Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Good morning and welcome. This is the Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection. This is our Wednesday, February 18th, 2026, 9:25 AM agenda in Conference Room 229. We are reconsidering—well, we are taking recommended action on two measures that were heard last week. The first is SB 2433 relating to condominiums.

And I will yield to the Vice Chair for proposed amendments.

Okay, thank you. In the initial draft of Senate Bill 2433, there was a lot of concern about the term "stakeholders."

And so, the proposed amendment really identifies the importance of recognizing and protecting the interests of condominium unit owners when they are affected by any kind of educational as well as other types of programs conducted by the Real Estate Commission and TCCA.

So, by tweaking the terminology, we're kind of ensuring that condominium unit owners are considered, but it's not necessarily to place them as stakeholders within the immediate framework of the statute.

Okay. As this is going to Ways and Means next, we will also make technical, non-substantive amendments and defect the effective date to July 1, 2050. Members, any discussion? Okay. If not, Vice Chair, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. The last measure on this agenda is SB 2838 relating to condominiums. The recommendation on this Bill is to pass with amendments.

Instead of—well, what we're going to do is amend the Bill to require associations to provide electronic copies of documents of the documents identified in Section Four of the Bill and strike the remaining substantive language. So, no more dashboard.

We're just going to add on, as I mentioned in the previous hearing, to that electric production requirement. Of the items identified in Section 4, which include master leases, reserve studies, audited financial statements, contracts, leases, and other agreements. We'll also make technical, non-substantive amendments and defect the effective date to July 1, 2050. Members, any questions or comments?

Okay, if not, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Good morning and welcome. This is Wednesday, February 18th, 2026, in Hawaii State Capitol Conference Room 229. This is our 9:30 AM agenda of this Hawaii State Senate Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection.

This meeting is being live streamed and in the event we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end, we will reconvene tomorrow, as it is a deadline day, to address any outstanding business tomorrow, Thursday, February 18th 19th—tomorrow, Thursday, February 19th, 2026, at 10:00 AM in Conference Room 229. And we'll begin our agenda with SB 2710, relating to animals.

This measure defines a dog breeder as any person who owns, possesses, controls, or otherwise has charge or custody of more than 10 dogs over the age of 12 months with intact sexual organs and who sells, barters, or otherwise transfers more than three litters and more than 25 dogs per calendar year.

It requires breeders to meet minimum standards of care, prohibits any person from owning or having custody of more than 30 dogs in one year with intact organs, requires breeders to maintain specific records, authorizes the county—each county—to assess, implement, and enforce its own licensing system for dog breeders, requires persons convicted of animal cruelty to register with the Attorney General, does a number of other things. First up, we have Public Defender in opposition.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Keahokalole, Vice Chair Fukunaga. I'm Edward Aquino with the Office of the Public Defender. I know that we submitted written testimony, but I'd like to highlight a few things at this point in time. First of all, the Office of the Public Defender does not condone the mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of any animal.

However, the Public Defender's Office believes that the focus should be on increased enforcement of existing laws, paired with education and rehabilitation of offenders, rather than increasing punishments. As such, we oppose SB 2710. I would like to highlight three things. Number one, increasing the penalty for an offense does not deter the prohibited conduct.

In its publication, "Five Things About Deterrence," by the National Institute of Justice, set forth several relevant precepts regarding deterrence and essentially points out that increasing the severity of offenses listed in this Bill and exposing violators to up to 20 years of imprisonment will not deter others from committing acts of animal abuse.

Two, the legislators' objective should be channeling resources to enforcing existing laws and focusing on education and rehabilitation of offenders. Instead of increasing the penalties for existing animal cruelty offenses, a more productive approach would be to maintain enforcement of existing laws and to focus on educating and rehabilitating offenders using non-carceral and non-punitive practices.

And finally, enforcement goes hand in hand with education. If laws are not enforced, increasing penalties will just be a paper tiger. On many occasions, reports of animal abuse go uninvestigated or unprosecuted. From my experience alone, I'm a felony public defender supervising the Felony Division, public defendant for 26 years, the last time I did an animal cruelty case was in Maui, 2021.

So, that's—it's rare. For many of us, this is a rare enforcement. So, we believe that enforcement is really vital in this case instead of increasing the penalties.

So, we believe the Legislature should consider increased funding for animal welfare organizations as well, with the specific purpose of increasing resources dedicated to the enforcement of any welfare laws. As such, we oppose Senate Bill 710 and thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Attorney General's office with comments. I believe he's down in the Judiciary Committee. So, if he comes up before we finish this calendar, I, I think we'll allow him to testify. Hawaii Humane Society, online, in support. Good morning.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Stephanie Kendrick with the Hawaiian Humane Society. This measure addresses a lot of issues that have been legislative priorities for us for some time now. Pet breeding is completely unregulated in our state and starting with dog breeders would be a great first step to try and get some transparency on animals being bred for profit.

I will note that the provisions of this Bill would not apply the registry, the regulation requirement to most hobby breeders. This Bill only applies if you have more than 10 intact dogs and breed more than three litters a year.

Most breed fanciers who are doing this as a hobby because they love a particular breed are not breeding anywhere near that volume of animals. So, this would really only apply to folks who are breeding animals as a business.

The animal abuser registry is important because it would give us, it would give the law enforcement system more transparency on animal crimes. These crimes are typically correlated to acts of interpersonal violence. So, it really behooves law enforcement and social services to have some transparency on animal abuse in our community. We would recommend deleting the hoarding section.

Hawaii had a hoarding law years ago that was allowed to sunset because it wasn't effective beyond the offenses we can already prosecute under our animal cruelty statute, and it can be used to unfairly punish sanctuaries' folks who have large numbers of animals but are taking very good care of them. So, we would recommend removing the hoarding section.

And we would also recommend, and it is in our testimony, some changes to escalating the penalties in animal cruelty second, and I will yield, as I'm out of time, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have the American Kennel Club, in opposition, online. Good morning.

Hi. Hi. Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Bob Rilling-Smith with the American Kennel Club. While we strongly support combating animal cruelty, which is found in this Bill, SB 2710, as written, unfortunately imposes arbitrary and one-size-fits-all restrictions that burden responsible breeders without actually improving animal welfare.

The 30 dog cap and blanket breeding age restrictions and private registry screening mandates penalize responsible owners while actually failing to target bad actors.

We urge the Committee to instead focus on enforcing examiner cruelty laws, as has been mentioned in previous opposition testimony, and adopting outcome-based standards of care and ensuring any—ensuring any registry is administered by law enforcement, specifically. The AKC stands ready to work with the Legislature on targeted solutions. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Testifying for CARES, we have Angela Young, with comments online.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure online or in the room or on the railing outside? Okay.

In total, we had written testimony from 26 individuals and organizations in support, 14 opposition, and four with comments. Members, any questions? Okay. I have a question for the Humane Society. Ms. Kendrick, are you there online?

I am here. There you go, sorry.

I'm not sure if this is your bill or not, but the bill proposes a county facilitated license. And I'm just wondering, I don't remember asking this last year when we heard a similar measure, but why the county versus the State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, which has a professional licensing division?

Yeah, it's not our bill, Chair, so I can't speak to the logic of that. What I can say from past experience on similar bills is that the state doesn't want to be the authority enforcing a measure like this, enforcing breeder regulation. So, that could be why that responsibility was given to the counties.

And of course, it would be something of an unfunded mandate for us. Hawaiian Humane, for listeners who aren't aware, is the county animal services contractor for Honolulu. But it's such an important issue to us that I think that's something that we would be willing to take on.

And if the Committee is going to advance this bill, I would also be happy to reach out to my neighbor island counterparts and see if that's something they would be willing to take on as well. But that's my guess is both Department of Agriculture and DCCA in prior years have strongly objected to be given this responsibility.

Right. Okay, that explains it. Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, thank you. We'll move on to the next measure, SB 2209, relating to rental discrimination. This measure allows the court to award attorneys fees to a prevailing party in an action relating to discriminatory practices in a rental transaction based on source of income.

The one—the only testifier we have signed up is from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, in support online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Keohokalole, Vice Chair Fukunaga, Members of the Committee. Marcus Kawatachi, Executive Director of the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission. We stand in on our written testimony in support of this measure. I am here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the registered testimony we have. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions for the Civil Rights Commission? Okay. If not, we'll move on to SB 2884 relating to taxation.

This measure establishes a non-refundable individual income tax credit for a certain percentage of expenses paid to retrofit a residence with wind resistive devices or to purchase, install, or construct a hurricane shelter on the taxpayer's property. First up, DCCA, online with comments. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Jamie Yamamoto on behalf of the Insurance Division. So, we send on our written testimony in support. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Department of Taxation with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Member. Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our comments providing testimony on Administration. I'm here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, in support. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, in support. Sherry Pollack, Michael Plowman, in support. And Kapua Kele Ikoa Kamai in support online.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Members, questions? Oh, do we have Dr. Kioni Dudley? Well, he's also.

They're on Zoom, Chair.

Sorry?

They are on Zoom, Chair.

Yes. Please. Good morning.

Good morning. Mr. Chair, the Hurricanes are getting much, much stronger, you know, because of warming seas and the spawning area for hurricanes over by Mexico has moved northward and we're right in the path now. Last—this last season in the Atlantic, three out of the five hurricanes were Category 5. That's the strongest kind of hurricane.

We need to start preparing for it. We've gone through the Legislature for years now and have gotten no results. So, we really desperately need this. And it's not just money for people to fortify their homes.

It's also for apartment buildings to fortify, for new apartment buildings to be built and get a tax break for building it to category five, and most importantly, it's for tax breaks for starting to build concrete homes. And you know, all of our homes right now are wooden.

And if we take a look at what happened with Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica, those homes are just destroyed. You know, we have nowhere to go. Have 187,000 wooden homes and no shelters for those families. We just need to start doing things and this bill is a bill that does things and I really ask you to support it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can you just confirm your name and position again so we have it?

Okay, it's Dr. Kioni Dudley. I don't represent anybody, but I did make a one-hour video that showed on TV ten times a year ago or so and I really been following this hurricane issue for a long time.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else online or in the room who would like to testify on this measure, SB 2884? Members, questions? Seeing none. We'll move to the last measure on this agenda, SB 2922, relating to cooperative associations.

This measure establishes a General Cooperative Associations Act to provide a unified, flexible legal framework for cooperatives to form for any lawful purpose. DCCA, Business Registration Division, with comments online. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Ino Hara with Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Business Registration Division. We stand on our written testimony offering comments and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Kuapui in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kyoan DeFranco and I serve as a Managing Director of the Purple Maya Foundation as well as a co-founder of the Hawaii Co-Op, Hui. I respectfully submit strong support for SB 2922, as amended. Cooperatives are good for Hawaii's economy.

They keep ownership local and what's circulating in our communities. They create quality jobs, stabilize small businesses, and strengthen rural and agricultural and Native Hawaiian communities. Last May, we convened the Inaugural Hawaii Cooperative Hui Gathering, bringing together more than 60 participants from across the islands.

Since then, the Hawaii Koa Hui has grown to over 80 active members, organizing peer training and supporting new cooperative formation statewide. Following conversations with DCCA, we amended this bill to ensure it builds on and clarifies existing Chapter 421C rather than creating a new regulatory structure, and I'm not sure that that amended bill was posted online.

SB 2922, as amended, expands the chapter from consumer cooperative associations to cooperative associations organized for any lawful purposes. It formally recognizes worker co-ops, producer co-ops, and multi sacred co-ops while preserving safeguards.

Consumer co-ops reference membership in grocery stores and other retail stores and is not the proper pathway for incorporation of worker cooperatives and other forms which we are actively working to encourage. This amended approach mirrors reforms adopted in other states, such as California, that have modernized and expanded their consumer cooperative system statutes to encompass all general cooperatives.

This bill provides a legal structure needed for locally owned enterprises to grow and contribute to a more diversified, resilient Hawaii economy. I respectfully urge your support on this amended measure.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Kelly Timi for Enlivened Cooperative, in support online. Good morning.

Aloha. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Timmy. I'm the Director and Co-Founder of the Enlivened Cooperative in Hilo and I'm also an active member of the cooperative, Hui.

I am testifying in strong support of SB 2922. Over three—over the past three and a half years, I've worked directly with more than 20,,20 cooperatives across five of our islands in agriculture, aquaculture, housing, energy, and water.

In 2025, we helped convene the first ever statewide co-op gathering with more, with, with, with more than 65 kaina from across the state. The demand is urgent and it's growing. However, our current cooperative laws have really not kept pace.

While Chapter 421C does offer some flexibility, it is written specifically for consumer co-ops, meaning that worker owned, producer ag, and multi stakeholder co-ops have to subvert the, the current statute stated purpose to use it.

Legal service providers that I've consulted with, that we've consulted with, have consistently raised concerns about organizing non-consumer co-ops under this framework, creating confusion, added risk, and cost for the communities who can least afford it.

SB 2922 solves this by establishing a modern unified legal framework so that communities can form co-ops for any legal purpose without legal ambiguity. As stated, and with lots of research backing this up, cooperatives keep wealth, jobs, and decision making in local hands and SB 2912 really gives our communities the foundation that they deserve. I respect—I respectfully urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Hevelin, in support online.

Good morning, Chair. Hunter Hevelin here on behalf of Hawaii Farmers Union. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. Cooperatives have actually been a core aspect of the National Farmers Union since its foundation, and we've seen the myriad benefits that they've afforded agricultural communities across the nation for over a century.

As highlighted in previous testimony, the simple shift that we're seeking is to have clarity in the language of the existing law to properly encompass the scope of cooperatives as they can form and some data analysis of existing cooperatives registered with the state.

There's a heavy leaning towards agriculture and we view the benefits that membership of our national organization have already experienced for decades as something that would be ideal to extend to other sectors of the economy. And whether that's through worker cooperatives, multi stakeholder, or otherwise, we view this as a simple measure and an important measure, to clarify.

As a corollary, if our LLC law said you could be a consumer LLC and that was the structure, it would be confusing. And so, we view this as essentially, as again mentioned, following the practice of many other states by providing the legal clarity by stating that this is a general cooperatives statute and making the necessary modifications.

My testimony provided an attempt to modify the existing statute to reflect that, as opposed to putting in a new one. We look forward to working with DCCA or this Committee if further amendments or edits to that proposed amendment are necessary. Happy to answer any questions and mahalo again for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. That's all the registered testimony we have. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. In total, we have 38 pieces of written testimony in support and four offering comments. Members, any questions? Vice Chair.

Perhaps for—let me see. Mr. DeFranco. The testimony that was provided by Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs really sort of seeks to redirect your group's focus to the existing statute. And was your testimony intended to respond to DCCA's concerns?

It was, yes. And so, we had drafted an amended bill that focuses on the 421C statute. And so, the amended bill suggests expanding what is the Consumer Cooperative Statute to just a cooperative association or the Consumer Cooperative Association Statute to just a Cooperative Association Statute, which would then expand into allowing worker cooperatives and multi stakeholder to be under the same statute rather than introducing new ones.

Okay. I didn't see the amended bill, you know, attached to your testimony. So if you could provide that to.

It should be in Hunter's, under Hawaii Farmers Union. And there was an attempt to send it to the Committee ahead of time.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, but it should be attached to the Hawaii Farmers Union. And we did attempt to get it to the DCCA ahead of time as well.

Okay, thank you.

Members, any other questions? Okay, if not, we'll recess for decision making.

Okay. Reconvening for decision making on this 9:30 AM agenda. The first measure is SB 2710 relating to animals. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. We will blank the license fee amount, delete the license, delete the registration of animal abusers' provisions, will strike the animal hoarding provisions as brought up in the testimony.

We'll also strike the requirement for shelters, pet stores and breeders to check for compliance with animal abuse registration. We'll take out the proposed changes on the criminal penalty provisions, make technical non substantive amendments and defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050. Members, any questions or comments?

Okay. If not passing with amendments, Chair votes "aye".

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes "aye". Of the CPN Members present, are there any voting with reservations or objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is SB2209 relating to rental discrimination. The recommendation is to pass with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. If not passing with amendments. Chair votes "aye".

Thank you. If the CPN Member is present, any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure is SB2884 relating to taxation. The recommendation is to pass with the Department of Taxation's proposed amendments and to defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050. Any discussion? Okay. If not passing with amendments, Chair votes "aye".

Thank you. Of the CPN Members present, any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. The last measure on this agenda is SB 2922 relating to cooperative associations. Recommendation on this measure is to pass with amendments, adopting the proposed changes recommended in the testimony submitted of the Hawaii Farmers Union and to defect the effective date of this Bill to July 1, 2050, to keep the conversation moving.

Any questions or comments? Members seeing none passing with amendments. Chair votes "aye".

thank you. Of the Members present any voting rights, reservations, objections? Hearing none. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Okay. Good morning and welcome to the Hawaii State Senate. This is our 9:45 AM Wednesday, February 18, 2026 joint Committee hearing agenda between the Committees on Commerce and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Transportation. We're in room 229, hearing SB2694 relating to water carriers.

This measure authorizes the PUC to establish automatic adjustment mechanisms to address economic factors or on application by a water carrier. I'd like to note for everyone in the room, this is the third of seven agendas in this Committee for today.

We need to adjourn this Committee hearing at 11:15 so we can make it down to our floor session and there is a deadline tomorrow. We observe a two-minute testimony time limit in this Committee to allow everyone the opportunity to express themselves.

If you intended to come and read your testimony verbatim, we have provided it all to the Committee and I have reviewed all of it. So, if that's what you were planning, we would ask you to summarize and for the professionals in the room, please stand on your testimony.

If we have questions, you guys know that we'll ask you afterward. First up we have the Division of Consumer Advocacy, DCCA with comments.

Morning Chair, Vice Chairs, Members Committee, Mike Angelo, Executive Director. We stand on a written testimony questions providing comments. Thank you.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. PUC with comments.

Good morning. Morning Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Joint Committee, John Itomura, Chair for the PUC. We stand on our written testimony, available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. DAB, in support?

Thank you, Chair. DAB stands on our written testimony. We are here for any questions.

Thank you for standing on your testimony. Young Brothers in support?

Good morning.

Morning.

I'm David Veltri, Associate General Counsel for Young Brothers and I work on regulatory and legal matters, and I'll try and keep this very quick. We support this because we need to modernize the regulatory framework for water carriers.

The current framework hasn't been meaningfully updated in decades and essentially what's happening is there's a balance that's supposed to be taking place where Young Brothers provides safe, reliable, efficient service to customers and in exchange, Young Brothers is able to recover its reasonable costs and it's a reasonable return on its investment.

And the way that this happens is through a process called a rate case. And when there's a rate case it can often get very long and contentious and complex and take lots of time and resources from both Young Brothers and the state participants, both the PUC and the consumer advocate.

So, what this measure is trying to do is implement this mechanism called the Wiki mechanism, which was the top recommendation of the Hawaii Water Carrier Working Group. And there are guardrails on it. It's a predictable annual rate adjustment that's tied to an existing Department of Transportation maritime benchmark for fee changes.

It's capped at 5% and it's paired with mandatory full rate reviews every three years, so we don't have to worry about runaway rate, automatic rate increases and I'll just leave it at that. So, this is just to help restore the balance. So, thanks for the opportunity to testify. Available for questions.

Thank you. We actually have three testifiers signed up in support from Young Brothers. Chris Nakagawa, Jennifer Lim, Ashley Kishimoto, Dave. Are you all three?

We're just gonna stand on our testimony.

Okay. Okay, great. So if there are questions from the Committee, all three of you can come up in it. Okay, great. We have William Anonsen from the Maritime Group in support, online.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you. We have Lauren Zirbel of the Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition online.

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning.

Good morning. We will stand on our testimony in opposition. Just to note, we represent over 200 Member companies, retailers, suppliers, producers, farmers, manufacturers. We all agree that this Bill will have a negative impact on the cost of food. One in three people cannot afford to buy enough food.

So, we would advise you to please not pass this measure and work on a more consumer friendly approach. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Frank Guerrero in support. Do we have anyone else in the room or online or on the railing who would like to testify on this measure, SB2694? Okay, in total we had in terms of written testimony, 173 organizations and individuals submit testimony and support, five in opposition, and three with comments.

Members, are there any questions? Senator, Elefante.

Question for the PUC, Mr. Itomora. Thank you. Chair. Hi, good morning.

Good morning. And also with me is our utility analyst, Andrew Okabe.

Okay. So Mr. Itomura, the last rate increase was in November, a little north of 26 million, is that correct?

Correct.

And when was the last time the prior rate increase occurred? Prior to 2025, do you know?

Yes, we do.

So, the last increase would be the 2020 test year, I think. I believe it was in 2020. We provided emergency rate increase at that time. Then it became permanent.

Okay. And then in the PUC's decision, there was a stay-out for two years and that's determined by the PUC. Basically, Young Brothers couldn't come forward for another rate increase. Would that be my understanding of that?

Correct.

Okay. However, in DCCA's testimony, it did say that they could sort of come back.

I don't know if I read that correctly. Could be revisited. In doing so, the Commission specifically stated that such an adjustment mechanism could be revisited at an appropriate time in the second bullet point on page three.

I understand your question. As it relates to the language of the current measure, it does provide for avenues of the Commission's review.

Okay, understood. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any other questions?

Yes, just when we mentioned the dates there was lull for about two years. Is that when the working group met then? Just about that time?

The dates of-

The task force. Between the rate increase and you just kind of mentioned for two years, maybe he can answer. I was just wondering if during that time, is that when the working group was in progress?

Yes. Your recollection of the events are correct, Chair Inouye. We did have the working group meet during that time, during the period of that emergency rate increase period.

And hence that. That's when we all worked on the Wiki Process and that's what's before us. Because there was nothing made a decision by the PUC on the Wikis.

Correct. That was prior to the. The most recent rate case.

Right? Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Any other questions, Members? Okay, I have a question for the CA. Mr. Angelo, you note in your testimony uncertainty regarding whether or not indices like the CPI, Consumer Price Index, or the GDPPI, Gross Domestic Product Price Index, are sufficient for the purposes of the rate adjustment mechanism.

Can you explain why and can you explain the difference between the CPI and the GDPPI?

GDPPI is, well, they're two different indices and they represent different things. They're both measures of inflation adjustment. CPI is a basket of goods that somebody would go out and purchase. It's not necessarily applicable to costs that a utility might incur.

GDPI is a different index, and I would have to get back in the exact things that go into that. But again, it's not specific to the price increases that a utility would incur because it's more broad.

Okay. And I guess if you can just clarify from your testimony, I mean, what's the significance of your concern?

Well, the big concern is if the utility is granted an automatic adjustment mechanism, those mechanisms typically are approved. They're things, they already have a fuel adjustment clause, for example. And those adjustment mechanisms are typically for things that are large, volatile, unpredictable costs.

And the reason that they exist is because they're typically outside of the utility's control. In this case, there's things like that are arguably more controllable, like labor, for example, that the utility should have the ability to have an idea of what those costs are and take corrective steps to become more efficient.

So, if they're given an automatic adjustment clause, it removes the incentive to be more efficient in their operations.

Okay, thank you, Young Brothers. If you could just briefly respond to that concern that if we put in an automatic, you know, mechanism that consumers might, you know, worry about the removal of an incentive for you guys to be efficient.

Yeah. So, I will start by saying two points. So, there's guardrails on this that were specifically designed to address this concern. And the main one that addresses this concern is that there's a mandatory rate case every third year. So, there's no like unlimited automatic runaway rate increases.

Every third year, we're going to be back in front of the PUC and the CA for them to review what our rates should be regardless of what inflation has been. And that's not optional, that's mandatory. That's part of the design that the stakeholders came up with in the Hawaii Water Carrier Working Group.

And with respect to incentives to save, to manage costs better, we're under new management now. We hear the PUC and the CA loud and clear. We need to manage our costs better and we're working hard to do that.

The gap is really big right now between costs and rates and it's just growing a lot faster than it has traditionally for traditional public utilities. In the water carry industry, there's a lot more competition now and because of this gap, we need to pull all levers.

We got to cut costs internally and we need to have something to just help us get a little bit closer to what rates should be between these long, complex and contentious rate cases. And this is our director of finance. I don't know if she has anything to add to what I just said.

Good morning.

State your name.

I'm Ashley Kishimoto, Director of Finance at Young Brothers. Just to add what David Veltri has discussed, these small, predictable rate increases, annual rate increases, really allow us an opportunity to really, you know, have a predictable.

And to build in these rate increases, especially for our customers instead of having a large increase that's delayed over, you know, a 3, 4, 5-year period. This allows us to have more predictable, more stability. I think that both our customers, our financers, you know, the public is looking for in general.

Thank you. PUC, please.

You know what? Can I ask them just one question, just a comment to add, but you're obligated and this was, I think, mandated in part of PUC's regulation for your infrastructure, for your delivery service to the neighbor islands in particular.

That's all you do anyway, that your infrastructure is kept up in its conditions every so many years. It's not like, well, the airlines has a little more leverage because they can use their aircrafts a much longer period, but your barges do not.

And with the plans for making sure that your delivery services on the barges are kept up for several years, but your infrastructure, your barges, can't last for 20 something years.

So, in your plans to make improvements, you're stuck because you need to make sure that the barges are able to take the goods so that the neighbor islands can receive their goods accordingly. Is that correct?

I can't speak to comparisons to the airline industry, but it's true that any maritime vessel, whether it's Young Brothers tugs and barges or otherwise, requires a lot of maintenance. And it's very costly maintenance. They do last a long time as individual assets but getting them to last that long requires a lot of investments.

And you've made back investments.

We absolutely have to make those investments because not just to keep running the service, but to be safe and reliable and also just to meet Coast Guard regulations and things like that. It's very expensive. Yes.

Now I understand as Young Brothers, don't you have a new inventory coming in for replacements or you already received it on the budget?

It's my understanding, yes, that Coast Guard is part of the process.

Yes.

Two new barges. Yes.

Is on order or?

They're in service.

Okay, and when's your next inventory coming in for changes?

New vessels?

Yes, new vessels.

We do not have any new plan.

Okay. So the last two should take care of your issues. But you still have payments to do, right?

We still continually have to invest in routine maintenance of these vessels to make sure they remain compliant with Coast Guard regulations as well as just routine maintenance. Our barges before we took delivery in December 2024, those two new barges, we had a really old barge fleet.

I saw them as well.

Yes. So, some of these new replacement vessels were replacing older leased vessels that we did return subsequent to taking delivery of a-

And that was part of the discussions with the working group at that time. But it was pre-purchase of your new, your new barges. I mean there was concerns during that time. How often do you need, you know, to replace your barges?

Yeah, it's like it's an ongoing concern. Like what is, what is the proper decision? Do you keep sinking more and more money replacing an aging fleet or at what point do you replace?

So those are the sorts of things that get looked at in a rate case with the PUC and the CA and they have full review of those things. And that's the sort of thing that would be recurring every third year if this Bill were to pass.

Is your inventory current to take care of the deliveries to the neighbor islands? And why I say that is because of the weather climate that we've had in the last couple of days you were delayed delivering services. Was it to Hilo or Kawaihae or Molokai?

Yeah.

You had a delay, I think at Kauai High because. So, your inventory for barge deliveries is sufficient to carry on for whatever your plans are.

I would say the fleet is sufficient. However, there's always unexpected events that we, you know, can't necessarily recover from just by having enough vessels. For example, if the weather is bad or the seas are particularly rough, that might be a delay for safety reasons.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. PUC please.

I have a follow up question.

Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Sorry, just one question. Thank you, Chairs. So, prior to your last rate increase, was Young Brothers operating at a loss or at a profit?

The rate increase in November?

Yes.

Or that became effective this year?

Correct.

January 1st. Well, it was a long period of time. Part of that we were operating, you can speak to it better than me, but for part of it we were operating at a profit and for the more recent part of it, we were operating at an extreme loss.

So, 2025, we have not finalized our audited financial statements yet, but we're looking at about a $23 million loss in 2025. And prior to that in 2024, we had close to a $14 million loss.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chairs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wait, any other questions for Young Brothers? Okay, thank you very much. PUC, please. Do you foresee if this Bill were to pass, do you foresee some certainty applied to the rate case timeline, which has been a, you know, the uncertainty in terms of the timeline of rate cases has been a continual complaint of regulated utilities.

Well, given the three-year period, there's some certainty to that.

Well, there's some certainty that you're going to get a rate case. But you know, I know the question is whether we can read in some certainty on how long the rate case will take.

Well, the rate-

Because if, you know, after three years you get a two-and-a-half-year rate case, then, you know, I don't know that we're adding a whole lot of value with the passage of a measure like this

Sitting here today. I would make a commitment that, you know, the rate case will not take two and a half years. That, you know, we understand the intent of this measure and acknowledge the condition that, you know, YB faces annually.

So, there's at least again, per my commitment, there would, it would not be a protracted long rate case proceeding.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. Seeing none. Can we go into decision making?

Sure. Yes.

Okay. Members will go into decision making on this measure having conferred with Co-Chair Inouye. The recommendation is to pass this measure out with amendments.

What we're going to do is defect the effective date of this measure to July 1, 2050, as it is proceeding to Ways and Means afterward.

And we're going to add in a seven-year sunset provision which would allow two of those three-year rate case cycles plus an additional year in which we hope a rate case will come to- a second-rate case- will come to a conclusion and the Legislature can contemplate the continuation or sunset of this mechanism.

Any comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none. Oh, Senator Elefante.

Thank you, Chairs. I appreciate the recommendation. However, I still have concerns as raised from DCCA and the PUC. So, I'll be voting with reservations. Thank you.

So noted. Is if there are no other concerns. Vice Chair passing with amendments. Chair votes "aye".

Of the CPN Members present any voting with reservations or objections hearing. None. Your recommendation is adapted.

Okay. For the Committee on Transportation, Chair's recommendation is to pass SB2694 with amendments. Any discussions for the Committee on Transportation? Hearing none. Vice Chair for the vote, Chair votes "aye".

Thank you.

Okay. Chair's recommendations to pass SB 2694. Chair votes "aye". Vice Chair votes "aye" with reservation. Senator Kanuha.

Aye.

Senator Lee.

Senator DeCorte.

Aye.

No.

Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

Okay, this is our 10:07 AM decision making agenda in the Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee for SB2760 relating to invasive species. This measure was jointly heard by our Committee and the Agriculture and Environment Committee last week as AEN deferred action on the measure and hasn't made a recommendation and won't until this afternoon.

We will defer action on this measure until tomorrow, Thursday, February 19, 2026, in room 229 at 10:00 AM. We're adjourned.

The joint hearing with Senate committees on economic development, Tourism and Commerce and Consumer protection. Today is Wednesday, February 18, 2026. This is our 10:05 AM agenda. We're in conference of 229.

Hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene on Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 1:05 PM in Conference Room 229. We have a one-minute time limit for all testimonials. If you can, we've read all of your testimonies.

If you could please stand on your testimonies and we can move forward. First up, Department of Taxation, Senate Bill 2362 relating to taxation.

Good morning, Clinton Fire Department of Taxation will stand on our comments.

Thank you. Next up, Kris Coffield testifying. Hawaii Public Health Institute.

Hello Chairs and Committee Members. I'm Kris Coffield from the Hawaii Public Health Institute. We're in support of this measure. I just want to start by saying that the Legislature passed a measure that's very similar to this in 2019. We hope you will do so again this year.

At a time when we're facing massive federal budget crunches significantly impacting public health and health care services, we're in very strong support of this because we know you need to generate revenue in order to strengthen our social safety net. REITs are things-

REITs are large real estate investment trusts, companies that own some of the most valuable assets in Hawaii. Things like Hilton Hawaiian Village, Ala Moana, Alexander and Baldwin. They pass up to 90% of their profits, which are up to $20 billion a year annually, to shareholders who often live out of state. So, we ask where that money goes.

A lot of the profits that REITs are generating, a lot of that $20 billion is flowing out of our islands to out of state investors. They don't pay corporate income taxes and often their shareholders don't pay local income taxes on those profits. So, this is money that's just flowing out of our state on tax.

This measure would generate an estimated 30 to $60 million by closing that loophole. So, we think this is about fairness and fiscal responsibility at this moment in time. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up, Nicole Woo. Sorry, on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee, thank you. I'm with Hawaii Children's Action Network. And we know that this is a tight budget year and we're very concern that we might have to face, we might be facing, social service cuts and they're a REIT.

They became a REIT about almost nine years ago. Prince Cohio Plaza in Hilo, Whalers Village, Fairmont Kealani on Maui, Ritz-Carlton at Turtle Bay, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Ala Moana Center.

So many of our luxury properties are REITs and they have a special tax loophole that says they don't have to pay corporate income tax if they pay dividends, at least 90% dividends. So, their shareholders mostly live out of state.

They're paying income tax to other states and meanwhile our state is not getting corporate income tax off of these properties. It's a huge tax loophole. We really hope that you'll close it this year. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Yonghee Overly with Indivisible Hawaii.

Good morning from Indivisible Hawaii. We stand on our testimony in strong support.

Thank you. Our next up, Evan Oue with NAIOP Hawaii.

Chair, we stand on our testimony in opposition.

Thank you. Next up, Lori Lum.

Good morning, Lori Lum on behalf of *** in opposition ***

Thank you. Gladys Marrone, Nareit Hawaii.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members, Gladys Marrone, Nareit Hawaii in strong opposition. This Bill would lower returns and dividends for 695,000 of Hawaii's pension holders as ERS invests an estimated $183 million in public REITs.

It would jeopardize the construction of a new hotel tower that would generate 2,400 worker years of construction jobs, over $150 million in local wages and over $22.5 million in GET and other taxes. REITs support 18,000 full time jobs and $1.2 billion in consumer spending.

They hold their assets for long term continually investing tens of millions working with local companies and labor. Any revenue gains would be offset by losses in GET jobs and future capital investment which Hawaii cannot afford to lose.

There have been conflicting revenue estimates over the years so we would be open to a comprehensive study that also analyzes macroeconomic factors. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Next up, Lyndsey Garcia with Hawaii Realtors on Zoom. I mean sorry in person, in opposition. Next up, Tom Yamachika, Tax Foundation of Hawaii on Zoom.

Not on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. Next up, Alan Patterson with Extra Space Storage. In opposition. Galen Fox in support.

Chair, Vice-Chair, Members, I'm speaking on behalf of Church of the Crossroads. Corporations profiting off living in Hawaii pay a corporate tax. REITs, they send their money to shareholders on the mainland. Tax Department says they've now got the data based on previous education.

$27 million is on the ground there and taxes or that amount of money can be collected from people who are making money off the REITs, that money shouldn't go to the mainland. It should be collected here. For the people of Hawaii. Money is earned here. They're using our services. They're using our people. And that money should stay here. Hawaii can't be beat. People will always-

Sir, your time is up. Can you wrap it up? Thank you. I do have DoTax online. Go ahead.

I mean, not DoTax, Tax Foundation. Sorry.

Sorry, Chair. That was for another testifier.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

Hawaii Lisette in opposition. So we got numerous people in support and opposition for this measure. John, was that you on Zoom? IT, can you bring John back in on Zoom, please? Kawamoto.

Yes, Chair. I'm just waiting for him.

Thank you.

Sorry about my video. Can you hear me?

Go ahead, John.

Can you hear me?

Yep.

Hello, my name is John Kawamoto. I support SB2362. REITs are for profit corporations that own vast amounts of property in Hawaii. Nareit previously argued that applying Hawaii's corporate income tax to REITs would amount to double taxation. That false claim was exposed, so they have moved on to other arguments.

The bottom line is that REITs want to enjoy the benefits of doing business in Hawaii, but they do not want to contribute their fair share. Nareit claims that taxing them may discourage investment.

New Hampshire is the only state that taxes REITs, yet Nareit's own data show that REIT investment in New Hampshire is higher than in the neighboring rural states of Vermont and Maine that do not tax REITs.

It has been estimated that a tax on REIT would raise about $50 million, which could be used to support food security, affordable housing and health care. Thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you. Next up, Scott Wiener, Parks Hotels Resort, in opposition. Ana Tuiasosopo, Engineers Local Operating 3 in opposition. Mabel Leong, in opposition. Devin Thomas, Hawaii Apple Seed Center for Law, in support. AL Cock, testifying for Optros in opposition. Jeffrey Kaufman, Host Hotels and Resorts Incorporated in opposition. John Mills, Vice President, Tax Compliance, Simon Property Group, in opposition.

Nathan A. Vitan, Public Storage, in opposition. You want to speak on his behalf? Thank you. Lee Wang, testifying for Housing Hawaii's Future, in opposition. Madeline McKeague, in support for Hawaiian Council. Ted Kefalas, in opposition, for Grassroots Institute. Benjamin Saroski, Unite Here Local 5 in support. Brent Kakesako, HACBED in support. John Frost, ACLU in support.

And Jonathan Pong, Realty Income Corporation and Nareit in opposition. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify on this measure? Seen, Pani.

Hello, Chair, VIce-Chair, Members of the Committee. Pani Miyatonga III, Deputy Political Director of Operating Engineers Local 3. I believe you have my boss's testimony: opposition. I just wanted to reemphasize two things.

One is that a lot of our Operating Engineers Local 3 pensions do invest into REIT projects here in the state. It has been a key source for us. Passing of this Bill would cause our investment people to reevaluate if Hawaii is something that we can invest through REITs.

The second point I wanted to make is that we are already hearing from REIT developers that projects that have already been permitted will be canceled. That's a concern for me and my guys. Just wanted to reemphasize those points. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify on the measure? Seeing no members. Any questions? Question for DoTax.

Clinton Piper.

Clinton, the Bill states that the tax revenue that will be foregone in the 2026 taxable year is 26,800,000. Besides the revenue foregone, how much in gross revenues do REITs in Hawaii generate for the economy?

I don't have those numbers. We do have an analyst that is assigned currently to draft the numbers and the revenue estimate of this Bill. We do anticipate that we will have that ready by the time this gets to a money Committee. But I don't have those numbers and able to address this at this time.

Thank you. Senator Wakai.

Mr. Piper, you know, this body has offers tax credits for all kinds of laudable endeavors. Like for example, we have the solar tax credit. How many millions of dollars does that take out of the economy?

I don't have those numbers off the top of my head, sir.

Okay. I mean, at one time I know it's $120 million. It's been lowered as more and more people have gotten tax credits. I think the last figure I saw was in the neighborhood of $42 million. We offer tax credits for the film industry to the tune of $50 million. You're asking for 60 million.

Yesterday we heard a Bill about sustainable aviation fuel. They want $20 million. There's a state interest in us utilizing tax breaks or credits to help spur economic development, correct?

That is one of the tools that the Legislature has. Correct.

Okay. So this idea of $26 million that might be captured by us levying a tax on the REITs would go counter to the efforts that the legislative body makes in trying to entice investment and business development in the state.

That would be a decision for the policy concerns. I understand there are policy concerns here. The Department of Taxation is more concerned about the ability to administer the Bill. Matters of policy and whether this is a laudable or not laudable goal will defer to the legislator and the other testifiers on.

Thank you.

Senator Kim.

Yeah. I have a question. I'm not sure who can answer this, but according to the Tax Foundation of Hawaii, it says that this Bill is somewhat similar to SB301 that was done in 2019, which was passed by the ledge but was vetoed by the Governor amid concerns that enactment of the measure could chill investments in Hawaii and dry up the availability of already scarce capital in Hawaii projects.

Do we know how different this Bill is compared to what was vetoed? Anybody know?

I don't. I apologize. I'm covering this so I did not have time to research prior years. I do have a recollection of that Bill. However, I don't have a comparison of the exact language, but I do recall that that Bill was vetoed.

Gladys, do you know? Do you have an answer to that question?

I'm sorry. If this Bill is similar to the one passed in-

2019.

It was actually before my time, but I believe it was the same; eliminate the dividends paid deduction.

So the same thing. Do we know of anything that has changed between 2019 and now that it would not chill investments?

Well, based on what the Governor-

Yeah, he vetoed it.

It would still be a deterrent to future capital investment.

Okay, in addition to the names like Al Mona Shopping center and A&B, what are some of the projects that is more like workforce development that are in our communities?

Well, Lori Lum testified. Douglas Emmett does a lot of workforce housing and affordable housing. They've done university housing. They rely on rental income. And Bishop Square, not Bishop Square.

So maybe Lori, you can have Lori come up.

Sure. So, Douglas Emmett currently owns over 2500 workforce rental apartments. And in the past several years, they've invested 100 million to convert office property that they had in downtown Honolulu to 500 more rental apartments.

And then they are currently in the planning stage for four more residential towers and up to an additional rental units near downtown for their Wa'ana property. So as you know, they have property in Moanalua, they have Wa'ana and they are a REIT. So they currently do housing in California and Hawaii.

So obviously a Bill like this would disincentivize to continue those. Excuse me, disincentivize those to continue projects in this state. They would just put more into what they're doing in California.

Someone said that there's projects that already been approved that they may walk away from. Is that real or is that just?

I am not aware of Douglas Emmett pulling out on anything right now. Like I said, right we've just finished our downtown conversion, and we are in the planning stages for future development.

Okay. They did submit a testimony that says that with this Bill, we would lose one of the best sources of capital to build workforce, housing and improve our communities. And this is from Douglas Emmett. So.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Correct. Thank you.

Senator Fevella.

Just a clarification. He was just talking about Ala Moana. The reason why I bring this up is because, again, it's jobs. Yeah.

The whole thing with Ala Moana, don't get me wrong, I don't agree about how the REITs are set up, but it also brings jobs on what they have on the development side of the community. Because Ala Moana was that project. That was a very big project. All the project was.

I couldn't answer that for you, but I could find out and get.

Yeah, can you get back with us? Because I know that job kept on extending and extending and extending. So it did a lot of investment within the community. And then not only that, I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't shop Ala Moana, too expensive for me, but it brought jobs to the community. So that's my concern.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just wanted to follow that line of questioning for you folks. Close or neighboring to my district, there's Ka Makana Ali'i. And how would this impact phase 2 of that build out?

And if you guys have any, I don't know if you've worked out with the unions to see how many jobs and things like that, that would also impact as well.

I believe OP Trust might own that property. And they have testified previously that the second phase of Ka Makana they would have to rethink, and that's in their written testimony. I don't know about the jobs, but you can get that information. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Senator Awa.

Just for the record, not to anybody in general, but seeing the questioning up here, what good are investments in jobs if our people keep getting driven out because of REITs? I don't understand it. Thank you.

Yeah.

We're going to head into decision making.

Okay. In regard to Senate Bill 2362, well, there was significant testimony on both sides we realized the important role REITs playing our economy, providing capital for housing development and so forth. Again, to realizing that funds that do leave the state and trying to figure out what amount of funds leave the state.

The testimony on the Bill, on this Bill is divided. Both sides have raised many issues.

So, I recommend that we continue the discussion on this Bill by passing an SD1 that would Fund a study to be done by DBID that will consider the impacts of eliminating the dividend paid deductions for REITs, providing an appropriation of an unspecified amount and by changing the effective date to July 1, 2050.

Any discussion, Members? Seeing none. Vice Chair Wakai for the vote. Chair goes "aye".

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Aye.

Senator Kim.

Senator Fevella.

Aye.

Aye.

Share your recommendations. Adopt.

CPN same recommendation. Chair votes "aye".

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

Thank you. And with that, we are adjourned.

Okay. Good morning. Reconvening. This is Wednesday, February 28, 2026. This is the 10:06 a.m. agenda. It's a joint hearing between the CPN and HHS Committees in the Hawaii State Senate. We are reconvening action on two measures that were-- we were not able to get to on our agenda yesterday. We still had registered testifiers who did not submit testimony.

We will complete testimony and take questions on those two measures and then make recommendations on that and then the remaining agenda from yesterday. So this is SB 3275, relating to cannabis, and the next registered testifier we had was Tina Yamaki of the Hawaii Transportation Association online, in opposition.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Thank you very much. Shelby Pikachu Billionaire for the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and Ohana Unity Party, in support on Zoom.

Also not on Zoom.

Thank you. Nikos Leverenz from the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, in support.

Not on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Laverne Moore, in opposition. Chanel Leilani Solomon, in support. Myron Oshiro, in opposition. Jennifer Fouch, in opposition. Marion Logan, in opposition. And that's all the registered testimony we had on this measure. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this bill, SB 3275?

We have Robert Bence on Zoom, Chair.

We have Chief Vanic in person, so we'll have the chief go first, followed by you online, Mr. Bruce, if you can stand by. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Chairs, Vice Chair, committee members. I'm Interim Chief Rade Vanic with the Honolulu Police Department, testifying in opposition to Senate Bill 3275. I'll just summarize really quick. This bill presents significant public safety and enforcement challenges. First, obviously, impaired driving remains our primary concern. Increased legalization would increase impaired driving incidents. Second, there would be enforcement difficulties.

Right now, it's impossible for officers to distinguish on the field between low-dose potency and regular or high-dose potency. Also, it would be challenging for officers to determine in the field whether a grow operation complies with plant limits.

Third, the employment protections in this bill directly impact law enforcement agencies, especially for police officers who carry firearms, operate emergency vehicles, and make split-second decisions affecting life and safety. For these reasons, we respectfully urge caution and opposition to this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Mr. Bruce. Good morning.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs. Robert Bence. I'm a member of the OMCCR's current community voices group and a long-time 329 patient, testifying in support, but I submit a compromise with this bill. All cannabis is medicinal use, but there's different levels, so this could be great because what Hawaii can produce is very unique, like coffee can only be growing here, but it should be at Schedule III, three-tier.

So the highest tier are like us that are disabled that really need it and can be studied and be done federally legal, and second-tier current, and then a lower tier covers this. And we do it with hemp. We get fingerprinted, FBI background check, and the UH Hilo could do the lab testing for free. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Bence. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Members, we have the Department of Health here and HPD and the Attorney General's Office. Is there any member who has questions? Okay, if not, we'll move to the last measure on this regular agenda, SB 3105, relating to the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact.

First up, we have Kelli May Douglas for the US Defense State Liaison Office in support online. Morning.

Aloha. Yes. Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelli May Douglas and I'm with the US Defense State Liaison Office. We stand on our written support of the provisions reflected within SB 3105. Which would enter the, enter Hawaii into the Physician Assistant Licensure Compact. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Medical Board in support. Thank you very much. Christine Pagano, Department of Health Disability Communication Access Board in support. Also have Leocadia Conlon from the Hawaii Academy of PAs in support.

Yes, thank you, Chairs, Vice Chairs and Members of the Committee. I stand on our testimony, but I also want to make a clarification and correction for my written testimony that said that we support with amendments. However, in my written testimony I did not give those amendments.

But as per the Council of State Governments and Compact Legal Review's review of the bill, there are changes that are needed to ensure the legislation is compliant with the compact model language. I can provide that information to the Committee separately, as well as, the contact for the National Center for Interstate Compacts and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for this time.

Thank you very much. We also have supporting testimony from Mike Nguyen of Aloha Care and support from Ted Kaphalis of the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on these measures? Okay. Members seeing none, we'll move into decision making on these two measures.

The recommendation on SB 3275 is to defer decision making on this measure for the CPN Committee to tomorrow, Thursday, February 19th at 10am in this room 225. And for HHS?

For HHS we will. Sorry. We will defer decision making to 1pm today. Regular calendar. Or should I make it 105? Okay. 105 at room 3, 225. At room 225.

Oh, I'm just a clarification.

We. We're going to confuse people on the deferred agenda. So for CPN we're going to defer decision making on this measure to tomorrow, Thursday, February 19, 2026 in room 229 at 10:01am Just so that we don't confuse people on the agendas. Okay.

And on the last measure, SB 3105, the recommendation on this measure is to move with a defective effective date of July 1, 2050.

There are apparently some amendments that need to be made, but we need to keep this vehicle moving before the deadline or it will not proceed in the Legislature this year. We also have technical, non substantive amendments. Those amendments can be submitted to the next committees who are jointly hearing this bill.

If they elect to make changes, then they can request the committees provide prior concurrence. Any discussion?

That's fine. No discussion. So my decision is to-

Pass with a defective date.

That's fine. Yeah.

Okay.

Can you be mine?

Passing with. Oh, passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice Chair also votes aye. Senator Lamosao. Senators McKelvey and Awa are excused. Your recommendations adopted.

Thank you.

Okay. For HHS, same recommendation passed with amendments.

Recommendation on 2690, correct? Or wait, what are we on? 3105. SB 3105 to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Reconvening on the 10:06 a.m. joint agenda between the CPN and HHS Committees. This is to make decisions on bills that were fully heard and testimony taken yesterday, but we needed to reconvene because we ran out of time in the committee. The first is SB 2421, relating to cannabis.

After reviewing the testimony yesterday, having a discussion, the recommendation is to defer this measure in lieu of potential recommended action on another bill. And I will yield to the chair of HHS for the rest of the agenda.

Okay, thank you very much. So for SB 2690, relating to primary care, Chair's recommendation is, because it's overly complex, we are going to defer this, especially since we're going to need a sunrise analysis regarding potential premium increase should we give our primary care physicians added reimbursement. So with those with those issues, we're going to defer SB 2690.

For SB 3103, we're going to be passing this with amendments, blanking the appropriation, and noting in the committee report that DHS may already have $7 million for this program. Any comments-- or $7.7 million according to their testimony. Any comments, questions, concerns? Pass with amendments. Chair votes aye.

[Roll call]. Chair, recommendation's adopted.

Okay.

CPN, same recommendation: passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

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

Thank you.

For SB 3137, Chair's recommendation is to pass with the <inaudible> amendment and technical non-substantive amendments needed for clarity and consistency. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Noting Senator McKelvey's excused absence, any other members voting with reservations or no votes? Chair, recommendation's adopted.

CPN.

Thank you. CPN. Same recommendation: passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN members present, are there any voting with reservations, objections? Hearing none, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. So for SB 3164, I note AG's proposal to defer it. However, because as shown in the informational briefing last year, our child welfare service organizations are having difficulty getting insurance. Chair's recommendation is to pass this with AG's proposed amendment of removing section 2, lines 4 to 14. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Passing with amendments. Chair votes aye.

With Senator McKelvey excused, any of the four members present with reservations or no votes? Reservations for Senator Fevella. Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

CPN. Same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN members present, any voting with reservations? Objections? Hearing none, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. For SB 3206, we really do want to help out our hemp farmers. However, the definition of hemp is in flux at this time and there is-- in lieu of potential movement on SB 3275, Chair at this time is going to defer SB 3206. For SB 2933--

Oh, I'm sorry. CPN. Same recommendation: defer SB 3206 and also defer SB 2690.

2690.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. So for SB 2933, noting that Department of Health does not want to have the Prescription Drug Affordability Board within its authority and noting that SHPDA is unwilling to, at this time without appropriate appropriation, to have it, although they see the positive intent of this bill, we are going to defer it and request that the introducer submit a resolution to determine where the proper place for the Prescription Drug Affordability Board should be. So defer at this time.

SB 2933.

CPN. Same recommendation: defer.

Okay. So for SB 3133, relating to preventative medicine, Chair at this time is going to pass this with technical, non-substantive amendments needed for clarity and consistency. Any comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass with amendments.

Pass with amendments. SB 3133. Noting Senator McKelvey as excused, any other-- any reservations or no votes for the four members present? Chair, recommendation's adopted.

CPN. Same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN members present, any voting with reservations? Objections? Hearing one no vote. Thank you. Your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

For SB 3315, Chair's recommendation is to pass this with amendments, changing the 2 ounce down to 1 ounce. I believe the OMCCR will be able to track, using administrative rules as required, and noting also, you know, just as a personal event that occurred where we really, really needed to have medical cannabis for a terminal relative of ours where we tried every possible prescriptive ability. We really needed that one-time use.

So for those reasons, I'm going to be passing with amendments, bringing it down to 1 ounce until until the passage-- until registration. Any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote. Pass with amendments.

SB 3315. Chair's recommendation's to pass with amendments. Of the four members present, any reservations or no votes? Reservations for Senator Fevella. Chair, your recommendation's adopted.

CPN. Same recommendation. Chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN members present, any voting with reservations or no votes? Okay. Your recommendation is adopted.

And with that, we don't have any more bills, so we are adjourned. We are adjourned.