, he said $15 in Oahu, $8 and up at our neighbor island ports, any other island. So does that mean if they've stopped at three different islands it's a compounded yes.

So for the pride of America, because Norwegian Cruise Lines holdings is in the room when the passenger gets off at Honolulu, gets $15 then they go to Kohui. Next it's $8 they go to Hilo. After that $8 they go to Kona, which is not ours. So we don't assess a fee there.

That's deal and r managed and then they go to Nowadi with the $8 that fee however, doesn't account for the amount of time they stay in port. For example, at Kahului they say two days, but we just, it's that one arrival fee. And so at the end we collect that sum from the ship.

However, we don't charge for double port entry. So Pride of America comes to Oahu twice. It comes in, takes on the passengers, comes back on Saturday, Passengers get off, we don't charge them another 15. That's how our fee structure works.

But the crux of our testimony is this new fee would be in addition to that fee structure we already have.

So $10 on top of the 15.

So it'd be 1588810.

Do you have any with, with the exception of shore power being astronomy as an idea, what other measurements do you guys have that's going to justify that, that increase?

So running a port is expensive and paying for all the port upgrades and improvements expensive. So for a cruise ship to come into port, one, we need to make sure the port is dredged. Army Corps does some of it. We have to do the rest.

We have to make sure that the pier is in good condition for the ships to tie up, which means we do every about eight years we're doing substructure repairs, we have to demo the cement, the fascia, we have to reinstall new rebar, and then we're putting on new fenders, we're putting on new bollards so the ships can safely pull up into berth and then tie up to the pier in our cruise terminals.

For example, at Honolulu, we are installing the new air conditioner so no one is facing painting in the terminal when they're coming in and off and getting their bags. And then beyond that we have ground transportation, right?

So that paving area where the taxis and the motor coaches queue up, we've got to pay that for the to repair wear and tear. I mean that's just kind of like a very high level overview of the cost required to maintain the port to support port operations.

Are you folks operating right now at a deficit? So $10 is quite a reach, right? And if you're not operating at a deficit and still asking for that much more, wouldn't it be more feasible if we started at the 650 maybe and then revisited.

So what I will offer to you is we're currently not operating at a deficit, but we have a series of significant improvements that we will need to take care of in the next five to 10 years. Specifically, we're looking at projections for sea level rise.

We will need to raise some of our peers four feet and that will be incredibly expensive for Staten island which I understand is not a cruise terminal.

But because we pay for all of our harbor improvements from the same harbor special Fund and we are not General funded and we do not have formula federal funds, we are looking at having to expend between 2 and 3 billion dollars just to make sure San Island is not underwater in 25 years.

So all of that together we are looking at across our ports needing to make significant investments and having this additional funding for crews is going to. Help. Us justify making the investments for cruise facilities facilities.

When you look at all of our operations cargo compared to cruise Cruise makes about 15% of our operations cargo will always get first priority. So having this Fund set aside for cruise keeps cruise only projects on our radar.

Thank you. And I just want to acknowledge for the Committee that the harbors face significant challenges in the next 2030 years. Klailoa harbor specifically is undergoing a master plan renewal and I want to make it clear that Honolulu is the revenue generating CARBO terminal.

But the funds collected in Honolulu help operations on Kauai help operations on Maui and across Hawaii island alike. So the same thing with Honolulu Airport that is the largest terminal. The money is generated there really do the impact and work needed on our not so visited terminals and ports so they don't fall into disrepair.

So I just want to note that for the Committee Members. zero and I also want to acknowledge last year we passed legislation that allowed DOT harbor specifically to move forward with other capital investment contracts because there is a threshold that if they should exceed they need to come forth to the Legislature for the project.

So they are moving in a more quicker fashion hopefully on these smaller projects that don't need larger investments. Members, any other questions? Thank you for the robust discussion. Thank you Deputy Members, like to move on to our next measure before us.

Our agenda item on HB 2023 related to transportation beginning with 2030 model year requires new passenger vehicles to be equipped with passive intelligence speed assistance systems beginning July 1, 2030. Make circumventing or tampering with an active intelligence speeding system system assistance system a misdemeanor.

Requires DOT to select the vendor for the installation and maintenance of active intelligence speed speed assistive systems allows maintenance of the sorry and allows the judiciary to impose the installation of active intelligence speed assistance systems as an additional penalty as part of a license suspension or revocation for repeat defenders of certain traffic violations.

Vice Chair for Testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Thank you Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento, attorney from the Public Defender's Office. We just have an issue with one part of the bill dealing with the issue or creating a criminal charge for tampering with the assisted speed device.

We do believe that the language is quite broad that it could cause an issue for people that have to repair or replace or even reboot the system itself.

And so we proposed language that would be more specific to what we believe the legislature's in place intent is, which is to prevent people from tampering with the device so that they can violate the speed laws within the state of Hawaii.

So we would ask that this language be added or something similar to that so that it can be used to prosecute people specifically for what is trying to be prevented, which is the violation of our speed laws. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and support AAA Hawaii in support alliance for Automobile Innovation and opposition.

Members of the Committee. Tiffany Ajima on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We have some concerns with this measure specifically with respect to Active Isaac Motor vehicle safety is regulated at the federal level and we're concerned about a patchwork of regulations across all the states. NHTSA is actually actively working on this and studying ISAs.

So we would prefer to wait for the federal framework to be put in place. I would note that there is a Senate measure moving in the Senate related to habitual speeding that we do prefer. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Automobile Dealers association with Comet Aloha.

I'm Melissa Pavlicek. I'm here today on behalf of the Hawaii Automobile Dealers Association. We have seven new 71 new car dealers in Hawaii and our concern was really wanting to be part of this conversation should the measure be moved forward.

And anytime we see requirements on manufacturers, we always worry that we might limit the availability of vehicles in the state. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you families for safe streets and support. Chad Taniguchi and support on Zoom.

Hey, sorry. Thank you, Chair and Members. I support the DOT's testimony to strike the passive intelligence speed assistance and amend the bill to be something that would be active intelligent speed assistance. This is for people who speed get. Tickets, get their license suspended and yet they're still going to drive. So this way, if they're going to.

Drive, they can't exceed the speed limit. Thank you.

Thank you. And Smart Start LLC and support anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us.

Office of Public Defender. I just have a clarifying question. So when you're talking about the tampering, your concern is about the tempering. Do you just want it to come into alignment with the tampering of the same way you would be penalized for inner ignition interlock devices?

Yes. I mean, so it's specific as to. What it is, the intent of the Legislature. So it's not too broad. And one of the things is that. The bill doesn't have any language dealing with discretion of law enforcement, discretion of prosecuting authorities. And so that's where we see issues sometimes.

So that's why we're asking for language that's very exacting as to what it is you wish to prevent. Thank you. Thank you, Members. Any other questions?

Rep. La Chica.

For Department of Transportation, please. Thank you. In your testimony, you had specified court ordered active intelligence speed limiters. Can you kindly explain how this would work once we look at these excessive speeders? And then how would that be implemented on roads when, when you travel from freeway to traditionally to residential in a school zone?

So as far as the technology, as I understand it, these systems are, they're supposed to be, I guess probably reading off of maps or existing technologies that's out there to kind of notify the driver through vibration and audio when you go 10 over 10 miles over the speed limit, are 10 miles under.

So it should be automatically adjusting to whether you're driving on the freeway or on service roads.

Is this a device that would have to be installed separate from your GPS assistant?

Yes, it would be something separate.

Would you know how much these typically cost?

Larry, who is the highways administrator? Maybe he knows.

And this is new technology that's been implemented or has this gone on for a while with other counties, other states?

I don't know. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Tammy. And if I could just clarify that the systems, from my understanding, are GPS monitored. So they read off the GPS of the posted speed limit in the area and in some similar ways, how we there's a Governor that, that you cannot exceed on a vehicle speed limit.

This system would interface with the Governor of the car that exists. That would prevent them from speeding, from my understanding. And if there's any other follow up that you could provide to the Committee, I can disperse to as well. Deputy thank you. Rep. Muraoka. Deputy Director Lee.

How would this affect older model vehicles? So I understand vehicles quite well. I'm a licensed mechanic. So on the newer vehicles this GPS system will tie into the tps, which is a throttle position sensor, and then it would slow the vehicle down pretty similar to how you use your cruise control on older models.

Tbis carbureted and the likes of that don't have these systems. How would that be implemented on those vehicles? Because there is no way of monitoring that. Would that be seen as an unfair assessment? If a habitual speeder is driving a 1993 Silveron and the system cannot be installed on his vehicle, how would that be?

Thank you Representative I do not know the answer to that, but I will get back to you.

Members.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Members include next agenda item before us HB2031 relating to transportation. Part 1 establishes the administrative Hearings Division within Department of Transportation and transfer certain administrative hearing powers to the division, including matters related to automated red light, camera and speed enforcer traffic citations, oversized overweight vehicles on state highways commercial driver's license appeals on demand, taxi service at airports transportation network company permit repeals airport harbor matters, Highway Encroachments.

Part 2, beginning January 1, 2027 requires all marked vehicles operated by law enforcement agencies in state subsidized vehicles of law enforcement officers to be equipped with functioning dashboard cameras. Requires law enforcement to establish policies and procedures submit annual reports to Legislature.

Requires the Attorney General to provide oversight of the use of dashboard cameras by law enforcement agencies Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Transportation and Support.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tammy Lee on behalf of the DOT, we stand on our written testimonial.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning. Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Margie La Jeffy, Attorney General we have provided comments with our points contained in our testimony, but in our testimony we've also included suggestions to address our concerns and comments, and we would be happy to work with the Legislature on language implementing our suggestions.

I'm available to answer any questions for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Thank you. The Judiciary with comments .

My name is Michelle Acosta here I'm at the Judiciary Standard written testimony with comments and available for any question.

Thank you. Kauai Police Department in opposition Hawaii Transportation Transportation association and support Aloha.

I'm Tina Yamaki with the Hawaii Transportation Association and we support this bill. We hope that eventually someday that we. Could a Hawaii Automobile Dealers Associationlso include those trucks that do not have the PUC or DOT numbers. On them are registered with them to also be included. Mahalo.

Thank you Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter.

Thank you Members Any questions? Seeing none Members remove the next agenda item before us. HB2033 related to transportation requires part one requires license and seller, sellers and licensed dealers to ensure motor vehicles are equipped with front number plate mounting brackets or device. Requires a licensed dealer or owner to securely fasten number plates on vehicles.

Part two amends a traffic code referring to street racing. Part three Expands the automated speed enforcement systems programs to high risk locations of state or county highways as determined by Department of Transportation appropriate funds.

Part four Allows counties to use automated license plate recognition systems to identify vehicles that are current inspections registration certificates and issue citations with fines wavable of compliance is demonstrated. Establishes data privacy retention requirements. Allows counties in coordination with the Department of Transportation to use red light and speed camera systems for enforcement.

Part 5 authorizes installation of cameras on the stop arm of a school bus to record footage of evidence of a violation for passing overtaken school bus while the buses stop and its visual signals are turned on. Amends the fines for passing overtake a school bus while the bus is stopped when its visual signals are turned on. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Members do sends a recent success.

Thank you Department of Education and support. The Judiciary with comments.

Hello Michelle Acosta here at the Judiciary. We submitted testimony with comments and then we open questions.

Thank you. Wahoo. Metropolitan Planning Organization and support and one individual in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on this matter.

Thank you Members. Any questions? Okay saying that I move on to the next measures before us.

Okay so if I can clarify so the next three measures are similar in nature and so I believe that there are several testifiers for each measure that's totally fine to testify them but Members if you would allow we're going to go through each measure and for testimony and I will reserve questions for all three at the end of HB 2575 for any related questions.

So if we can start with the first measure HB 1937 related to taxes excludes the sale of a motor vehicle to a lesser rental motor vehicles for use a rental motor vehicle sale set a sale at wholesale imposes the maximum allowable excise tax on the use of tangible personal property in the state for the implication of purchase or motor vehicle by a lesser rental motor vehicles for use of a rental motor vehicle Establishes a teacher temporary hazard pay special Fund to pay a temporary hazard pay bonus to certain eligible teachers beginning July 12026 until July 12030.

Deposits Additional tax revenue generated by this acting to the teacher temporary hazard pay special fund. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Good Morning Chair. Vice Chair Committee Members Garrison Firth on behalf of the Department of Taxation we'll stand on our written comments. Provide Administration on Administration and I'm here for any questions.

Office of the Governor in support OAC Teachers Association and support.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of OSA TUI and the Hawaii State Teachers Association. So teachers, do our homework. We believe closing this tax loophole will provide 70 to 80 million dollars to the state from visitors making this teacher special funding hazard pay for four years.

The extra funds go back to the state and that benefits everybody. So during the pandemic. So I'm your teacher lobbyist this session. It's my job to tell you stories from the classroom of practitioners during the pandemic.

My classroom looked a lot like this hearing room I was teaching to middle schoolers computer science, a class of 30 where half were in person and half were online. It was something I had never done before. I had no training, I had no textbooks, I had no materials to do this. And I did it all from scratch.

I had to constantly sanitize the room. I was a contactor. When one of my students got Covid, I had to figure out who they were sitting by and I had to deliver that news to families. I got Covid twice.

I was also undergoing fertility treatments at the time, and if you know how those work, I actually had to cancel a cycle and I put off parenthood till after the pandemic so I could focus on that and not worry about what we were dealing with. I had an amazing educational assistant at that time. We call them EAs.

I wrote our lesson plans, I gathered our materials, I assigned our grades and she was my co teacher. We were in the same school, same classroom, same students, same risk to our health and safety. She was compensated with hazard pay and I'm not mad about that. Like, it's absolutely great that our union siblings got compensated.

And also I'm glad the Department of Education decided to retroactively compensate 300 office workers at the Department of Education with hazard pay, even though teachers have not gotten it. So I'm here today asking for teachers to be honored for our service to the state and you can help us out by supporting this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hertz in opposition on zoom.

My name Chair Vice Chair Steve with Hertz I don't care if you rent a car. We sent our testimony to House Bill. 1937 related to taxation in opposition thank you.

Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus in support. Enterprise Mobility in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair Committee Members Chris Della Senecai Government Strategies here on behalf of enterprise and strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you Chamber of Progress and support UPW in opposition.

Vice Chair Miyake Kamakana Kaimaloa Government Affairs Manager for United Public Workers. You have a written testimony and strong opposition in that is primarily because you know for since 2022 UPW has fought the employer for the temporary hazard pay our Members earned and are contractually owed for performing their duties during the COVID 19 pandemic.

You know, we actually invested a significant amount of time as well as resources simply to make our Members whole. And we're in 2026 and we still haven't been able to resolve those grievances, particularly with the DOE as well as the Executive branch. We think that this bill is ill timed.

We think that our Members who have this in their contract should be paid out before measures like this are considered. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Avis Budget Car Rental in opposition.

Good morning. Lori Lum on behalf on behalf of Avis Budget Rent a Car testifying in opposition to this Bill. We believe there's no sufficient legal nexus to justify using rental car sales tax revenues to address the teacher hazard pay. Special funds do require in statute a clear link between the program and the source of revenue.

Additionally, rental vehicles qualify as capital goods. Rental contracts are true leases, both of which were confirmed by Hawaii case law thus reinforces the statutory basis for wholesale treatment and acquisition while preserving the retail get. So finally these measures discriminately single out orient history. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.

Thank you. Servco Pacific in opposition Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. Sorry about the late testimony.

We have some concerns about doing a tax code change just for one industry when if if what you really want to do is is to hit the car rental industry, you should be amending the the Metro Motor Vehicle and Tour vehicle search charge tax Chapter 251 instead of doing and run around the General excise tax rules like this.

We also question the propriety of the special Fund that's being requested and this, I think our comments are going to be common to this in the next couple of bills that are being considered. There is, as one testifier mentioned before, a lack of nexus between what the funding source is and the protective uses of the special Fund.

This is not a self sustaining proposition. Teacher pay increases are normally General funded and there's no reason why this can't be done this time as well. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We got John Fitzpatrick in support on Zoom. Not present. Not present. And we got 89 individuals in support of this measure. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on HB 1937.

Members will move. So just a reminder, we're going to take up the three measures and then I'll open up for questions.

HB2586 related to taxation applies to retail or higher General excise tax or use tax rate to purchase imports of a new motor vehicle by rental car companies Appropriates funds for position Department of Taxation appropriate funds to Department of My Homelands to address beneficiary waiting list. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Transportation and opposition.

The DOT stands down our Everton testimony.

Thank you. Department of Taxation with comments Good morning.

Again Garrison Kurth Department of Taxation will stand on our written comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Department of Hawaiian Homelands in support.

Engage each other. The Department stands on its written test money support available for questions.

Thank you. General Contractors association and support Herz in opposition.

Chair Vice chair Committee Members s again with herz$3 rental car in opposition of HB 2586.

Thank you. Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Thank you Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. Our concerns are pretty much the same as in the prior bill. We also think that there is a lack of connection between the bill and the new proposed special fund. Thank you for the questions.

Thank you. Chamber of Progress in support. Hawaiian Council in support

On behalf of Hawaiian Council standing on a written testimony.

Thank you. Enterprise Mobility in opposition.

Members Chris Delaney S Government Strategies here on behalf of facility written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Avis Budget Car Rental in opposition.

Stand on our testimony for the reasons previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you. Servco Pacific in opposition One individual in support and Kai Loreen in opposition on Zoom not present. Not present. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter.

Thank you Members. HB2575 related to taxation applies to retail or higher General exchange tax or tax Rate to purchase imports of new motor vehicles by rental car companies. Appropriates funds for position. Department Taxation. Vice Chair.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Good morning, Garrison. Taxation will stand on a written comment.

Thank you. General Contractors association and support. Hertz in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair. Committee Members, we stand on a testimony in opposition.

Thank you. Tax foundation of Hawaii with comments.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chairman of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We will stand our testimony expressing the same concerns as the prior two bills.

Thank you. Chamber of Progress and Support, Enterprise Mobility and opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, Enterprise stands on this.

Thank you. Avis Budget Car rental in opposition.

Avis Budget will stand on its testimony in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Servco Pacific in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter before us.

Thank you. Okay, so Members in tandem. HB 1937. HB2586. HB2575 Members. Are there any questions? Anybody else? Vice Chair Miyake.

Question for DOTAX, please.

Yes.

Thank you for being here this morning. Last Friday, the Senate Committee hearing requested the potential revenue that this would. The projection of their revenue. Would you have. Have that data that you can share.

With her as of this morning? I know it's being worked on, so. It'S forthcoming, but I don't have it today.

Would you be able, once you receive the data, would you be able to. Share with us so we can share with the Members?

I can, yeah, when it's available. I just don't know when.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Rep. La Chica.

Please. Thank you for being here. Thank you. In your testimony, you express concerns, particularly on what could be an unintentional, like, pyramiding structure. Can you explain to the Committee what you meant by that?

Yeah. So currently, rental car companies, when they buy a fleet, they get the wholesale tax at 0.5%, and then the retail tax is applied. When they rent each car out, they pay the 4%. Right. And so pyramiding means that since they're paying for the retail tax, you know, the 4%.

And if you're going to charge them the retail tax for buying a fleet of cars, then you're going to add additional tax. Taxation.

Is the intent for rental car companies to be taxed at a single event. Because I view those as two separate kind of. Right. That's how GAT works. Right. They're taxing, like, separate business transactions. But to be taxed at a single event, like. Because that would be like a sales tax, correct?

Well, they're. They're tax twice already, but at the wholesale rate and at the retail for each, you know, vehicle that they rent out, currently tax multiple times. But this will just increase the tax act, the purchase of the fleet to the 4% versus the 0.5.

So right now, during acquisition, you get taxed at the.5% wholesale rate. Each unit or each vehicle is treated as a separate taxable product. Right. To the consumer. And then if you look at, so trying to understand like a similar industry, right?

If you look at, let's say the hotel industry, when they acquire like, I don't know, like all this furniture for like the hotel rooms, like, are they, aren't they, aren't they also taxed at the retail rate, like, versus like the wholesale rate?

And then whether they charge on a single, like hotel room, like, for example, they, they're also able to pay the full gt. So I feel like the get is meant to kind of work that way where you are taxing on different business transactions. Right.

If a family buys a vehicle for their own personal use, they're taxed at the full rate.

But a company that purchases hundreds or thousands of vehicles that already, you know, have revenue for each separate unit is still taxed at a late rate lower than, I guess, what a family or other type of like, industry would be taxed at. Just trying to, like, understand.

They're wholesalers, right? They're considered wholesalers under statute. And also case law says that they are. And there's a lot of, I'm not too sure about the hotel industry, how that all works there, but a lot of industries, there are a lot of industries that fall within that wholesale definition. You're the statute.

So that's why they're taxed the way they are taxed.

So you say other industries like those are contractors. They are all taxes at the wholesale rate.

The contractors, maybe the, the leasing companies that purchase heavy machinery, you know, and then they lease it out to contractors.

I'll hold my questions for now. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, Members, any other questions? If you can stay up there, Chris. Okay, so you folks are saying, right, when you're acquiring the vehicle that you're paying the wholesale rate, but you folks in Nexus are writing off the depreciation of the fleet and in the same process. Right.

I know you're making the argument that people who acquire these other items aren't being taxed, would not be taxed as this, but you folks in Nexus are writing off the depreciation of the vehicle while actively making profit off the vehicle.

Sorry, I'm not Clear on.

So okay, I think I'm trying to say, right, you folks have been. Not you specifically, but I think industry. If I could just blanket and are arguing there's no nexus for the tax because you folks operating at a wholesale and you guys should not require it at the retail rate.

But the concern I think that has been brought up in testimony and for others is that you folks are actively writing off the depreciation while still actively making a profit on the vehicle and in turn are using the. Because you're arguing the. Not you. Sorry. The industry is arguing pyramid with a nexus issue.

That's basically, you know, there's no connection or relationship between rental car tax revenue and like for instance, you know, teachers hazard pay. That's where the nexus argument comes into play. And also dhhl, there's just no nexus or connection to that. When you have a special Fund, you have to have that kind of nexus in place.

Would you be able to share with the Committee how much of rental cars that you folks currently operate? I don't have that information on me right now. Would you be able to provide that to the community? I can check and see. Yeah.

If I could ask all the folks who testified on behalf of rental car companies if you could share with me then I could disperse to the Committee how many rental car vehicles that you folks operate in the state. Just for a clarification. Okay, Members, any further questions? Thank you, Chris. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

If I can get that.

Okay Members, like to move on to our next agenda item before US which is HB2038 related to transportation requires Department of Transportation to establish a cleaning transportation alternative incentives program that returns funds to eligible residents of the state who meet a certain income threshold or use a certain amount of gasoline for fuel transportation. I sure.

For testimony Department of Transportation with comments. Thank you. Carbon Cashback Hawaiian Support. Climate protectors Hawaiian Support. Climate Future forum and support. And 22 individuals in support anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter?

Thank you Members. Any questions? Seeing that, move on to the last agenda item before us.

HB230 2030 relating to transportation affordability requires the Department of Transportation to establish a clean vehicle rebate program to provide rebates for the purchase of or lease of new vehicles, new used zero emission vehicles and plug in hybrid electric vehicles as Establishes clean vehicle special funds establishes a transportation affordability energy security tax year. Vice Chair for the testimony.

Department of Taxation with comments.

Morning Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Garrison for Department Taxation will stand on our written testimony Comments? Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii State Energy Office with comment.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee Nicole Chernobyl, State Energy Office Please stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Wahoo Metropolitan Planning Organization in support. Ulupono Initiative and support. Our Children's Trust and support. Present Climate Protectors Hawaii and support. Hawaii Youth Transportation Council in support. President. Carbon Cashback Hawaiian support. Georgetown federal and D.C. Committee and our Children's Trust and Support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Devin Weil and I'm a 20 year old sophomore at Georgetown University and head of the federal and D.C. Relations Committee, a student advocacy group partnered with Our Children's Trust, the nonprofit law firm behind the historic Navajin Settlement.

I'm here today in strong support of HB 2030 because my generation deserves the right to grow up in a life sustaining climate system. Now you might be wondering why a Georgetown student is testifying here today. Let me briefly explain.

When I moved from Florida to Washington D.C. for college, my daily life changed in a simple but powerful way. Transportation. I went from relying almost entirely on gas powered cars to using public transit.

That shift saved me money, reduced pollution and made clear how transportation policy directly shapes affordability, public health and climate outcomes for young people, our families and communities. In Hawaii, transportation represents the largest source of climate pollution and billions of dollars leave the state each year to import fossil fuels.

The Navajin Settlement recognizes the harms from climate change requiring Hawaii to reach zero transportation emissions 2045 and that 81% of new sales must be electric by 2030. Yet Hawaii is far behind that goal.

That's where HB 2030 comes in, which is a practical near term solution that lowers the upfront costs of electric vehicles, prioritizes affordability and helps families save up to $5,000 while keeping energy dollars in Hawaii.

Just as moving to D.C. showed me what cleaner transportation can make possible, I urge you to support HB 2030 so families across Hawaii can experience the same benefits. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Sorry, I.

Zero, okay, go ahead. Are you Deray?

Deray?

Yes. Yes.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Deray Shin. With Our Children's Trust supporting the Navajine Settlement implementation in strong support of this bill.

One thing we really want to highlight is that the Navajine Settlement was reached with the Governor, the Department of Transportation and it requires the state to achieve zero emissions transportation by 2045. And it's a court enforced obligation that also is aligned with state Climate goals and greenhouse gas reduction goals.

The amendments submitted by earthjustice are the ones that we support.

In those amendments and in the language of the Bill, you see that the Bill is very intentionally designed with affordability in mind and that the fees would only be on cars above a certain sale price and that the rebates would be for cars beneath a certain sale price.

So just wanted to highlight like the very intentional equity components behind this bill.

Thank you very much. Isabella Liu, another Georgetown student in support. Devin Wheel, another Georgetown student in support on Zoom. Oh. Fed RA in support. 350 Hawaii in support. Climate Future Forum in support. EMUA alliance in support. Earth Justice in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair Committee Members Isaac Mor from Earth Justice standing on our testimony support just adding a few comments.

We appreciate the support and collaboration of DOT on this measure and we've recommended amendments attached to our testimony to promote the affordability and the equity priorities even further as well as to fix some technical details in the drafting.

So as this bill recognizes in the preamble, the reliance on gas on driving for Hawaii consumers is a huge affordability crisis and it hits our rural and underserved communities the hardest. We're bleeding billions from our pocketbooks and our economy every year. But electrification is here already. The cheaper choice.

It's the upfront costs that are still a barrier and that's why we need this bill. This is a market based self funding and revenue neutral solution to open up these choices. It follows proven models for point of sale rebates programs at the federal level in all kinds of states and across the world.

So here's how Hawaii can step up, keep progress going toward our electrification goals and our decarbonization commitments consistent with the Navahine settlement and offer real relief on cost of living for Hawaii's people.

I've noticed some concerns raised in some testimony which we believe are unfounded as explained in our testimony, but I am available to answer any questions and further explain mahalo for this opportunity Justified.

Alliance for Automobile Innovation and opposition.

Sorry, I'm just going to testify. Oh, never mind.

Wait, sorry. Can I get automobile and I will. I will open up right after for further. Yes, thank you.

Sorry Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Tiffany Ajima for the Auto Innovators. Auto Innovators support the intent of this measure, but we are very concerned. We support the rebate on electric vehicles, but we do have concerns with section two of the bill.

Lower income households are generally more likely to buy gasoline vehicles and because EVs cost more than their gasoline car equivalents. We really are concerned that this shifts the tax burden to those who can least afford it.

So you know, higher income households are not would not only avoid the tax, but would be subsidized by those who can't afford it. I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Automobile Dealers association with comments.

Stand on a written comments thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Climate Action Coalition and support. Leo Cohen in support on. Zoom hi.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee My name is Leo Cohen representing Our Children's Trust. As a Government affairs intern calling from Washington D.C. i am in strong support of HB 2030. My commitment to our climate has been lifelong.

I grew up maintaining my grandparents off grid home in rural California where I learned to value simple things I took for granted back in the city, like the energy required for a warm shower. As I grew older, those memories were eclipsed by the reality of the climate crisis.

Witnessing ash fall from wildfires, enduring unbearable heat waves, drought and seeing the mounting threats of sea level rise. While I fear losing my home to a wildfire. That loss is already a reality for a Navajina plaintiff whose home was destroyed by a climate induced mudslide. Climate science is real and these disasters are becoming more frequent and dire.

I now focus on securing legally binding rights, a mission that is both personal and increasingly urgent. Transportation in Hawaii is Transportation is Hawaii's largest source of pollution. The 2022 Navajina vs Hawaii Department of Debt Hawaii Department of Transportation settlement requires the state to achieve zero emissions by 2045 to protect the constitutional rights of children.

HDOT's own plans shows that to stay on track, 81% of new vehicle sales must be electric by 2030. Yet we are currently stuck at 14. HB2030 is a much needed solution. It creates a revenue neutral rebate that lowers the upfront cost of non luxury and used EVs.

This ensures that working families, not just the wealthy, can access the savings of clean transportation and help us meet our legal and moral obligations to the next generation. Please support HB 2030. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We also got 17 individuals in support. And three in opposition. Anyone else online or in person wishing to testify on this matter?

Members, any questions? I have a question for DOT Director Lee, can you. Deputy Director Lee, can you comment on where DOT is at currently with the status of where is DOT currently at with the status of implementation of our Charger Network?

Okay, thank you. Chair, are you talking about the NEV?

Yes. Okay, sorry, can you clarify for the community.

Oh, sure. National Electric Vehicle.

Electrification.

Yes. No, I.

I think it's infrastructure.

National Electric Vehicle infection. Thank you. Thank you. So we installed our first chargers in Kahului. And then we installed our, our next set at Aloha Tower. I believe the next one is going to be on Hawaii Island. Forgive me, I can't remember if it's Waimea or Kona and then Kauai, more on Oahu.

And then from my understanding, that is the way that we roll those out. Are those in conjunction with our electricity providers or this independent of the electric utility providers?

It's not in conjunction, but we coordinate with them. Yes, we coordinate with them. We set the rates ourselves and the public, you know, charges because.

So the ones that the electric utilities install, that is their own version of the NEVI network.

I don't, I don't, I can't speak to that. I don't know.

Okay.

The ones that we install are ours in coordination with the providers.

Okay, thank you, Director W. Any other questions? Representative Grandinetti.

I think let's go with Earth Justice.

Earth Justice, please.

Can you. Respond to the testimony, I think from auto innovators that this bill would shift the tax burden from those who can most afford electric vehicles to those who can only afford gasoline or diesel vehicles? Yeah, yeah.

They have an opposite, actually. This would be, actually remove the barrier for lower income households to purchase electric vehicles or clean vehicles. Basically the rebate proposed here, there's an extra rebate for lower income households of 3,000, or at least proposed in the amendments that would eliminate the difference between Ayes vehicles, fossil fuel vehicles, and electric vehicles.

So we're actually supporting lower income households. And then they can save on the gas and the maintenance costs throughout the life of the vehicle. And then as was mentioned in the testimony, as far as the fee on the ICE vehicles, the lower half of the market is exempt from the proposed fee.

So there's no burden on those lower income households who are purchasing those cheaper and more fuel efficient vehicles. This bill is intentionally and systematically designed really, to prioritize that affordability and equity aspect. And it's a real solution with thoughtful provisions throughout along those lines.

Thank you so much.

Are you still up there? Okay, wait. So the request to increase the LMI subsidy? Yes, but then we're removing the income restriction.

Is that the, the General rebate? That, that was the request by Hawaii Department of Transportation, but really the Committee can do whatever it wants on, you know, the income restrictions. Right now there's like layers and layers of priorities for lower income Households and safeguards to make sure we target that segment of the market. Thank you. La Chica.

Do you have data from other jurisdictions that have implemented similarly, you know, similar policies that have in fact led to increased adoption for lower income households or other. Other users?

Yes, that data is available. In fact, California is really a success story along those lines and they really leaned in on rebates for lower income households and really prioritizing that. In fact, the administrator of that California program lives in Hawaii.

He actually works on the California program, but he's based here and he'd be willing to speak with legislators and he's also connected with the agencies too, and available. In terms of explaining how this works and the successes for really promoting that affordability aspect.

What is the rebate amount in California?

It's about. I don't know how to have it exactly, but it's about the same amounts as is proposed in this bill. This bill was intentionally patterned off of the California rebate programs and also the. Federal rebate amounts to Ref.

To Rep La Chica's point. If you can give the Committee any relevant data on the California proposal or their program, I'd be more than happy to distribute that. Absolutely. Thank you.

Just one more clarifying. You said the rebate put us at or around 3,000.

That's the extra rebate for low and moderate income households.

Okay. Do you know how much it costs a low or moderate income household to install a charging station at home?

That charging can either do trickle charging, which is just right out of your outlet. And a lot of people use that option. Right. Because they charge their cars overnight.

So trickle charging basically works if you don't use your car every day. If you use your car every day, the trickle charge isn't a good option. You need a fast charge.

It works for the daily commute. Actually. That's what I use. Just plug it into the home outlet.

The trickle charge and or charging station for a low income housing person, let's say in my community, that only has standard hundred amp service to their house. How does that work on a standard 100amp service at their house? Because I've been told that it doesn't.

And they have to upgrade their system to be able to install a sufficient charging. Trickle charging. Trickle charging or charging in General, level.

One works for like standard service and you can do that overnight for your daily commute. And then, you know, level two, I'm not an electrician, I don't know the requirements there. But I think yeah, for several hundred dollars you can buy a level 2 charger and that does it in a couple hours. Right.

And that'll go on the supply. That house built in 1979. Yeah. That I don't know.

Yeah. Not an electrician.

Thank you.

Thank you. Rep. Muraoka. Members, any further questions? Seeing none. To recess.

Reconvening our 9:30am agenda hearing on the Committee on Transportation Members like to go through the different proposals that were before us, make some amendments and I will clarify what each intent is.

So Members, if we can first start with HB 1709 related to water carriers the chair would like to recommend deferring this measure but I just want to preface I think it is the intent and support of the Committee to see this occurrence transfer because I've been very clear I think given the PUC's mandate to continue to regulate energy and every other utility which I think is great in Nexus we've lost the not sorry, I don't say loss.

The support needed for other mortar carriers and water carriers has not necessarily been given. I think the full attention it needs needs which is totally fine and no no fault to PUC. They if not have one of the largest tasks to do.

But I think if the DOT has shown appetite and willingness to move those measures forward in the sense of administering both the water carriers and the motor carriers I think it would be it would behoove the Legislature to not give them the support network that they need to do business in the state and to continue to stay profitable and move the things forward that they need to So I I know there's a Senate Bill moving and I'm going to defer a House measure but I want to make clear that when the Senate measure crosses over we can have more time to discuss and move it forward.

So that is the intent and I appreciate the Members for working on on this proposal and the introducer and I would I would that would be the chair's recommendation at this time. Members questions Comments Concerns okay seeing now move on to our next agenda item which is HB2195 related transportation.

I want to adopt the HD1 and I just want to thank the folks in the interim of trying to work a solution forward because I don't want to comment on the pending litigation but I appreciate folks in the conversations to move something forward to acknowledge what we can do to fortify our ports and moving a measure like this forward I know has concerns but want to I want to appreciate the stakeholders coming to the table all the operators as well that came out to support a measure because I in agreement that they want to see something but just making sure that it can withstand the challenge.

So Members my intent is to adopt the HD one for this measure.

I want to adopt the amendments requested by DOT and remove the specified per head assessment amount from the Bill text but I want to note in the Committee report DOT is requesting a $10 per person assessment but I think as the discussions move forward we can try to nail down a number but I'll acknowledge that they are requesting the $10.

I want to clarify in the Committee report that the adoption of the DOT amendments is to address also the AG's comments and concerns and if I could request each MSL defect the date and blank the amendment make blank the amendment of the per fee assessment and any tech amendments for clarity consisting style Members any questions comments, concerns Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote please.

Voting on HB 2195 the recommendation is to pass with amendments [Roll Call] recommendation is.

Adopted thank you Members next measure before is HB 2023 I like to adopt the HD one for this one.

The recommendation is to amend part one to conform to the Department of Transportation's testimony and recommended provisions part so that'll pretty much so what we're doing is striking out the dealer part and this will be for Judiciary orders provides that Part 1 and Part 2 shall take effect on July 1, 2030 but provided that nothing in the act shall preclude the Department from the implementing of the program or portions thereof prior to the date I want to include in Committee report that request that the DOT specify a recommended threshold of prior violations that would authorize the court order of installation of active intelligence speed assistance systems and if they can also clarify in the next Committee I think some of the comments made by Rhett Morocca in the case of that somebody is driving a car from the land before time how that would work and noting that there obviously may be some challenges but I think in the same way we run the intoxalock systems for folks who have been deemed habitual drunk drivers.

I think there is a path forward but I think to the next Committee if the DOT and Judiciary could work together on the one off situation somebody's driving an older vehicle.

But I also want to clarify that the Committee notes that I would ask the position that should be the installation of the court that they could retain discretion of any installation at any time including the absence of prior violations.

But I I note that at some point to trigger the installation we need a head count sorry a prior a number for prior violations then any tech amendments for clarity consisting style and each missile defect the effective date Members questions.

Comments or concerns Chair was the Public defender's comments.

Zero, sorry. Yes. If we can ask the do. Sorry. Thank you. Ask the DOT to work with the judiciary and the public defender to make sure that language in the next Bill could address the concerns, to make sure that the tampering is just for the device, not necessarily the tampering to exclude themselves from the device. Thank you.

And I just want to acknowledge, I think as we've seen, there will be many more measures that this Committee will debate and consider regarding safety. Habitual speeding is not going anywhere anytime soon and I don't want to penalize. Right.

I think when we look for targeted approaches to make our road safer, these targeted things have a path forward. Detox system works and it is a judiciary order device. And if this is the technology we can adopt to just make our roads that much more safer, I, I would like to entertain them.

So any other questions, comments or concern?

I just have one more. I just have one more comment. You know, I really like this Bill. I really like what its intent is. I just wish we could get our court system to do their part because if we could punish these habitual people, that would be a big deal of deterrence as well.

And I agree. And I think that the next measure, the intent pretty much of standing up administrative hearings is acknowledging at times our judiciary is overwhelmed and has not moved the things. I think we've requested them. So when the public is asking us to.

To note that the judiciary has those concerns, I think with the next measure, other municipalities run and I'll comment to their point. But your comments are well taken and I, I would concur. Members seeing none. Vice chair for the vote, please.

Voting on HB 2023. The recommendation is to pass with amendments noting all Members present. Any reservations? Reservations for Representative Cochran. Any no votes? No. No vote for Representative Kerry.

The recommendation is adopted. Thank you. Members. Next measure before is HB2031. I would like to adopt the HD one. So I would like to adopt the Attorney General's recommended amendments in coordination with Dot's testimony as well to make sure that there's consistency and full statutory transfer to stand this up.

I want to acknowledge the concern raised by Kauai Police Department. So at this time we're going to strike part two from the measure. But I want to acknowledge that the dashboard camera provisions warrant future consideration and I would defer that purchase. I defer adopting that in the measure. So we're moving part two.

I want to amend the Bill to delay the implementation of administrative hearing frameworks until two years after the Act's effective date, but provide that nothing shall preclude the DOT from implementing the program earlier at its discretion.

And I want to note in the Committee report that the exemption from Chapter 76 for hearing officers are limited to three years pursuant to Section 7616b unless affirmatively extended by the Legislature and request that DOT provide analysts and recommendations to the next Committee regarding the necessity of the duration of the exemption or further discussion.

I want to note in the Committee report also the Hawaii Transportation Authority's request for exploring the expansion of the camera safety program for the enforcement because I think that also is potentially addressed in the next measure as well.

Tech amendments for clarity, consistency and style and HMSO defect the effect of the Quick comment to Rep. Morocca's last point in commenting about the judiciary, other municipalities stand up their own divisions of traffic court. So in this sense we're trying to stand up administrative hearings. Say what you want about this red light and speed safety program.