House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon everyone. We are convening the Committee on Commerce or Consumer Protection and Commerce. It is Tuesday, February 24, 2026. 2:00pm in Conference Room 329. Maestro will be handling the testimony today.

Thank you. Just letting everyone know. I also have a two minute timer here. If it goes off, I won't. I'll try not to cut you off right away, but just to be conscious of time, I will ask you to wrap up your remarks so we'll be starting with HB 1697 today relating to natural hair braiding.

This bill exempts natural hair breeders from licensing requirements under certain conditions. First up is DCCA Board of Barbering and Cosmopolitan Cosmetology offering comments.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Yim. I'm the Executive Officer of the Board of Barbarian Cosmetology and the board offering the following comments on the HB 1697 at its last meeting on February 10, 2026 it reaffirmed that hair braiding does fall within the scope of practice for cosmetologists, hairdressers and barbers.

However, because the training requirements are minimal, the Board has determined that individuals engage solely in natural hair braiding are not required to seek registration for licensing right now at this time.

And another part within that services offered by herb raiders, which would include waxing, cleansing, cutting, singeing, coloring, trimming, shampooing and relaxing are included within what a herb Raider does, but those would those activities themselves would be required for licensure.

The Board is concerned about exempting natural hair breeders from licensure will create a gap in consumer protection in regards to sanitation training and enforcement.

The use of breeding devices in the practice of natural air breeding presents health and safety risks if proper sanitation standards are not followed by if natural hair breeders are exempted under this bill, the Board will have limited authority to enforce consumer safety requirements related to those services. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill.

Thank you. Next up is the Institute for Justice and support on Zoom.

Hello Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Courtney Fontaine and I'm with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that works to protect the rights to earn an honest living. And I am testifying in strong support of HB 1697 which would exempt natural hair braiders from unnecessary cosmetology licensing requirements.

In Hawaii, natural hair braiding is a safe practice. It does not involve cutting, dyeing, bleaching or the use of harsh chemicals. Yet under Hawaii's current law, braiders must complete 1,250 hours in the state approved hairdressing program before they can legally work. That is one of the most burdensome requirements in the country.

Those 1250 hours can cost more than $17,000 in tuition and the training focuses largely on services like cutting, coloring, chemical treatments, makeup, nail care and facials, none of which are relevant to natural hair braiding.

These requirements create a significant barrier to entry, particularly for low income individuals and aspiring entrepreneurs, many of whom are women of color and who already possess the skills necessary to braid safely. 36 states have already exempted natural hair braiding from cosmetology licensing laws.

Lawmakers around the country have recognized that these burdensome requirements do not require do not harm public safety and do not require the current licensing implementations. Importantly, HB 1697 maintains reasonable sanitation and safety standards and we ask that you please support this Bill.

Thank you. Next up is Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and Support

Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute in strong support of HB 1697 and just wanted to say we really appreciate Vice speaker your work on this and introducing this measure. Right now hair breeders are in regulatory limbo, so you're technically required to have a full cosmetology license.

In practice, this requirement isn't enforced due to legal concerns. That's not really good policy though. That's just uncertainty. So Hawaii's cosmetology license is just a bad fit for hair braiders right now. It requires 1800 hours of training.

Even if you look at something like the hairdressing license, which is 1250 hours of training, little of that actually has to do and relates to natural hair braiding. As the Institute for Justice noted, Hawaii is actually behind the curve. I saw 37 states that have exempted hair braiders from this kind of licensure.

Most have done so in the past decade and there haven't really been any widespread safety concerns reported. We do think that this is important just to replace this regulatory gray area with some clear rules and we hope you pass this Bill today.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on HB 1697? Just noting that 16 individuals submitted written testimony and support and as well as two individuals in opposition Members. Any questions?

Oh go GCCA. Mr. Yim

Yes.

Thank you so much for being here today and for your testimony. A couple of the other testifiers and you mentioned it also in your testimony suggested that there might be a need for some type of sanitation, health type related training for hair braiders is that

what you folks are asking for from the board's concerns? They want to emphasize the training for sanitation itself. And just while they recognize that there is a heavy burden on, you know, meeting the training requirements for licensure for cosmetologists and hairdressers, a broad exemption removes any sort of training to practice as a hair braider.

And so that is, while there is minimal training required, there is still public health risk when it comes to dealing with hair on hand. And then if individuals are practicing using specific braiding tools or devices and they aren't trained properly in sanitation, there is cross contamination concerns as well.

And so while the board hasn't put forward anything requesting a specific training program, we don't know what that would look like. That is something to think about when moving forward on the Bill.

Does the board or is the board aware of any type of standalone course that could be made a requirement as a condition, say like a registration?

I don't have an answer on that right now at this time.

Okay. Would you be able to get back to the chair? I think that'd be really helpful, you know, to address some of the concerns and testimony. If they could just take the standalone health sanitation course and not have to go through the 1200 or 1700 hours for the full barbering cosmetology license.

But just to address that specific concern.

Yes, I could bring that up to the board and see what they have on that.

Okay. And if you could get back to the chair, that would be great.

Yes, of course.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

That was. That was kind of along my lines, but it seems like there are other jurisdictions that don't require licensing for natural hair braiding, but do that do require some kind of, you know, sanitation of your. Of your materials course or something.

And I wonder if there are like some online versions that all that you guys can look at to say if you take this online course, then that would qualify? I mean, you could look into that as well?

Yes, I could bring that to the board and see what they find best on that.

And then my final follow up is you mentioned that the board determined that individuals engaged solely in hair braiding are not required to be licensed. Did you guys determine that in a board meeting with a published notice?

Yes, there was a. Over several public notice meetings. This has been discussed. The most recent was just this month at the last meeting, which was a publicly noticed meeting. And then prior we've had similar bills put to the Legislature about this.

And the board is kind of just reaffirming in that last meeting what's been discussed in other meetings as well.

So if somebody does any kind of complaint against somebody, you would just cite your minutes and the board's decision that an investigation will not be, will not follow, Is that correct?

Depending on the complaint, we would forward it to RICO or the Regulatory Industries Complaints Office to see if they feel there's something in there. It is determined on the board specifically doesn't recommend investigations on complaints.

If, if an individual has a complaint about a license, we can take the information in and forward that to RICO on the investigation.

Okay, so I can see why this is needed because it gets very confusing for people then. Thank. You.

Okay, we're moving on to our next measure. HB 1678, relating to associations. Clarifies that in planned community association and condominium elections conducted by cumulative voting, cumulative voting rights apply to all candidates, including write ins, and that individual votes are used when allocating votes. Okay, first up is Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians in support.

Because it's the afternoon already. Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Committee Members. I believe that the testimony, the testimony we provided is pretty complete. So we'll stand on our written testimony and available for any questions. Thank you so much.

Anne Anderson in support on Zoom.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I support this bill. I think it's a needed bill to clarify that candidates include write in candidates as well as nominees, and I ask this committee to adopt it.

Thank you. Paul Ireland Koftinow, individual in support on Zoom. Not present.

I'll just stand on my testimony and join in Steve's testimony. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Aloha.

Oh, hello.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I apologize. I submitted testimony on this measure, but I believe I accidentally submitted it... Well, I see it on HB 1679. So I have written testimony that inadvertently went to the next measure. If I could, I will read it because it's clearly in front of me for the next measure.

So again, many of you know me, but my name is Greg Misakian. I currently serve as the President of Kokua Council, the Vice President of the Hawaii Alliance for Retired Americans. I'm a director of my condominium association board and I'm also a member of the Good Government Caucus.

And today I'm speaking as an individual, not on behalf of any of the organizations. This bill, HB 1678 is an opportunity to finally allow a democratic and fair election at all condominium associations. So I'm suggesting to change this bill, to amend it to remove the proxy voting.

Proxy voting is an abuse of power at many condo associations. It can be used both ways, but for the most part, when boards take control of the proxies or they solicit or certain people, it does become an abuse of power, especially with cumulative voting. So I'm asking that you look at this bill to amend it.

You'll see my testimony on the next one in writing, and make it a better bill. And with that, I would also say, you know, it's a shame that the one bill that would have been the best bill for condominium owners was not scheduled. SB... Excuse me, HB. HB 2453. And I really urge the committee in the future to please look at that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Noting an additional 10 individuals who submitted testimony in support and one who offered comments. Are there, is there anyone else who'd like to testify? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions?

For the parliamentarian. Sir? Sorry. Thank you for your testimony. It was very informative.

I'm getting used to hearing aids as well.

Okay, I'll try to speak louder. So we heard a previous testifier talk about, I guess, compounding cumulative voting with proxy votes. And my concern that you might be able to kind of address is, when proxies and cumulative voting is perhaps given to the current board or the community association management team to execute.

Could there be a way of stacking votes in a way to preserve knowing exactly how many votes are coming in, how many votes are needed to keep the current board, and then you stack votes accordingly? Like, is that... I guess that's the fear some people have. Can you address that?

I could give you a whole afternoon on this, but the Chair would kill me and I wouldn't make tonight's meeting, so. But the proxy is just a document that enables somebody to vote on somebody else's behalf. Whether it's a board, an owner, or we've statutorily provided for board majority, board equal, or say quorum only, which says you cannot vote it. It's like a person with duct tape at the meeting.

If you have cumulative voting, whether it's a proxy vote or proxy designation or someone shows up at the meeting, it allows them to stack their votes for one person. The Chicago used it for alderman in the 19th century, which that's not quite the example of elections we might want.

But then they got rid of it in the 20th century. But that allows a minority to attain some representation on the board with cumulative voting. It also is one way that if a minority uses it correctly, they can actually take over a board. So the gate goes both ways, and there's a formula for it. And usually I've had a mathematician in the audience to help somebody to vote on a takeover.

Because they worked out the numbers of what would get a majority of the board. So the cumulative voting is not the same thing as the proxy issue. The proxy issue is whether you trust somebody enough to vote on your behalf. The cumulative voting is whether that person has the right to vote as many times as there are positions open on the board. Is that helpful?

Well, kind of. But my concern is, as votes are coming in, and they're coming into whom? To the board? To the community association management company? So they see that they are counting votes coming in, and they're sitting in proxy with cumulative voting. Now they have this whole, you know, big bowl full of votes that they're like, oh, these people are getting this many votes, so let's issue more votes for this person.

Yeah, okay. Legislature actually handled some of that quite well a couple decades ago. They made a deadline on proxies, first of all. So that way, people are not bringing them in at the door. And there's only one group that really can bring them in at the door. It's not condos or community associations.

So by having that deadline, it kind of shuts that off. It only shows up in person. When they're counting the votes, people don't get to see that. It's just usually two tellers and the administration. And of course, if it's electronic voting, nobody sees a total of the votes get in. Right. But while the votes getting done.

Okay, there's... They can't kind of look and say, oh, they're giving more for this one. I think I'll vote that way. At least in my practice, my daughter and my colleagues practice, the votes are counted in a separate, you know, separately. And we have to tell people, like, stay away. You know, we keep people away from the voting.

So that's how that process works. Now for proxies given to somebody. And I've been paid to be the audience where my client got a lot of proxies, and we cumulated to get somebody on the board, so we've done that from the audience as well.

Okay, thank you.

Help a little bit?

Yeah. Yeah, a little bit. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Any other questions? Moving on to HB 1679, relating to condominiums. Clarifies an association board's authority with respect to calling and authorizing electronic meetings, electronic voting at electronic meetings, electronic voting without a meeting, and mail in or mail voting without meeting. First up, again, Hawaii State Association of Parliamentarians in support.

Well, I have kind of a pleasant surprise for you. I did provide testimony on this. This has been a process that's been slow moving since about 2021 when we worked together on electronic voting devices. Ever since we watched 900 people vote in 30 seconds to a minute at a meeting of the soccer federation.

It seemed like it would be a lot faster than taking an hour to count 100 ballots. And look for something, and then Covid hit after we got the statute changed to provide for electronic voting. And so then the statutes changed and it really needed some improvement, and we put together some testimony based on our experience.

Personally, I've done between 30 and 40 electronic voting votes. And the only place where I've actually seen a real problem has been with paper ballots, where somebody took the paper ballot from the previous meeting and shoved it in the ballot box of the current.

And fortunately we caught it and then we had somebody who was forging the proxies for a dead person. So those are what's happened in 400 meetings last year. As far as the electronic voting, it's quite secure. I spent several years in the security field and went to 24 cities with a 370 page man consulting on security.

So I have a little experience aside from what you, ladies and gentlemen know me as, a parliamentarian. And it's probably about as secure as your secured sockets when you go into your bank. And in some cases it's more secure, depending on which bank you have. So what we do is we basically saw the statute.

You have two different types, major types of voting. You have voting that's completely separate from the meeting. That type of voting, there's really no proxies involved. That's just voting like a mail ballot and they just vote. Electronic version of a mail ballot, same thing. Then you have voting at the meeting.

Now, what type of meeting? Do we have a meeting where we eyeball each other or do we have a meeting where we're using like Zoom and it's online? So anyway, so that's... So with your permission, now, Vice Chair, we actually have an election going, just tailored for you guys. Okay.

But you got to say no on the jet travel for people. Okay. So if you wish, if it's okay with you, I will give you a way you guys can actually see how difficult it is to vote electronically. That be okay? There you go. I got about 10 of them. One for each. Thanks. And I'm available for questions, obviously.

Great. Anne Anderson, individual in support.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. I support this bill. I submitted testimony that goes through the reasons. But one of the most important things about this bill is it will correct a problem that was created in 2024 change, which moved the 60 day time period for written consent to cover everything. It covers electronic voting, written consent, mail voting.

And that's made it almost impossible now for associations to do anything by written consent, like borrowing of money, imposing insurance requirements, amending the declaration. So we really, really need to fix that,, and this bill will do that.

So it will be that the time period would be either as provided in the statute or as determined by the board. It also will simplify the process for obtaining owner approval. It simplifies the process for voting during a state of emergency. It cleans up terminology. I previously referred to special meeting rules.

It should be special rules of order. And then it clarifies that proxy voting can only be used at a meeting, which is consistent with the current statute, and not used when it's action without a meeting. And those words without a meeting come from 414D. We just use same language from existing statutes for a corporation, for nonprofit corporations.

So it clarified that if it's actually outside of a meeting, without a meeting, it would be all owners would have to vote themselves. I did note in the testimony that, well, 514B123 says you can only have proxies. The proxies will be valid for the meeting and its adjournments and they'll state the date of the meeting.

There is a provision in 143, 123 rather, B that has language that says an owner may vote by mail or electronic transmission through duly executed proxy. Which is not consistent with the remainder of that section. And so I had suggested in my testimony one additional change to make if you're willing. That would clean that language up to make it clear that proxies are only to be used at a meeting. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Paul Ireland Koftinow in support.

Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti. I'm in support of this measure. My name is Paul Ireland Koftinow. I'm an attorney and also I'm a condominium unit owner. And as a condominium unit owner, I've been a teller at meetings and counted ballots.

And one of the common reasons why association members might not attend meetings is because they can go on for a very long time. It takes a long time to count those ballots. So this could make it optional for the membership at the meeting to say, yes, we'd like to do the electronic voting process.

They can opt in, and then we go forward with having the counting that Steve has demonstrated. And I think that that would be beneficial as an option to association members. It's not going to be required, it's optional. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify?

Aloha. Greg Misakian. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Again, Greg Misakian. And this was the one that I inadvertently, I swapped the two. I was up late at night doing testimony. I have a concern with this bill as it is written, and I fully believe it needs to be amended.

I do serve as a director on my condo association. I have seen concerns also with the parliamentarians where there seems to be a one sided way they handle things. So it always intrigues me that the parliamentarians show up to testify quite a bit at some of these condominium hearings for these bills, condominium related bills.

Because they should be non-biased partners parties. And they're there only for one reason, to facilitate that the meetings be conducted properly. Not take sides, and just basically be there to make sure that the meetings are operating properly, that we're following Robert's Rules.

It's very concerning when I read certain sections of this bill. I know there's some changes, but one of the things is what is electronic voting? What is specified? I have an engineering background, and I was actually responsible for one business unit, two business units. One was chip card and security of a very large corporation, one of the largest in the world.

And I don't understand what that means. I do understand, but it's not well defined within this bill. So you need to look at what electronic voting is, what equipment is being used. It's open for all kinds of abuse and it needs to have more amendments. And I'd be happy to help going forward if this moves forward. But as is now, I oppose it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Any other testifiers on HB 1679? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Yes, Chair. For the parliamentarian. Sorry, I think... Thank you. So one of the concerns that my constituents raised was that during the, if it's an electronic meeting, I guess there's some concern, and you mentioned Zoom.

That people, they're muted and maybe they're, it's harder to jump up. And so in a regular meeting where everyone's there in person, I think the condo owners can make a motion, you know, at any, rise and make a motion. However, it's my understanding that some of these digital meetings or online meetings, they're muted.

And they can't rise to make a motion, even a relevant motion, even when that's authorized by Robert's Rules, because they need to wait for somebody to click them so that they can be acknowledged. Is that... Do you see that there's a discrepancy between in person and electronic?

Yeah, that's an abuse by a Chair if they're not recognizing people who validly asks for the floor. Whether it's in person and the president just ignores somebody or it's on Zoom, where they lock them out so that they can unmute. Okay, that's to me, we don't do that. Our clients are not going to be doing that. But that's an abuse.

I mean, there's 2,200 condos out there. I couldn't possibly do them all. But, you know, but no, we don't. That, to me, would be unethical from my practice that if a person validly requests the floor, they request the floor when nothing's pending, and they have a right to make a motion. Whether it's an online meeting with owners participating online or in person.

And so, you know, you have... That's a, that goes way beyond electronic voting. That's a matter of proper chairmanship. And actions like that, they lead to removal proceedings like to have in a couple of weeks, you know. That's our Friday afternoon. I know. So, you know, that's abusive behavior.

Okay. But yeah, thank you. And then I also appreciate this because I went on and did it and I see that there was a voter receipt. Because another concern that was raised to me was that the chain of command of the ballot. Chain of command.

Meaning, like if it's done in paper and at the end of it, if people are debating, you just go, well, here's the signature of these voters, and you could see whose ballot it is and how they voted. And it's easy to kind of contest, I guess. But on this digital version, would somebody be able to... Because I know there's secrecy on one hand, but how do you do the verification of the vote on the other hand?

So we had, first, on a vote on a paper ballot, people don't usually sign it, so you don't know who turned that ballot in. Right. And if it's like a hundred different, if it's all the same percentage, there's no way to know.

In fact, you don't even know if somebody took a picture on their smartphone and had their buddy come in with a bunch of copies and then stuff the ballot. You just don't know. And so with the electronic voting, you create an access key and a password and that only goes to the owner of record.

And then the owner of record there's a warning and stuff like that. Now there is a provision if, for example, we had this in with Princeville. They weren't a client, but it happened where the wrong person got the access key.

So they were able to, with the electronic voting, they couldn't tell how they voted, but they were able to void that and then issue a completely separate access key password. Which you can't do that with paper. Once it's in the box, you don't know who, what, or where, you know.

And that's, it's problematic. With paper when an owner shows up and they've given a proxy to somebody and that individual already has the paper ballot, right. Then the management company has to send them to go figure it out, you know.

But with electronic voting, it's a little bit, it's a little bit easier, but you also make sure that the keys are only given to those people who are entitled to vote. Now if it's at the meeting, right, you're going to have proxy holders, so they'll have their separate key.

And kind of the beauty of that is that if somebody checks in, that proxy holders, votes go down. So if they're going to vote, then it goes down immediately. So if there's another vote that comes up, that owner's right to vote is actually preserved. I hope that was kind of fun to do. I couldn't tell how you voted on the jet travel.

Okay, thank you.

For Anne. So I looked at your testimony, and you're suggesting that a bit of a clarification of the proxy voting on language. When are proxy voted votes, when could they be used outside of a meeting? I'm not sure I see the risk of harm here.

Well, the statute already says proxies are only valid for the meeting to which they pertain and their adjournments. And then it says that proxies have to state the date of the meeting. So we've always construed that as you cannot use a proxy outside of a meeting. So we're trying to make it consistent with the existing law. I think when people...

Proxy voting was really created when people were attending meetings and then they couldn't get to the meeting. People live on the mainland, maybe they're sick, maybe they have to work. And so they wanted to be represented at the meeting. And so then they would give their proxy to somebody else. But when it's outside of a meeting, generally there's a period of time that you can vote.

Maybe it's 30 days, 45 days, 60 days. So everybody has an opportunity to vote. And personally, I think it's best that people vote their own proxies. I'm sorry, cast their own votes, and they would have the opportunity to do that. So there isn't the same compelling reason for the proxies. But we put this in there when we're drafting this because that's what the law says now. So the law...

Understandably. I'm just wondering if it's needed. It sounds like it's not needed needed. It's just kind of a maybe a clarification if this committee believes that more clarification is needed.

Yes. So it really is just to clarify it. I mean, so put the language in there. Because I view the proxy language right now as it exists to say it can only be at a meeting. And so we wanted to make that clear because when we've done some voting outside of the meeting.

People have raised the question, can we vote by proxy? I say no. The statute, because I read the statute to say you have to have that. I just wanted to, I put it in there for clarification. I like to try to avoid disputes when possible and to make language as clear as it can be.

I mean, if we add the at a meeting language, my fear is that by crossing out the language, a unit owner may vote by mail or electronic transmission through a duly elected proxy. If we cross that out, that might be signaling to people that we are not okay with proxies. I don't know what the harm is in leaving that language in if we specify it in a meeting in the previous line.

Well, I guess, I guess it was just... I don't... That language that's in the statute, the subsection B, I don't know where that came from. I mean, it came from 514 when it was originally drafted. And I don't know what the drafters were thinking when they put that in there.

But I was concerned about it saying that because it says unit owner may vote by mail or electronic transmission through a duly executed proxy. So it makes it sound like through electronic transmission or mail voting, you could give a proxy.

And historically, like for example, when associations are adopting amendments by written consent, they've always required the owners to sign the written consent. They've never allowed a proxy.

Can you not proxy vote electronically?

Yes, you could. So for a meeting... So yes, you could add electronic meeting. So I guess if you're concerned that this would mean you couldn't do it at an electronic meeting, then we can tweak this language a bit or I guess you could just put at a meeting. But the problem is we wanted to make it clear that when it's mail voting or electronic voting without a meeting there would be no proxy.

So maybe the language could be tweaked a bit more, if that's your concern that it would give a message that somehow you couldn't have proxies at an electronic meeting. Because you could, because that's a meeting. So I'd be happy to send you some suggested wording if you'd like.

Let me give it some thought.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask a follow up question of Anne? I'm sorry. I'm just clarifying. You raised, I think a good point, which is proxies were originally an option because, let's say as a condo owner I couldn't make it there in time to the live meeting either geographically, physically, or because I'm somewhere else at the same time.

So it's either. So that's why you send somebody with a proxy. And your point is, I think, is that if it's not, if the voting is happening like not in a meeting, if it's not being prescribed by a place or time, then why can't owner execute their vote on their own behalf?

That's what I'm saying. Voting outside of a meeting when generally there's a period of time. When I've done them, usually it's like at least 30 days to vote. People can find the time to do that. So they don't need to have a proxy. So that's why we put in there for voting outside of meeting, no proxies.

But when they're at a meeting, when there's a specific time. So people may not be able to be in person. Or even if it's an electronic meeting, they may not be able to get to the computers. They might be at work, they might be on vacation. Then let them have a proxy. Because we want people to vote.

We want people to have their votes cast, whether by themselves or through other people. But when it's outside of a meeting and there's a time frame, it's not like right now you must do it. It's like you have several weeks to do it generally. Everybody can find that time. So that, that was the point of that.

And I think that's the rationale for the proxies is that if you can't make it, somebody can do it for you. I mean obviously there's another rationale too. Some people just trust somebody more than themselves. I mean they may, you know, some people want somebody else to help them with their decision making.

They may feel people who give their proxies to the board trust the board. People give their proxy to their neighbors trust their neighbors. So it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to give proxies, you know, only if they can't attend, but they should be able to give proxies for meetings. I think that's my belief. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions? Okay, seeing none. Moving on to HB 2282 relating to insurance. This bill amends various provisions of the insurance code to update and improve existing provisions. DCCA Insurance Division in support.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Matt Sugimora on behalf of the insurance division. The division stands in strong support of HB 2282. Just as a high level overview. Sections 1 and 5 are meant to increase consumer transparency.

Sections 2 through 4 are meant to update the public or the adjuster and the independent bill reviewer licensing standards. And Section 6 is meant is proposes amendments to chapter 431k just to align the language with a prior amendment in 2021.

Our testimony does also include a number of proposed amendments to HB 2282 which are more so meant to align sections 2 through 4 better to the adjuster and independent Bill reviewer chapters. But happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. That's all the test bars we had signed up. Is there anyone else in person or online who'd like to testify?

Aloha from Zoom.

Hi Greg.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Well I know you're Vice Chair. Aloha Chair Matayoshi Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I, I didn't have a chance to read this entire bill but I did read the beginning portion of it. I would just like to make a couple of comments.

As a condominium owner who has just received his renewal for his HO6 policy, I was surprised to see that my insurance had increased 20%. It's just slightly under 20% and that's the most I've seen for an increase since I've had my policy. So I did call and I asked, I'm with State Farm.

I did ask my agent why and he said well that's what was allowed by the insurance commissioner, the Department that oversees. And I asked is it across the board? And he said well no it's independent of different, you know, providers of insurance. So I guess they're not all cut the same. It's very concerning to me.

And I do know that again, as a condominium association association Director on my board, our insurance went up quite a bit again this last year. Not outrageous, but it was up quite a bit. And we're paying a lot of money. So the insurance crisis isn't fixed and we need to look at that in a better way.

But this bill probably has some good elements in it. But I would ask the Committee and our legislators to really look carefully at these increases. There needs to be a cap. 20% is a lot of.

What bill are you talking about

My HO6 policy? Well, I'm just saying the. It's relevant to the very beginning of the bill. I'm sorry, if I could go to it. Bare with me. I'm just going to open it.

And are you in support?

I'm making comments because I haven't read through the whole Bill, but it basically just talks about explanation of premium increase. Insurers shall reasonably explain changes in premium upon written request by the policyholder for any premium increase at renewal.

I just made a phone call because I know my agent very well and he was very candid and just explained, you know, why it went up and that it was kind of an across the board thing. I've never had a claim.

There was no reason for it to go up, but 20%, the highest increase I've had so far. I thought the market was getting more stable. And he did make one last comment. Yeah. Okay, there's one. If you have a question, he did make an additional comment you'd be interested in about, but I'll stop there.

Thank you. Thank you. Members. Any questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HB 1940 relating to condominium.

Condominium associations requires a condominium association to make available on an Internet site the association's general ledgers, project information form and statement of accounts at no cost to a unit owner or the unit owner's authorized agent reduces the reasonable fee a condo association may charge to provide copies of association documents from $1 per page to 75 cents per page.

Community Associations Institute Legislative Action Committee in opposition on Zoom.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Richard Emery. I'm testifying on behalf of CAI. We were in strong opposition to this bill. I think we all would agree.

When you have a resale of a condominium, you want to have full disclosure and you want to have all the money all square at closing the industry supports the bill or the documents that condos provide, the ones they maintain in the ordinary course of business.

They support that being on the Internet site for free or a dollar per page. What we have is a secondary issue on the resale of a condominium where a buyer and seller enter a private contract with the terms and conditions negotiated for the buyer and seller.

For the 35 years I've been a broker, those costs have been borne by the buyer and seller because that's who it primarily assists. So take the statement of account form. That is not an association form. They don't keep in the normal course of business.

It's a form issued by the title or escrow company to make sure the money is all square, closing. And so they have a preliminary report that's completed once charges and payments have been made.

But then 24 hours before closing, they issue a final form and that requires the management company to call the bank, make sure it's not a stop payment check, look to see if there's any additional charges against the unit, such as an insurance deductible or something else, and there's work involved in that. Then you take the R0105C.

That's a Hawaii Association of Realtors Copywriters form. Well, you know, a lot of lenders aren't satisfied with that form. They actually have their own questionnaire with another four pages of question that have to be completed, assist with the. In most cases the buyer getting a loan.

Then you have foreclosures and receivers submitting forms so they can do their job in the court system. And then you have the RR105C. And I was on the original RR105C Committee that was formed in the mid-1990s where the industry worked with HAR to develop this form for better disclosure on the common elements of a condo association.

At that time it was agreed by all the party. There's a cost associated with that and it would be paid for by the buyer, seller and escrow. And what's important about that to understand is that that form is in a static form, has to be within 10 days of the purchase contract.

And it has to be your comments. Sorry.

Okay. It has to be directed to a specific unit. And so this bill and the additional cost of having a major website is just going to price this out of the market because someone's going to have to pay for it. It's going to be charged the association and the owners. And this is an overreach.

It's not going to be helpful to Anybody and make it worse. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii association of Realtors in support.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Lindsey Garcia from the Hawaii Association of Realtors. So we stand our testimony supporting the intent.

If the Committee would like to move the bill forward, we humbly suggest friendly amendments that actually remove the form R0105C by name because as the previous testifier mentioned, that is a copyrighted HAR form and instead we've offered an alternative definition for just a general project information form. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much.

Raeleen Teno, individual in support.

Hi, if I may. Chair, Vice Chair. Include White Council in this as well. Well, the RR 105C is kind of an issue of being placed on online because it's only as good as the date that it was done because it changes. It questions our own occupancy, delinquencies, foreclosures.

And that information can change the next day or occupancy because it's related to resale. So that percent could change as well. So posting it online would not be good because somebody might use it and it be provided and be totally off base for mortgage lending. We need it, but we need it up to the minute.

As to the information, you can't take one that's old or even a month old. We have to have it currently dated. When it comes to the statement of account, I'm assuming that's related to your maintenance fee account. So with my condo we're on Town Square.

So recently I noticed they did did an enhancement and it has my maintenance via account but I can't print the page. It comes up. You know how you can do the left click and print the page. This is what it comes up. So even if I took another method

and snip it, it only will snip so many lines per page. I mean because I was like this is going to take me forever to do this, you know because I only got like this much and I think I included in my testimony so that would take me forever.

But I needed a printed thing because there was something weird about my, my account. So I need to really see all the transactions and what they did because there's something weird about my account and, and yeah, I would appreciate it being online but.

But again I kind of need to see it in the full version format to see what they deducted that they shouldn't have deducted and I can't do it with the way that it's in now. I'm.

It would be nice if they had a click up there and you can just click the PDF, you know, versus having to scroll down. But, but I also did the manual version. I requested it via affidavit. I did that way back in December, no, August. I'm still waiting for it.

Did a second request in December and I'm still waiting for it. When it comes to certain financial documents, we tell people, tell the boards.

So it's been two minutes.

If you can start to include your testimony that the bank, some of their financials include bank statements, they need to redact the account numbers because that leads to identity theft. The als are not going to have the same protections for the bank as a consumer with if they had identity theft.

Okay, thank you. Ann Anderson in opposition.

Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair. I submitted testimony in opposition and I joined in the testimony of Paul Ireland. I know he had some troubles uploading his testimony, but he's here. He did an excellent job. So I'll just defer to him.

Did you want to come,

Chair Matayoshi? Vice Chair Grandinetti I drafted probably the greatest testimony I've ever submitted to a legislator. So I'm still embarrassed that it didn't get to you guys, but I'm going to hit on a few points and spare you some time as well.

What some of the previous testing fires didn't point on, and by the way I am in opposition to this bill, is that there are serious and unnecessary evasion of unit owner privacy concerns here. I don't know if any of you have ever viewed a general ledger. Probably not.

If you've had, you either work as a managing agent or in a managing agent company or you're an attorney and there are unit owner payments provided in those general ledgers. If that general ledger is published online, I'm going to see each and every condo unit owners, no matter who they are, payments on their accounts.

That is a serious invasion of privacy. This bill doesn't have any safeguards or opportunities for redactions to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Similarly, the bill talks about statements of accounts. It's sort of vague in the condo world what that might mean. That's more of a title officer sort of term.

So I'm going to assume that that's a statement of account that's provided to the title officers. And if a statement of account is published or statement of accounts are published online, I would construe this bill to mean that everybody's statements of accounts are published just the way that this is worded.

It means you have to make Everybody's statements of accounts available online. So that would be absurd. Also another issue is the cost. If you have 400 units, you would have to have 400 different forms that you're providing to everybody.

And you're going to have to have someone who is hired by the association to go through this and make sure that the statement of account, the product, the project information form, the general ledger are all up to date on a daily basis online.

And you know, that's not really meaningful because it's better to have these prepared and they're transaction based. They're going to be when someone's buying a property, refinancing or there's a foreclosure. These are requested when the transaction is happening. So thank you for the opportunity to testify and appreciate if this bill were deferred.

Thank you. Greg Misakyan individual offering comments on Zoom

Aloha again Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Greg Masakian I'm agreeing with some of what a number of people that just testified told you so I'll try to do this very quickly. So the first one is the RR105C does not belong. That does, that does pose a concern.

So just like they say, the gondola does not belong to the RR 105C does not belong. So and I use that in my Senate Committee hearing. And by the way, there's a Senate version, not like this bill.

I don't know how this bill ever became, but there's a Senate Bill that is similar in nature but way better than this that talks about documents that should be available. So let's get right to the documents. The list which is three is wrong.

The list that should be available are the meeting agendas, the meeting notices, the association notices, the minutes of meeting, the financials. Minutes of meetings, plural. The financials contracts for major projects. Once the contract is signed, owners have a right to that. One testifier who knows well because he works for the national portion of Associate.

The national group knows that there's Town Square. We, we use Town Square. I'm a board Member, I'm an owner and we utilize Town Square, which is a web portal where I can get some documents, not everything I would like and they're available to download. Not all and you know it's there.

The other thing that's very important is insurance. We were just talking about insurance a moment ago. Insurance documents, the summary and other things. And as a Director I would like to be able to get the policy. So I should have special privilege.

I do actually on Town Square But I would like to see the policy, so I'll stop there. That's the list. So I do agree with some of what was said, and I don't agree with others, but this bill should be Powell. Mahalo. Aloha.

Any. Anyone else who'd like to testify on HB 1940 seeing none Members, any questions?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for this gentleman who wrote. Who gave really good testimony, but we didn't get it. But I had a question. You mentioned confidential information. That, that would be bad if it was shared public or publicly.

But, you know, like when we share Google Docs and we can make like mload, allowing other people to view it, you can actually make certain columns not viewable. Are you saying that the program that currently holds this information, there's no way to keep certain columns of confidential information unviewable?

So when I think of a general ledger, I think of all the transactions that that association has. And if you produce a general ledger to the public or to the entire ownership, you're going to see everything. You're going to see my payments to my association. You know, this, this includes everyone's payments to the association.

And I think that that is where we're having an issue of privacy. I don't want, you know, if I'm delinquent, I don't really. Which I'm not. I don't want my, my neighbors to see that I'm delinquent. I think that that could open the door for, you know, elevator harassment or people making, making a mockery out of me.

I just, I just think that that's a very sensitive document. Thank you. So I have a question.

So can a prospective owner, someone who's looking to buy, are they allowed to see this ledger in person?

I think that's a question for Richard. I don't. But I, you know, so it is a document that you. That I have provided as an attorney to upon request, but it's redacted. We do not want to. For privacy purposes. We do not release information that is private to an individual unit owner.

So I wouldn't release unit owner names, the unit numbers in the document. And the problem with this bill is it doesn't offer any safeguards for that, nor is it practicable to have such safeguards because you're posting it just on the Internet out in the open.

So. Got it. Okay.

And then somebody, somebody I was speaking to about this said one potential safeguard could be having a licensed Realtor using their realtor number, I guess, to access a document and Then have a prospective buyer just look at documents on their own computer where they're basically putting their license on the line saying, no, I need to keep this confidential, but you can view this.

Like I can go in because I'm a licensed professional, but then like the general public can't see it. Is that something that could be a potential safeguard?

I'd have to see how it's written, but I really, I really would feel uncomfortable having any realtor who has a just being able to view the entire financial of the condominium, including those other unit owners.

I think there's, I'm not sure what ethical responsibilities are in place for Realtors, for example, if they would reveal or misuse that information. Okay, so thank you Members.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HB 1671, HD1, relating to health. This bill allows a licensed dental hygienist to place interim therapeutic restorations in public health settings under the general supervision of license of licensed dentists. First up is DCCA Board of Dentistry offering comments.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Adrian Stinardo. Right now the board would like to stand on its written testimony offering comments.

University of Hawaii in support. Not present. Hawaii Oral Health Coalition in support on Zoom

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I'm Patrick Donnelly, the Statewide Oral Health Coalition Manager for Hawaii Public Health Institute and Hawaii Oral Health Coalition. We'll stand on our written testimony in strong support of this measure. And we are so thankful for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. AlohaCare in support on Zoom. Not present. Paul Glassman, DDS, MA, MBA.

Thank you. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I'm Paul Glassman. I'm Associate Dean for Research and Community Engagement at California Northstate University in Sacramento, California.

And I've been working with the Department of Health and the Hawaii Oral Health Coalition for several decades, helping them through consultation and technical support of a whole bunch of things. And specifically for this bill, this bill is providing a duty for dental hygienists in Hawaii that has been in place for over a decade in California.

It allows dental hygienists to place small fillings called interim therapeutic restorations, and they can be placed with no filling, no drilling, and no local anesthesia. And they last as long as conventional restoration. In California, before our bill was adopted to allow this, we did a demonstration.

A thousand of these were placed by hygienists. 100% were done correctly, no adverse outcomes. And now it's being done for over a decade now, we've had hygienists placing this. It's well accepted. It can be done safely and effectively. And the most important thing we found in California is in our decade of experiences that.

Because hygienists have this ability to do this in public health settings, this has resulted in a lot of children getting dental problems treated early in the disease process and allows them to grow up with good oral health and able to learn in school and avoid all the terrible consequences of untreated disease. So I appreciate the opportunity to share a little bit of our experience in California related to this bill in Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? Yes, Board of Dentistry.

So you made quite a few suggestions in your testimony, but a lot... My question is whether a lot of those or all of those suggestions could be accomplished by rulemaking or if it needs to be in HRS?

So right now in the HRS, we have a similar certification for anesthesia that's explicitly in the HRS what the applicant needs to submit to the board in order to be certified. So it could be slightly different than this dental certifications we have right now. But it is possible that through rulemaking we could add those. But the rulemaking process is pretty long. So when the effective date of this is, I don't know if, you know, we would be able to have the rules in time for when this is in place.

Okay, so you're suggesting that we add the certification language and all that into the HRS itself.

That's one of the concerns of the board. Because right now, if you look up a dentist's name, any person, you can look up your dentist on our search tool, the MyPVL search tool, and you can see specifically that they're certified in type A or type B anesthesia.

So if there are dental hygienists that are Certified to do ITRs, Interim Therapeutic Restorations, and those that aren't, if there is no certification, there's no way for the member of the public to see whether or not they have the submitted certification that they would need.

I'm sorry, you said for dentists. Is that also for dental hygienists?

Yes, dentist and dental hygienists. Yeah.

Okay. So you could look anyone up and see what kind of certifications they have?

If they have the... If they can do... For dental hygienists, it's a different type of anesthesia. But for dentists, there's the type A and type B. You would be able to see if they are approved to do it or if they have like a RN or an MD anesthesiologist, you would also see that person on their license page.

So, but we were just hearing that they don't use anesthesia for these processes.

So the dental hygienist, this is just an example of the public being able to see the certifications that dental hygienists would have. So like anesthesia, they would be able to see they can or can't do the ITR.

Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. We'll move on to the next measure. Next up is HB 1481, HD 1, relating to human remains. Requires any funeral establishment, mortuary, cemetery, crematory, or hydrolysis facility to dispose of the remains of a dead human body no later than 60 days from the date of burial transit permit has been issued or from the date of an affidavit for amendment of the permit has been submitted. First up is Department of the Medical Examiner offering comments on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Masahiko Kobayashi. I'm the medical examiner for the City and County of Honolulu. I have submitted written testimony, but please allow me to summarize. I would like to make it clear that we support the bill's good intent to reduce the burden on grieving families and funeral homes.

We are just concerned that sometime in the future the six day period from permit issuance may unintentionally affect the transfer of remains from medical examiner or coroner custody following completion of our investigation. So we respectfully request clarifying language to ensure that a medical examiner or coroner is not expected to retain remains longer than necessary once investigation is complete. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Hawaii Funeral and Cemetery Association in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Jay Morford. I'm the President of the Hawaii Funeral and Cemetery Association. We stand in support of our testimony on this bill and are happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Regarding the medical examiner, we appreciate his comments today. I am not sure if this would be a state issue on this bill to deal with pickups at the medical examiner's office, but I'm happy to discuss that if you have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify on HB 1481, HD 1? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Yeah, I have a question for actually Jay. Are you still online?

Yes, I am.

So the bill as it's written proposes two different dates. It doesn't say whether it should be the earlier or later of the two though. Do you have any opinion on that? It says no later than 60 days from the date a permit has been issued pursuant to section 338-23 or from the date of an affidavit for an amendment of the permit that has been submitted.

So currently we will get... We will request a permit from the Department of Health when we have authorizations from the family. We get... We get cremation dates tentatively scheduled or burials tentatively scheduled. And then when we get the permit, it has the date on it.

And so the time frame of when we actually get the permit from the Department of Health is generally based on the situation of the family, which is always different.

To as far as the timeframe of the 60 days, this allows us administratively to pull the permit before we actually have all the authorizations or burial scheduled and allows us to get that and then move quickly to do the actual cremation or the burial. So we're hoping this speeds up the process.

In regards to the medical examiner, the director's comments. When a family... We can't remove from the medical examiner until we get authorization or until the medical examiner has finished their procedures and they've cleared the case for us to pick up. At that time, when we get authorization from the authorized representative, it's the mortuary's responsibility at that time to go pick up from the medical examiner.

The issuance of the permit is unrelated to the pickup at the ME. It's unrelated. So I don't really understand where Dr. Kobayashi's concern is at this point. But I do think the mortuary have a responsibility to pick up from the medical examiner as soon as possible.

However, I know that we all have the same issue, and that's refrigeration capacity. And that's really where this is stemming from with the funeral homes and the mortuary or the medical examiner. I hope they answered the question.

I understand that. There's two time periods, though, set in the bill itself. If you can pull up the bill in front of you, it might be a little easier. So on line, starting on line 7 on page one, or I guess slightly before it, it says no later than 60 days from the date a permit has been issued pursuant to that section or from the date of an affidavit for amendment of the permit has been submitted. Should it be the later of those two or the earlier of those two?

They're unrelated. So if we get a permit and have a date on it and have a date on it and we can't fulfill that date on the burial or the cremation and we have to change it due to circumstances, that's when we have to get an affidavit. So they're really unrelated issues.

But it should be the later of the two then is what you're saying? That the 60 days starts to run.

The 60 days should start when we pull permit. Because most of the time there aren't affidavits. The 60 days should start when we pull the permit, not on an affidavit. Because if we pull the permit and then we do the disposition or we schedule the disposition and we can't do it. If we have a date on that permit, it would require an affidavit to change it.

With this process, the only time that we would would need an affidavit if there was a permit that had a date on it and then we had to change it. So if the 60 days passed... Sorry if I'm sounding confusing. If we pull a permit and 60 days pass, we would have to get an affidavit to turn the clock again for another 60 days.

Okay, so it's this one and this bill will change it to the the date the permit is issued instead of the date the permit's pulled or date of affidavit. So if the, if the 60 days has passed and you have to get an affidavit, then I'm assuming the 60 days will run again from the affidavit. So it should be the later of those two dates between the permit or if an affidavit needs to be pulled and it would restart the 60 day clock basically.

Fair enough. Yes, that makes sense.

We'll put it later. Makes sense. Thank you, Jay.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to HB2015 HD1 relating to coffee labeling clarifies the labeling and advertising requirements for roasted coffee, instant coffee and ready to drink coffee beverages based on where they were grown and processed. Hawai'i Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and support.

Chair Question Members of the Committee, my name is Esther Reichert on behalf of Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, we stand in support of this bill. On our. We stand on written testimony in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on HB2015 HD1? Seeing none. Members, any questions?

Okay, moving on to HB 2207 HD1 relating to invasive species allows the use of certain monofilament netting for the protection of plants against invasive species. Department of the Attorney General offering comments.

Aloha Vice Chair and Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Waihee-Polk on behalf of the Department of

the Attorney General, we have provided comments on the Bill and recommend removal of references to the federal state laws regulating devices for pest control as they do not apply to HRS section 4117, which only authorizes the use of fine mesh nets for protection of plants as determined by the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity and it does not authorize the use to trap, destroy, repel, mitigate and attract

or kill an invasive species. The effect of the original Bill drafted this Bill would not be changed by our recommendations. And I'm available if the Committee has any questions.

Thank you Hawaii Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, once again, I'm Esther Riechert on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. We stand on our written testimony in support of this Bill.

Thank you, Department of Land and Natural Resources in support.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Patrick Chee. I'm from the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Hawaiian Basin Species Council. We are in strong support of this Bill in order to protect our palm species and especially our native palms, the luulu as well as the hollow.

So if you have any questions, I'm available over here. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on HB 2207 HD1, seeing none. Members, any questions?

For DAB? Maybe have you had a chance to read the AG's recommended amendments?

Yes, I have.

Is there any. Do you have any problems with those amendments or they so?

I would acknowledge them and I would like to actually add on a different deviating a little bit from that. So the way that the Bill is currently written, it cites the federal regulations and also addresses some of the state regulations.

My concern is that it might be a redundancy and how in citing the regulations because the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity already has the authority to regulate these nets if they fall under those definitions and jurisdictions. So it might be redundancy in the law to include it there. It would be more appropriate to address it in the

So just to clarify, it looks like the AG is recommending deleting the reference. So you would support that because you're saying

It's because we would address it in the rules or if it's not addressed in the rules, our Department already has the authority to enforce that within our Hawaii Revised Statute, Chapter 149A, and our rules as well.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to our final measure. HB 2486 HD1 relating to solar energy. Defines and provides requirements for the use of portable solar generation of a portable solar generation device. Provides that electric utility companies are not liable for any damage or injury caused by a portable solar generation device.

Requires each portable solar generation device to be registered with the PUC. First up is DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy offering comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. Michael Angelo, Executive Director for Division of Consumer Advocacy, stand our written testimony providing comments.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission offering comments.

Aloha. Good afternoon. Sorry. Good afternoon. Vice Chair Grandinetti, Chair Matayoshi and Members of the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. My name is Andrew Okabe. I'm the utility analyst at the House the Utilities Commission. I am here on behalf of Chair Itamura and the Commission. I stand the Commission's written testimony offering comment on this measure.

I am available for any questions Committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission in support.

Hello, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. Leah Laramee Climate Change Mitigation Adaptation Commission stand on our testimony on questions.

Thank you. Hawaii State Fire Council in opposition on Zoom.

Not present.

Not present. Kau Island Utility Cooperative offering comments on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee Scott Sato from Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative. KIUC stands on its written testimony providing comments on this measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Brightsaver in support on Zoom.

Hello, everyone. Dear Chairman Roshi and Members of the Committee, my name is Hannah Ellis.

Oh, we can barely hear you.

How about now?

Not too much better. We could maybe just have to shout. Sorry. I don't know what's wrong.

All right, I'll do my best. Let's see. All right. My name is Hannah Ellis representing BrightSaver. We are a national NGO working to make solar ownership affordable and accessible to everyone. Can you still hear me?

Yeah. It just came out really loud though, so you don't need to show anymore.

Okay, great. Sorry. We stand in our written testimony to strongly support HB 2486 to allow the people of Hawaii access to plug in solar, saving money and reducing their energy bills. I want to use my time to clarify a few points made in written oral testimony.

Safety and concerns are directly addressed in this Bill through the inclusion of UL 3700 certification requirements. And this last point I want to make is that passing this legislation will actually make Plug in Solar safer for everyone. Consumer demand for these systems already exists and currently everyone can purchase products online such as on Amazon.

Without clear state guidelines, consumers may unknowingly purchase uncertified or gray market products that have not been tested to recognize safety standards. This concern underscores why clear legislation is necessary. Manufacturers that have invested in testing and certifying their systems to recognize safety standards such as UL are largely waiting on the sidelines.

Without explicit state authorization and clear safety frameworks, many of these companies will not sell their certified products in US markets due to regulatory uncertainty. So in closing, HB22 sorry 2486 offers a clear and equitable pathway to expand access to safe, affordable plug in solar for renters and households across Hawaii without requiring public subsidies or compromising grid safety.

And we respectfully urge the Committee to support HB 2486. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

350 Hawaiian support on Zoom

Aloha can you hear me? Yes Aloha Chair Vice Chair Members of the Committee, My name is Sherry Pollack and I'm with 350 Hawaii. We are in strong support of this measure towards Plug in Solar systems. Our Members are very very anxious to see plug in Solar implemented. These systems are game changing.

They are safe, low cost and they work for renters, apartments, homes within suitable roofs. This is about cutting energy costs and reducing emissions by updating our rules to match the realities of new proven technologies, offering immediate relief from skyrocketing energy bills.

For too long the benefits of solar energy have been limited to homeowners with the capital to invest in rooftop projects. Plug in Solar reinvents this narrative, making cheap, cheap clean energy a viable option for everyone which is sorely needed to help with electricity, making it more affordable.

Plug in solar systems include safety features including those that prevent electricity from back feeding into the grid during a power outage, protecting utility workers from hazardous live wires. We suggest regarding the Underwriters Laboratory certifications, we have some comments in our written testimony and we are suggesting amendments to make sure that the measure meets these latest safety standards.

Our written testimony provides more details on this and with all due respect to some written comments from a testifier who said that portable solar is not yet proven, is not yet approved for consumer use, that's inaccurate and misleading.

A safety standard has been developed by Underwriters Laboratories and we strongly urge the Committee to pass this measure to ensure access to affordable renewable energy, making it easy for everyone to participate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and please consider our suggested amendments.

And also I strongly encourage you to take advantage of the expert that just spoke before me if you have any technical questions on this measure. Thank you so much.

Thank you Greenpeace Hawaii in support on Zoom.

Thank you for hearing this Bill. Plug in solar systems are designed to ensure safety in residential plug in place scenarios. Plug in solar systems are subject to regular safety standards to mitigate risk of electrical shock, fires and structural failures.

Digital plug in solar systems designed for safety features that prevent electricity from back feeding into the grid during power outages. Protecting workers from hazardous wires and live fires. Utah passed solar systems plug in systems last year and based on the available reports there have been no fire incidences from these plug in solar systems.

We heard this is a concern at this point. To put this in perspective, commonly used JAS generators that can be bought without registering. Center Disease Control and Prevention said each year, more than 400 Americans die from unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning not linked to fires. More than 20,000 visit emergency rooms, and 4,000 are hospitalized.

The Consumer Protection Product Safety Commission estimates that 100 people die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning associated with portable gas generators. So we can see that plug ins is nowhere near dangerous as commonly used gas generators. And so these are very safe systems. Has been commonly has been reported earlier. Thank you so much for hearing this legislation.

Please pass it. It's going to be a game changer for the for everyone and help us fight our growing climate crisis. All the best to you.

Thank you. Paul Bernstein individual in support.

Vice Chair Grandinetti, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'd just like to echo some of the comments around this being an issue about affordability and equity. So it's a low cost system that allows people to save energy save on their energy bills over a long period of time.

So I urge the passing of this on affordability inequity standard Mahal.

Thank you. Rita Ryan, individual and support on Zoom. Not present. Not present. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Just wanted to note there were 47 individuals who submitted written testimony and support Members. Any questions?

Thank you. I have a question for Bright Saver. Regarding the safety. Some of the concerns from the testimony in opposition was that it could flood the utility. I guess all of this power could go from the solar panels into the plug and out of the unit and into the main system.

What is the technology stopping that from happening? You have to unmute yourself.

I'm not on mute.

She can't hear you.

How about now?

Is it a problem on our end? We can play charades.

Can you hear me now?

Now we can. Now we can hear you

Apologies if that's on my end. That is a great question.

So we at Brightsaver, we commissioned a study with some of our partners about this issue, about the issue of if a bunch of different apartments or home homeowners would plug in these systems and how much of that power would go back to the grid and potentially overload the grid.

And so we actually included Hawaii in this, in this study because we knew Hawaii has extremely high energy prices and Hawaii would be a really great opportunity for this technology.

And all this to say, even with 40% of all folks living in Hawaii, there would be no export to the substation level, meaning that the electricity that's generated by these panels is relatively small and is used up within the home and if not used up very locally.

So all this to say the amount of power that these are generating is pretty small. It's a really exciting way for people to get involved in the solar movement. But it's nothing compared to a rooftop system that is generated much more power than these small panels.

So ultimately, there's very little chance of a huge amount of flow to the grid. There'd have to be a huge, huge saturation of these panels on the islands for that to happen.

Okay, can I ask a follow up? Okay. Regarding safety of the panels attached to railings of condominiums, are the systems that connect the panels to these railings, is it like rated for certain wind speeds? Because that would be kind of a nightmare in high winds if they're flying off of buildings?

Certainly, yes. So the current standard, UL 3700 that recently came out in December includes that these panels must be tested for, I believe it's snow, wind and hail. I believe. So if a system is 3700 certified, it will be.

It will be adjusted for high wind and it will include a manufacturer's warning on how to safely affix these panels to address any wind hazard.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question for BrightSaver, actually, since you seem to be really familiar with this technology. In the fire chief's testimony, he talked about Underwriters Laboratories being in the process of reviewing these products to develop national safety standards.

And then once that is complete, then it has to go through the National Fire Protection association and then the National Electric Code. Can you speak to that issue?

Yes, I'm just bringing up my. Actually I had a little point about this just in case it came up. So I want to debunk that right now with the outline of investigation that the Underwriter Laboratories has put out with 3700 products can be certified to that right now.

So it's not a case of this thing happens and then there's a next step. There is a next step, but devices can be certified to this right now this just means that this idea of an outline of investigation means that it's a new technology. So it's not something that has been certified in the past.

So it has to go through this outline of investigation first. But that system or that certification right now it's almost 50 pages long, has all of these points included and manufacturers can

Sort of certify their entire systems based on this right now there just hasn't been that much movement at the moment just because there hasn't been any push from states passing the legislation hasn't passed in enough states yet. So to that it's a bit of an incorrect note by the Hawaii Fire Association.

And then can you repeat your second point?

The second part was that once those, once that process is complete, I think it has to go through the National Fire Protection Protection association and then the National Electric Code will update to meet those concerns. So yeah, if you are you aware of that being part of a longer process.

So when we're talking about the NEC, like the idea that the NEC should update their code to address plug-in solar before consumers are allowed to use the devices, for example, this is unnecessary. So the new UL code listed for the plug-in system, so UL 3700 already aligns with the current NEC standards.

So it's a bit of a misnomer to kind of go that back way. The systems. If you're certifying a whole plug in solar system to UL 3700, it already is in alignment with the current National Electric code. So the technology is there.

That's the issue though, right? Is that the current code would need to be. What the other testifiers are saying is that the current code would need to be updated. I mean UL3700 might conform to the current code. But I thought the point was that the current code needs to be changed.

Therefore UL will also need to update its standards after that.

There's some complexity in the code right now based on the technology. In some senses that the technology as it currently exists. You can sort of how the, how the systems are kind of certified individually can currently be used in alignment with the code UL3700 as a whole. How do I describe this?

It aligns with current standards, but if there were to include certain aspects, certain aspects there would be a potential update needed. However, the UL3700 addresses sort of those aspects with the technology.

So I understand UL3700 seems fine with the current code, but I mean it's sort of a chicken and the egg thing and it seems like this is the chicken, not the egg. It seems like if UL 3700 necessarily conforms to the current code but you've already said that UL 3700 will need to change to another standard.

If the code changes, then isn't that kind of admitting that UL 3700 is insufficient right now because it will need to change what the code changes. So why would we be using that standard in our legislation today?

So I think what they're trying to say. So there's a very specific piece and I'm happy to address this in additional sessions as well. There's specific aspects in the NEC code that address different aspects of plug and solar systems. And so from our perspective, for example nowhere in the NEC are PIPV units explicitly prohibited.

And the sort of the NEC code I have it 406 is about how to properly for example replace certain outlets. There's nothing in the code about back feeding, much less the prohibition of these units.

And so from our perspective there's no, there's not a serious concern about the current NEC code with the UL3700 systems as they are currently addressed in that certification.

Let's have questions for BrightSaver. Okay, I've got a question for either Puc or maybe Mike. Up to you guys. But it's kind of a tag in like in wrestling. So, for the code, I am kind of concerned that the code hasn't really caught up to this new technology yet.

And if we're going to put intent to be fair to the previous testifier, I think we can modify the language of this Bill to apply to UL 3700 or its subsequent codes or kind of equivalent codes.

That being said, I'm a little concerned that the, I guess that the national electorate codes don't just haven't caught up yet, that they're insufficient currently and it seems like the state fire marshal and others are concerned as well.

I'd like your comments on whether it would be prudent to move forward now or to wait a year and come out of next session when everything sort of stabilized.

I mean, at least from our perspective, UL 3700 is the bare. Sorry, 4700 is the bare minimum. And you know, we're trying to take a very light approach here.

We don't want to discourage the enthusiasm around this potentially cost-saving measure that will allow solar to be deployed across the islands to people that haven't, you know, have had the opportunity to do rooftop solar for a variety of reasons. So we really took a really light handed approach to that.

Maybe it's not the right, the right standard to base it on for safety reasons and we understand that. So you know, to the extent that maybe there is a better, better way to do this, we're open to suggestions. Especially if the Bill could keep moving in that way.

If you want to substitute the language out, we'd be open to that as well. I do want to note that as a backup to that the current interconnection process, which I know, I know a lot of people are against it, but the current interaction process can take care of a lot of these issues.

And again we're not suggesting that here and we know that a lot of people are concerned about that and we understand those concerns. But again, you know, with the appropriate waving of screens that are already done for non export systems, it could be a backstop.

You know, if people are really concerned about these things, we could just send it to the, through the interconnection process as per normal as, as a normal kind of solar system does. And that's a backstop. Again, people will argue against it. I know they'll, they'll be like they don't even want us to track the systems.

I kind of think that's non-negotiable. You know, we got to keep the, keep our workers safe on the grid. You know, the linemen, troublemen. But maybe if that's something you want to consider as a backstop. But again not. Mike, do you have any?

I think there's two aspects to consider to this. One I think where PUC and ourselves fall in is the relationship between the utility, customer, utility, the grid itself, and there's the home. So we're probably more focused on that utility relationship, export to the grid. There is an exist that standard that's in the testing phase, the UL3700.

That's something that I think would be prudent to wait to see how that falls out. But that may not address all of the concerns the right combination of safety standards that could be incorporated on the home side falls a little bit outside of our but it's something worth noting. Fair enough. Go ahead.

I have a question. I'm not sure which one of you, maybe PUC, might be able to answer it, but this technology is being touted as access to solar energy in a small way for people that otherwise don't have access. But what about stabilizing people when the power goes out?

Is this a technology that could be used and then we're talking about safety, convenience for sure, but also safety.

I mean I would imagine you would need to have a battery energy storage device, maybe a small lithium ion battery, portable battery that you can charge off of this to provide you that type of resilience.

I don't know if it would be feasible to kind of disconnect from, you know, your mains and then plug this into your grid and suddenly be able to run your fridge. I don't think it's meant to do that.

I think you would need to charge a battery and then use that battery to supply for the rest of your personal resilience. If that if I understand. Does that answer your question Represenative.

Yes, thank you.

Members. Any other questions?

Yeah, thank you. Chair I think I heard one of the testifiers say that we consumers can go out and buy a system now. Is that true?

I don't know. I don't believe so, but I can't speak to that.

Which is why she was saying.

Microphones are not going to pick you up back there.

Yeah, that's true, which is why the representative from BrightSaver is encouraging the passage of the Bill is that you're going to have these people put on systems that are less than safe if you don't start introducing legislation and requirements for what these should be. So I believe EcoFlow already has a system in place.

And the other question if will that you just asked these systems in terms of your question, Representative Martin, that in general they don't have a battery backup, so you have to have a battery if you want to run them.

And the thing is if the power goes out, the system goes down if there's no battery, which means that there's no danger to the lineman system.

Is that true of all systems, even the random Amazon ones that have that safety feature?

As long as there's not a battery? My understanding is that the current UL set UL certification, though I hope BrightSaver is still on the current UL certification, is that they should shut down if there's no power Coming into the home. But I deferred it. That makes sense. Any other questions, Members?

Okay, let's take a short recess. Recess.

All right, reconvening.

Members, we've got a number of items on the agenda. First up for decision making, HB 1697 relating to natural hair braiding. I do like this bill. I think we need a little more work on it.

I'm going to defer decision making to a later agenda just to get responses from the Board of Cosmetology as far as the courses that might be needed for sanitation and also recognition of certain conditions that. Just a little more education.

But I think when we do vote on this bill, I'm guessing next week, we probably are going to add some kind of certification language in there. We'll see. But anyway, we're going to defer decision making for now on that one. Next up, HB 1678 relating to associations. Chair's recommendation is to defect this date. I pass it out.

Members, any comments?

Chair, I'm going to be voting with reservations only because of the compounding effects of proxy and compounding might lead to some potential abuses.

Any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1678. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HB 1679 relating to condominiums. We'll be defecting the date and I also want to adopt part of Ann Anderson's testimony. Just clarifying HB. I'm sorry. Clarifying hrs514b123, subsection B by adding the words at a meeting there was. Any comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

I'm sorry, Chair, I may. They're given the number of testimony in opposition and that some of my constituents have asked me to vote no, even though I do appreciate you taking Amendments. I'll be voting no.

Any other comments, Members? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1679. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Note everyone is present. Any reservations? Any noes? Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HB2282 relating to insurance. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the proposed amendments from the insurance commissioner's testimony and to defect the date. Members, any comments? Rep. Iwamoto.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to be voting with reservations. I actually think this bill does need teeth. It does need. We do need to retain the ability to impose sanctions if the insurers do not comply.

Okay. Any other comments Members? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2282. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting reservations from Rep. Iwamoto. Are there any other reservations? Any voting? No. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to HB 1940. We will be firing this measure. Moving on to HB 1671 relating to health. Terms of recommendation is, per the Board of Dentistry, to add a certification for ITRs similar to the existing certification for local infiltration and block Anesthesia.

That should, as the testimony indicated, show up on the website when people search for these dental hygienists. So make sure that they are that they have the proper certification for it. The exact requirements of the certification will leave up to the Board of Dentistry Members, any comments? Okay.

Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1671. HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Moving on to HB 1481 HD1 relating to human remains. Chair's recommendation is just to clarify some ambiguity in page one, line seven to add later the later of before the word date for clarity. Yep, it's already got a defective date. Members, any comments?

Chair, sorry. Regarding the medical examiner's concerns potentially about. I guess I don't know how to say it, but a backlog of bodies and not enough refrigeration space. How did you reconcile that?

So my understanding is that before they apply, they already have possession of the body, so it's not like it's being left with them. Doesn't seem to be relevant or. Yeah, it seems to be kind of a concern for sure for the medical examiner, but doesn't seem to be related to the situation.

Okay, thank you.

Yep. Members, any other comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1481. HD1 Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Okay, moving on to HB 2015 HD1 relating to coffee labeling. Chairs recommendations, ask this as is. Members, any questions? Comments? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2015 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Moving on to HB 2207 HD1 relating to invasive species. Chair's recommendation is to adopt the AG's proposed amendments and to basically take off the CFR part. Members, any comments?

Voting on HB 2207 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any noes? Recommendation adopted.

Okay, moving on to last bill on the agenda. HB2486 HD1 will be deferring this at this time. Members, we are adjourned.