Senate Standing Committee on Government Operations

Aloha, everybody. Welcome to the joint hearing, Government Operations, Energy, and Intergovernmental Affairs, Tuesday, 03/17/2026, rainy 3pm. Convening conference from 225. And because of the weather, I have to throw this in.

Meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. In the very likely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business at 03:30pm, Thursday, 03/19/2026 in Room 225, and a public notice will be posted on the legislature's website. In order to facilitate this hearing in a timely manner, should we need to do so, we will enforce a two minute limit on testimony.

And as such, we ask you not to read from your testimony, but use the opportunity to expand on it and give us more information or background on the bill and the arguments being made thereof. And with that, the first bill on the agenda is House Bill 1980 House Draft One. This is electrical vehicle vehicle charging infrastructure and state buildings. First up DAGS.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. My name is Sima Suwayko. I represent DAGS, the automotive management division. We stand on our testimony and we're available for comments.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next is Hawaii State Energy Office.

Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Commitee. Chris Yunker for the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on a written testimony to provide your comments and are available for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see here. We also have Green Party of Hawaii. They've written in support. Ted Bohlen.

Thank you, Chair McKelvey, Chair Wakai, Vice Chair Gabbard, Vice Chair Chang, Ted Bohlen for the Climate Protectors Hawaii in strong support of this bill. You have my written testimony in which I outline how important it is to get, help for state vehicles. That state facilities have, particularly new facilities, have, charger readiness. It makes a lot more sense to install charger readiness when you put it in new. It's a lot cheaper than if you retrofit.

So the question that I have before us today is how much should we retrofit and how much should we do new? I submit that the 25% is fairly minimal when you look at where we're headed with regard to, electric vehicles. I think when we're looking 10-20 years down the line, most people are gonna be driving electric vehicles. And we're gonna be sorry if we only do some number less than 25. So I would urge you to do strong 25, no less.

I would disagree. I, you mean hydrogen cars.

Maybe that too.

But but if you do have hydrogen, I don't think that's gonna exclude using 25% on electric.

No. But batteries will.

Anyway, that's my testimony.

No. I appreciate you being here, Ted. I appreciate your comments.

I appreciate yours. Thank you.

Thank you, man. Okay. Let's move on then. Let's see. We have Helen Cox, Chair for Kauai Climate Action Coalition. They are in person or Zoom. Zoom, no?

Present, Chair.

Not present. Okay. Chris Caulfield. I saw you. Oh, there you are.

Hello. Chris Caulfield. I'm speaking to you today as president of Imua Alliance in support of this bill. And just very briefly, we, we serve survivors of sexual exploitation and gender violence, both of which are exacerbated by climate change, which is why we've been supporting climate measures like this one for a number of years. And we all know that EV adoption is increasing quickly.

It's up more than 15%, in the last year. I think we have almost 50,000 electric vehicles on the streets this year, and we obviously need, to really prioritize charger ready state facilities and workplace charging. It helps with ensuring renters and multifamily residents who often cannot charge at home are not left behind in our transportation transition.

That's why we're supporting this bill at a time when the federal administration is cutting back on clean economy initiatives of all kind and funding for clean energy initiatives and clean transportation initiatives. It's the responsibility of the state to take on those obligations, and we hope that you'll move this bill forward.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Thank you for being here, Chris. We have Sherry Pollack at 0350 Hawaii. They have written testimony in support. Tiffany Yajima, Alliance for Automobile Innovation in support. We also have numerous individuals who have all submitted written testimony in support.

Okay. Thank you very much, Tammy. Appreciate you being here. That's all we have on 1980. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify? Seeing none, Members are there questions? Yes.

And they. Let's see, are any of them present who would like to testify? Who may have submitted written as an individual? No. We also have Department of Transportation.

Aloha Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees, Tammy Lee on behalf of DOT. Stand on written testimony.

For the Energy Office. Hi.

Hi.

Thanks. So this bill requires the energy office to do a pretty extensive survey both on the, on the the targeting areas for, charging stations, as well as retrofitting. What do you, your office is capable of doing that, and what will it take?

We're currently working with the Department of Accounting and General Services right now to look at fleet transition and EV infrastructure that's gonna be required to transition those fleets. We've engaged with NLR or NROC, what used to be NREL, to look at fleet transition truck, plans, and we actually, DAGS was one of the one that we set up that initial transition plan around.

We've also entered into the MOU or MOA with DAGS that we're using some of the Volkswagen settlement funds to actually fund workplace and public charging at state facilities. So we're conducting that. We're, we're doing a lot of work that would support that right now, and this is in line with that.

So this this bill also has an appropriation, I believe. So you don't need any money. So you

No. The thing, the Volkswagen settlement funds can be used for charging infrastructure and equipment. What this would do is the bill looks at 4 to 10 sites. And to do the detailed engineering studies, that's something that can't be, covered by the funds that we have available. But these funds, if put to this use, could be used to do those 10 sites and do the detailed engineering studies that then would allow us to move forward with the, actual installation of those.

So the work you've done to date, do you have an estimate of what it would cost to do that kind of, what you would need consultant to give you that kind of data for us to proceed?

In talking with DAGS, it can be roughly 25 to $35,000 a site. It's always site specific. But if you think 30,000, 10 sites, $300,000.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? Yes, please, Senator.

So why should the state provide charging stations for EV owners since it is a way of subsidizing their businesses?

And so I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last.

I said why why should the state provide the EV charging stations if it's to subsidize their businesses?

The EV charging at the workplace and public charging is really an equity situation. Right now, the state of Hawaii is one of the highest adopters of EV on a per, you know, registration basis. We're in the top five.

We're in some ,we're the bottom two in terms of public charging relative to, char or vehicles that are out there. Really, the people that are gonna take advantage of workplace and public charging are the ones who can't really charge at home.

You know, you're gonna figure it's gonna be the people in multiunit dwellings. It's gonna be your renters. Right now, we're having all this adoption as a market choice by because people in Hawaii want EVs, and it's a good place to have it, but it's arguably being propped up by single family homeowners, the people who can easily adopt an EV, who can have access to charging at home. So when we look at public and workplace charging, it's really being able to have everyone participate in the transition.

So, so do you have any problems if we impose a surcharge on EV sale to go to state for developing EV charging stations at its facilities?

If we put, do I have a. Do I have. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? You want a surcharge?

Do you have any problems if we impose a surcharge on each EV sale so that it can go to the state for developing EV charging stations at its facilities?

I would say that I would need to, one, take that back, and two, that would be effectively I would need to look to Budget and Finance and talk with them as to how it would impact whatever administration budget is out there right now.

Yeah. But if you, if you put in a charge. Yeah.

It's not, it's not impacting you.

Yeah, it ain't impacting you if you're putting them on the sale of the EV.

Yeah. If you're putting them on the sale of the EV.

Yeah. And I think it goes back to you guys to to erect the facilities.

Honestly, I would have to take that back on a new charge on EVs would essentially, instead of all vehicles, you're saying you would just put the charge on the EVs. So we're trying to promote the EVs may take, may provide a market signal that doesn't align with what we're trying to accomplish. The EV sales right now are roughly 10% of all sales, So that would also just be targeting a minority of the vehicle sales as opposed to all vehicles.

Yeah. Yeah. But you need a full EV. So I am saying why wouldn't you tag them since you need it for the charging station if they don't have it? So if I live in an apartment that doesn't have a EV charging station

Yes.

You, you tax me on the sale of my EV so you can help put up on station?

I guess I would say what I'm saying is that if we want all people to participate and it's the state policy to transition in ground transportation, that we would want all people to participate in funding the transition as well.

To make the statement all people want electric cars. Pretty over the top, I'll be honest with you.

Respectfully, I did not say or I did not intend to say, and I don't think I said all people want electric vehicles, but the state policy is to decarbonize the ground transportation per 225 P. And in order to do that, that's gonna require a vast majority of the ground transportation to be electric vehicles. Also, hydrogen is also an electric vehicle, but there's a lot of things that will need to happen to get there. And right now, we're only at roughly five percent.

Yeah.

Well, no. I mean, what you're saying is actually on point. I mean, when you're a minority of owners are getting charging stations put in, the condo associations should be responsible to their members in putting in charging units for their members. Right?

Shouldn't condo associations be more to help resident or the owners of apartment buildings and condominiums? Shouldn't they be helping to ensure charging stations put in so people get access to charging stations even though they're a multi, multi dwelling building?

Okay. First, this is a funding for, you know, state facilities and EV charging. In terms of we would think, generally speaking, we have been supportive of people doing make ready in all new construction. Now that's a different bill, and that's not in here, but I would say that you would want to have that so that it's easier and more cost effective for all of these new facilities and new buildings down the line that would be consistent with what the philosophy of this bill is.

I, I still say that we're just to charge them because it's for them to put the facility up to get charged. Now I can tax the guy that is I know you, like, encouraged the person using gas to get off of it.

But they're struggling right now. So we're gonna tax them too for put the EV station in for the charging. That's okay. We can move on, chair.

Uh-huh.

Okay. Sounds good.

I think I know where I'm at.

You got Senator Richards.

Yeah, one of the things that I got caught by was that 25% of the parking stalls. That's way over the top. And maybe in an urban corridor that'll work out okay, but rural, we don't have that many EV because it the technology has not evolved that far. And hearing the cost, my concern is we don't have the infrastructure, the electrical infrastructure to support that many. And then, of course, we have 25% of the stalls occupied by EV.

Most of those will remain unused if it's EV only. You're planning as you go through this. Are you looking at the demographics of what we're actually gonna be using? Because I'm from the country, and EV trucks don't cut it. They just, they don't have the technology yet.

And, and there's two points there. One, this isn't putting in EV chargers at 25%. This is making it make ready so that it's cheaper when they ultimately do decide to put them in. And so from that standpoint, it's, it's not putting in the EV chargers. And if the EV charger's there, they don't have to be designated only for EVs.

You can park any vehicle in there, so you're not taking up the spaces for EVs. You're just making it cheaper for everyone when we move down that path.

I mean, I don't disagree that electrification I'm, I'm more of a hydrogen because I think that's gonna be more versatile. But I'm just concerned that once again, you talked about equity. The guys in the country will be forking over, percentage wise, more than our urban setting, and that that concerns me. So thanks, Chair. Appreciate it.

No worries. DAGS.

Yes. Hi.

Hello.

How are you? Oh you wanna stay up here with me Chris.

Okay. Happy to hear you.

So I was talking about raising the ceilings of your special funds, but I didn't see that in the bill. Where, where was that coming from?

Oh, you know how all of our prep work we put in into your the supplemental budget request to raise the ceilings for both the motor pool revolving fund and for the, parking revolving fund and that those are specific, you know, because of Act 74

The goal to be able to achieve.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Zero emission.

Yeah.

We need to, in order to meet those goals, there's a certain number.

Could we just raise your ceilings and do the budget and, and help you in that way?

Sure. Yes.

Because it seems like you guys are already doing this. You're already talking. You're already planning. Director Regan's been in front of us on numerous of these bills saying about how they're moving forward with this.

And if you're just talking about raising the ceilings of these special funds that already exist in the ways and means, I'm not speaking for ways and means, but the money committees can look at that as a way to help facilitate things.

So I guess my question is, why do we need a bill at this point? Because everybody is moving in this direction and raising the ceilings could provide meaningful capital to accentuate the study. Right?

Thank you for that observation. For sure raising the ceilings will help DAGS accomplish what we need to do. So my understanding you know, we did not put forward this bill, but my understanding is twofold. It's for all state facilities, all the agencies that have parking facilities. We have 35 statewide, but there are other, departments and divisions that also have parking facilities.

Well, DOT has also been very aggressive, props to DOT about doing this. I know director Sniffen wants to even look at multilevel charging, a 1, 2, and 3. And so I I'm, like, encouraged by what the agencies are doing already with you. So that's why I asked this question.

That's a great question, but you do have a better opinion.

No. I, I mean, I think.

You want it out of the bill. You're like comments, not support.

What well, I would, I would just like to say, to your point, DAGS and DOT are really taking a leadership role in this area, and they're doing a lot of good work. But they are only two of the agencies and a lot of them need support.

Well then the other ones can jump in.

Yeah.

I mean see what I'm saying?

Uh-huh.

You don't need a not, you don't you don't need a bill every time to effectuate public policy especially if we're looking at financial. That's my one, my only 2¢. Because you guys are already doing this. You come to us on other bills talking about the work that you guys, the great work you guys are doing. So that's my only question, you know, really.

We leave that to you to make those decisions.

I would yeah. No. I mean, the, the funding and the things like that, we're continuing to work with DAGS. The 25% make ready really does, it's a low cost way of eliminating a future barrier that will just increase cost down the road.

I think coming from the administration, though, that would be knowing that all the agencies are ready to move. I think that's the reason too. So it's not a mandate of the legislature. It's the agencies coming forward saying, hey. We wanna continue to work on this. We need this.

Yeah. And just offering for that, we're looking at co locating workplace charging, public charging to help also support fleet charging. And so where possible, that is a statutory, require direction from the legislature to transition the state fleets. Having charging at state facilities can help support that as well.

Can help support but not necessary because you guys are already working that direction.

We, we help and we look at the fleet vehicle exemptions and one of the big barriers to fleet transition right now is the lack of EV charging in state facilities.

Come up with a plan presented to us where instead of just creating a mandate, well, I'm saying there's everybody seems to be focused in on trying to make this happen. So it appears to me there's other ways to continue to support this work than just bills. That's what I'm saying.

I do think you have a great amount of weight, you know, as our legislators in helping to advance, the state in different directions. Certainly, Act 74 did that for, for Automotive Management Division.

And so to, my colleague Chris's point, you know, I don't know the ins and outs of the other departments and and where they are, but if the legislation helps to motivate, especially the study part, if, if that is useful to understand the parking facilities that aren't DAGS controlled and aren't DOT controlled, but the other ones and understanding where where they are in terms of do they need to get retrofitted, do they need to plan ahead And, you know, thinking, generations forward. But, again, that's why you get paid the big bucks.

That, but also we've got children we gotta feed. We got people who are getting kicked off their health insurance. So general fund appropriations, I do look at them. Very closely given what's going on. But, again, working with Director Regan, I wanna thank director Sniffen. They're really on pursuing this, and so that's the reason why I think that there's good momentum happening.

Agreed. And it's a great partnership with HSEO.

Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. Senator Moriwaki.

Could I make one?

So so, what I'm hearing is, and and congratulations, that you're going forward, that you're already working on, putting up charging stations or at least assessing where, and you've got a special fund.

So to the Chair's point, I'm just wondering how much have you done and do you have a plan so that when you come back to us, instead of us saying and mandating you shall do a, b, c, d, that you come back with this is what we need and here's what we're having challenges on and where we need help from the legislature rather than putting this is a real litany of stuff that you've gotta do. I would rather have you say these are things we have done and this is what we need to have your help on.

Thank you. Yes. And we have in our supplemental budget request. Once more, we did not put forward this bill. I actually can't recall who the introducer is on the bill. But in our supplemental budget request when we requested the ceilings being raised

So so you have identified what you've done so far?

We have. There are 54 EV chargers we've already put up. We've got Kapolei is on.

So you have a plan, you have a plan.

We have a plan, yes. And certainly if you have not seen it, you know, let us know. But it was all in our supplemental budget.

And it includes all the state facilities.

The DAGS operated state facilities from our, from DAGS, you know?

You're, you're asking funds from the special fund, the parking, or the parking funds?

It's actually not new more funds. It's just raising our ceiling.

Raising the ceiling to do that.

Exactly. Yeah.

So we really don't need this bill.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

Well, I I guess the one thing that you're asking in terms of what we've been doing, and we have been doing the fleet exemption process and working with DAGS, which is in the comptroller's office. And one of the things that we run into is the retrofit cost for EV charging is significant.

And the facilities and the the departments don't necessarily have the money in their budgets. So outside of the you know, not part of the general fund request in this, is the 25% make ready. And so that's what lowers the cost for these facilities.

But do you need this bill to do the 25% make sense.

You're just asking what in the bill. It's like what we've done is we have seen in process exemption request, and we know that EV charging infrastructure retrofits are very expensive for agencies. So that's what we know now. And so if you're looking at something that can be done outside of the the general funds in this, the 25% of new building construction. So it's not, you know, retrofitting, but new building construction basically stops the bleeding at a low cost.

So I think that's what what I'm asking is this is kind of like a template of these are the things you should be surveying and coming back and and and then identifying what you need.

Well, you already know what you need, so I don't know if this bill or you could, you can amend this bill to say these are the things that we need to know that we don't know or we are not having enough funds for make ready. But, but, you know, something that's a lot more focused on getting you somewhere than just another survey.

Oh, okay. It just the bill itself, like I said, we didn't introduce.

No, that's what I'm saying. Yeah.

This is not there's there's two things that are being conflated. The study is really looking at retrofits. The 25% is looking at new build. So it's like when you're looking at new build, it's not what we're running into is retrofit cost inflation.

So, so that's what.

So the activity on the 25% make ready is separate from that.

Yes. So that's what I'm I'm asking. Look at the bill. What do you already know? What's in this bill is superfluous because you're already doing it. And then where is the focus? If it's the make ready, then maybe the bill should be amended to focus on make ready of retrofitting or on new bills.

We can definitely sit down and meet with DAGS, and the ceiling is a way of dealing with like I said, we do not have funds for the study through the Volkswagen because it has to be infrastructure. If the study funding is solved some other way, that's fine. And then, but the 25% is separate and distinct from that.

So that's what you need to amend in this bill, if we have time, is this is what we need to do, and this is where you're getting the funds, whether it's a special fund ceiling or not.

Do we know the intention of the introducer of the bill?

No. We don't. But the thing I find it ironic that you're certainly fighting tooth and nail for a bill you commented on and didn't support.

I'm just.

And your testimony says we don't wanna be involved in this, but I read it. So.

But you were asking us questions about EV charging infrastructure and the barriers and what we've done. And this is what we found. And this is what we found.

I personally, to be honest with you, I think that it is up to me. And, you know, obviously, this depends on the support of the committee is that we should be continuing to build upon the work that's already being done, raise the ceilings with the special funds, and then come back with targeted legislation that addresses this retrofit issue. It's all built completely. But that's just me. We need the consensus of the committee members to. But hopefully, you can see where we're coming from. Right?

Yeah. And, and half of the what we're talking about in terms of what we've done is really the half of the bill on the retrofits. What we can't do is the, the make ready.

Understand. Okay.

And so.

Very good. Any other questions, members? If not, thanks you guys for being here. Thank you for and trying to see.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness on this. Appreciate it. Take care.

Well, we're hearing it because we like you guys who wanna explore them, so that's a good insight. Okay. It's your show.

Okay. We're moving on to House Bill 1984 HD2 relating to renewable energy. On our testifiers list I'm sorry. We have DLNR Ryan Kanakowali.

Hello, chairs.

Good. Thank you. PUC?

Chairs, vice chairs, members, committees. Andrew Okabe here on behalf of the commission. I'm here to stand on the commission's testimony offering comment on bill, the measure. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be available.

Thank you very much. Thank you, mister Okabe. Rocky Mould?

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, members of the committee. Rocky Mould with Hawaii Solar Energy Association. I'll stand on my written testimony, in strong support of this measure, but just wanna note a couple of things. We really appreciate the collaboration we have with DLNR on this measure in in getting to a fix for this FEMA flood zone issue that we had. Yeah.

It really is a big deal. There are a lot of homes in FEMA flood zones that and this was blocking their ability to get solar. On that note, we support, DLNR's, amendments, to exclude landscape architects. In reality, we don't really need landscape architects doing the self attestation form. And also note in prior committees over on the other side, there was some concern with the complexity of larger projects.

And so we're offering an amendment to cap this at 250 kw through the self certification process. I'm here with any questions if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you, Rocky. We have Ted Kefalas from the Grassroots Institute. They submitted testimony in support. Is there anyone that was wishing to testify on House bill 1984? If not, members, any questions? Senator DeCoit.

Thank you, Senator DeCoit.

So, just one question. How how would you be able to ensure that if we allowed self certification, that each installation met all safety requirements?

Well, we would expect the the solar installer to follow follow all safety standards for them to be insured, have ensure you know, proper insurance, follow the protocols they set up to do these installations. There are certain rules and standards that have to follow under, you know, this this measure, I believe.

So so so what happens if it gets installed, and then for some reason, the house burned down because of the in installation? Kinda like the EV cars, like, you know, they park them, and then the batteries and overheating them and burn the whole house. Like, whos now responsible for losing the infrastructure if one self certified insurer?

You know, I I I do wanna note that this does not replace any of the other checks we have. You know, you still need to go through introduction review process with Hawaiian Electric. You still would need to go through permitting the normal way, for the system, the whole system to the normal way. This would be an additional check that they wouldn't really have to go through, like additional like additional layer of complexity. So they they should be going through their normal checks.

They should be having the normal application, normal safety reviews. They should have the normal professional installing

So why we need on self certification then if they go to the normal steps already?

But this would add a without the self certification process, it would add another layer of complexity that they would have to go through in addition to what they normally do. And, you know, I don't I'm not fully knowledgeable about what that would entail if this measure were not to pass. And I encourage you to potentially ask both HSCA and maybe DLNR on the on on what the process would be without this. We are, you know, we are here to help support, you know, whatever comes out and anything that makes the process a little bit easier for, you know, the developers, as well as the residents that are waiting for their solar to go on and for the to be energized may help. You know?

Yeah. Because I just tryna understand if you remove that one layer to self certify, how important was that layer to be there? And if it gets removed on the self certification and for whatever reason, I don't know, the thing just blow up and burn the house down, then who's liable for that? Because I've seen that happen in the Mainland, and then they turn on and try to sue somebody, and it's like, who do we sue now?

So so I I'm sorry for not answering your question directly. So in terms of the responsibility, you know, that would fall upon partially on the homeowner through their insurance and partially on the installer. You know, they have they should have insurance to I imagine they would have to go through some type of insurance process. You know, they would may they may go through some type of legal process to determine percentage of fault. You know, I'm not qualified to really go into that, but, you know, I apologize if I can't answer it fully, but

That's okay. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Senator DeCoite.

Can I follow-up on Senator Koi's thoughts?

Yes, chair.

Because we're gonna bless this certification, does the state take any kind of liability responsibility? Because you mentioned if in case things go haywire, so to speak, that the insurance companies and the installer might be liable. But because we are blessing this certification, could we be a third party into any kind of insured claim?

Loss of action.

I I apologize, sir. I'm thinking about about that.

Well, if my plaintiff attorney friend said they'd sue anything that isn't moving.

Well, yeah. I I I understand. And in potentially speaking, you know, if you are a permitting agency that has put your stamp of approval or somehow, like, said go ahead and do it, potentially there is some liability there, I would imagine, at least. Right? So I I can understand your point. I I don't have a really good answer for that for you, Chair. I apologize.

Could we put in language to say that, hey. You know, install it. If you're gonna go down this route of self certification, you will bear a 100% of the liability. If you don't want to, then go ahead through the regular process. That way we can remove the state from any kind of liability based on us blessing this process, right?

I mean, this is this is not our measure, so if you, you know, we don't wanna speak for other parties, and we do encourage you to check with other parties to see if they're okay with that. But certainly, put, if you if you wanted to reduce liability on the state, you know, that might be the way to do it. Yeah.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

Good. K.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

OK

Any other questions? If not I wanna talk to you briefly. Yeah. Yeah. We'll take a brief recess. Too. Okay. Get back. Sorry. I'm

Oh, sorry. Brief recess. Oh, sorry. Brief recess.

Alright, everybody. Welcome back from the brief recess. Talking to our committee members and such, we'll roll on to decision making house bill nineteen eighty HD one.

I think it's pretty apparent that the there's a lack of support for this measure. However, to my good friends at DAGS, you guys are doing a great job, and to director Sniffin, I'd like to have you we'll support you on getting asking for sealing increases with the funds so you can continue your work. Under interim director Sniffin, also has similar requests, I would be supportive of assisting him in that measure. So you guys I think it's in discussing with the members, this type of thing should be introduced by the governors and administrative package bill, the assessment that was talked about so that it's clear that all agencies and everybody's kind of on the same page. It's an administration bill.

So because of all those reasons, we wanna continue your good work, support the sealing increases. However, we are gonna defer the measure. Any comments or questions? If not, that next referral is yours.

Okay. We're gonna move on to the second bill. That is HB 1984 HD two relating to renewable energy. The chair two chairs have conferred. We wanna make two substantive amendments to this measure.

One is taking the Hawaii Solar Energy Association suggested amendments about making sure that certification is only for 250 kilowatts devices or under that. And we had a good discussion about liability. So we wanna indemnify the state. If the state is gonna bless this expedited permitting process, the state wants no liability because of that. And if, things go and get short circuited, that is purely on the installer and the homeowner's, responsibility for any kind of damages because of this self certification process.

So those are the two suggested amendments. Any discussion?

Anyone else take the Illinois amendments too? Do they have system amendments?

No. They they were they were I think the bill addressed to the flood issue.

Got it.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Very good. Any other discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

Chair's recommendation for the Energy and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee for hospital 1984 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes. Vice Chair votes aye. Senator DeCoite? Yes.

Senator Richards. Aye. Senator Fevella is excused. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Committee and government operations. Same recommendation. Senate draft one. I vote yes.

Vice Chair votes aye. The GEO. Hashimoto. Aye. Senator Moriwaki. Aye. Senator Awa. Aye. Measure's adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, members. Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry. Alright. Welcome back and mahalo for joining us for today's GVO hearing Tuesday, 03/17/2026 at 03:05PM, Room 225. In case there's a storm or an outage, we'll reconvene, on Thursday, same time room from 225 and we'll post a notice, and everybody will get to come back and have more fun. Okay.

First up, House Bill 812. This is going to go ahead and authorize a contract for the purchase of local produce having value more than $25,000 for a term of at least five years. Bonnie... Sorry. Procurement Office. Alright. Thank you very much. And DOE.

Hello, Chair McKelvey, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. Sean Tajima testifying on behalf of the Department of Education. Department stands on our written testimony in support of this bill.

Great. Thank you so much. Brian Miyamoto, Farm Bureau. Zoom? No? Yes. Alright. There's a no, but he's in support. And Glen Kagamida, individual, also in support. That's all we have. Anybody wishing to testify? Seeing none. Questions, Members? Seeing none. Let's move on to the next one. House Bill 1414.

And this one here, we'll authorize the head of a procurement agency to award a contract to a bidder who's not the lowest responsible responsive bidder for procurements conducted by competitive sealed bidding. First up, State Procurement Office. K. Thank you so much. Let's see. City and County, Honolulu, Department of Budget and Fiscal Services. They're also thrilled in opposition. Ryan Sakuda, General Contractors Association. They're thrilled as well in opposition. We have Will Carone, Charmaine Doran, Glenn Kagamita, and Terry Sabayaniya.

Sorry if I mispronounce your name. All individuals all in support. Anybody in the audience wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members questions? Seeing none, let's keep rolling. Oh, wait. Yeah. Oh, come on. Come on. Come on. I just see DOT on here. That's why.

DOT submitted testimony, providing comments.

Comments. Yes. Okay. Really appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Tell the right driver. For sure. We liked your comments too. Okay. Anybody else?

I I have a question.

Okay. Oh, Bonnie. Okay. Okay.

Bonnie?

Sorry. I didn't mean to put you okay. Go ahead, sir.

I'm assuming what this is is, and I'm just assuming, is we got a bad contractor and nothing we can do. Our hands are tied when it comes to cutting the grass on the side of Highway. But, you know, then I reach out to Ed and I say, Ed, how long this guy got his contract for? Because, like, the service is not happening. What can we do to make sure that the service can happen?

You know, I don't agree with paying a higher bidder, but is there some accountability where, like, if grass grows over three feet, we can cut your contract right there?

So during when when a contract has already been executed, there's language that allows for termination when it's during the performance, like either termination for convenience or, termination for cause. We also for the DLT, we include bonds, surety bonds for performance on those contracts. So if they're not performing and we're, you know, working towards terminating their contract, we can also pull the bond.

So that can already happen through DOT?

For yes. Existing contracts that have performance

I thought we had to wait till it comes up.

Perform that have performance bonds or, you know, that have issues for cause for termination.

Would tall grass be a issue or no?

Non performance. Right? They're not showing up and performing the work.

Plus, governments can arbitrarily capriciously cancel contracts anytime they want. Mhmm. And they can't. I've talked to our good friend, mister O'Sheerer, the former. Okay. No. Thanks for nonperformance, though.

Yeah.

Yeah. For nonperformance. So, I mean, if it's something specific that we can look into, the performance of the contractor.

Okay.

Is there a way you could follow-up on that?

Yes. Absolutely. Appreciate it. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate you doing it.

Thank you for bringing that up. Any other questions of our

Chair, I have a question.

No. No. No. Bonnie.

Oh, yeah.

Bonnie.

Good afternoon, senators.

Thank you. I know that that this this bill is related to to bids and not proposals. So there's a separate for competitive proposals where you do have the opportunity to take the best value. But if so just this this question I have is if it goes out to bid and you take the lowest bid, but there for some reason, it it goes south, can you then change it or you have to go back out to bid again? Or can we go to the Chief Procurement Officer of the State and say, Bonnie, can we do this or not?

Okay. To answer your question, so like Tammy said, the statute already allows for termination. For termination of cause, termination for well, termination cause or default, or termination is in the best interest of the State. If there's a performance bond, you can collect a performance bond. You can also do an order to

No. I'm just talking about when you go out to bid. So you haven't performed yet. But what what if as you have, like, five proposals and, you take the lowest one, but for some reason, the lowest one doesn't, I don't know, work, doesn't meet your requirements?

Okay. If it doesn't meet the requirements, then they shouldn't be awarded the contract. Because on a request for bids, they have to they have to meet all the technical requirements. If not, they shouldn't be awarded the contract.

So so then the lowest bid goes out because doesn't meet then you just take the next higher one.

That's correct.

That's correct.

So you don't have to redo anything.

The basis of award for IFB is lowest bid technically acceptable, which means they have to meet all the requirements, including which is not in this year's legislation, but we're hoping that it'll go next year for performance. We have the past performance bill a couple of years ago.

Mhmm. I agree with that.

Yeah. Unfortunately, the the policy board did not allow us to elaborate on the, criteria that we were able to evaluate a vendor. It's basically their name, their project, on budget, on time. If we're going to ask that that includes additional requirements like like actual performance, safety record, contractors' performance, different aspects where they can actually see, you know, how they are performing, not that they just got the job Mhmm. And they're under budget or on time.

That's good. So that, I think, will help. And that is for IFBs and RFPs and sole sources as well.

So so just one more question on the on the going out to bid. So the the employer says, you know, I think I wanna go out to bid, but maybe I'll go out as a proposal. And I and I make the wrong decision. I go out to bid instead of going out to proposal. And, you know, I don't wanna take the lowest bid. I wanna take the best interest of the state. Can I change stream or that I just have to go out again with the procurement?

If you once you pick a method of procurement, whether it's IFP or RFP, then you have to stick with that because the rules are different for each one of those. So if you pick an IFP, if you decide

And that would be for people listening who may not know what IFP

Oh, sorry. Invitation for bid or competitive seal bidding. Okay. If you choose that method, basis of award is lowest lowest cost technically acceptable. When you get to the request for proposals, the RFP method, then you're evaluating them on performance, on management, on price, on

You have to make that decision upfront.

You have to make the decision upfront. If you choose halfway through either one of those, then you have to stop and reprocure.

So this bill is saying the the request for bid restricts you from taking the the best value because that you have to go out to a proposal.

Correct.

So this is not

about trying to do a little bit of each. Yeah. You wanna do the IFP method because it's a little bit the time span is a little bit shorter. You're basing it on the the agencies has to tell you, I want this, this, and this. You either meet the criteria or not, and this is the lowest bid.

So that time span is ten days from opening to to closing. RFP is typically thirty days from opening to closing, and you have to gather a evaluation committee. You have to identify your criteria. So that typically takes a little longer. But with the RFP method, you're evaluating the vendor. It's not based on lowest. In fact, price is not the primary consideration, although it is a a mathematical factor within, that proposal.

Okay. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Any other follow-up questions for you there? Let's see. Okay. I just wanna note that we didn't get DOTs written. So later on, you can shoot us one for the record then. Thanks. I really appreciate it. Thanks note. Okay. That being said, we also have sorry, I lost my track in this whole bot here. We also had several individuals in support. Will Carone, Charmaine Doran, Glenn Kagamita, and Terry Sabellina again. Anybody else on this bill? Seeing none, any more questions?

Seeing none. We'll move on to the next one, which is House Bill 2388, relating to public notice. Allows government agency to satisfy public notice requirements by posting notice on official state or county website while retaining publication as an option. First up, we have OIP. Not here. Written with comments. State Procurement Office. Thank you so much. We appreciate your comments. Ted Kefalas from Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. They are on Zoom? No?

Not present, Chair.

Not in the Zoom. Okay. That's all we have on the measure. Is there anybody else in the audience? Probably not to testify. Members, no real questions of this. We've seen this bill before. There was a Senate version. Knowing that, we'll move on to the next one, which is House Bill 322. And this one, first up, we have Attorney General's Office. They are on Zoom? No.

Not present, chair.

Yeah. Probably storm issues. They have comments. We have Hawaii State LGBTQ plus commission.

Not present either, chair.

Alright. They're in support. We have comments from office of elections, comments from CNC Honolulu customer service, comments from Honolulu elections division, comments from with concerns serious concerns from League of Women Voters of Hawaii. We have Mike Golojuch testifying for Pride at Work Hawaii. Mike, are you there? Go for it.

Good afternoon. Happy Saint Patrick's Day. Michael Golojuch junior, he, him pronouns. I am president of Pride at Work Hawaii, and we strong stand in strong support of this measure. Automatic voter registration is a net is a much needed tool when get ensuring our our citizens have the right to to have the right to vote and are able to vote.

A lot of us NGOs spend a lot of time and energy doing voter registration drives, and this would help remove that off of us and allow this to automatic this automatically happen for those that are allowed to be allowed to become voters to and if you don't wanna be vote be a voter, you can opt out, but we encourage you to pass this bill to strengthen our election process by ensuring everybody that's able to, that wants to, can vote. Thank you, and we look forward to you passing this bill out. Mahalo.

Alright. Thank you for being here and testifying. Alright. Let's see. We have, Imua Alliance. They are in support. We have Hokul Pak.

Present.

Oh, hey. Go ahead, Amy.

Hi. Oh, hi. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of committee. I'm Amy Jo, and I'm testifying in support of HB 322 in behalf of the new alliance. At a time when the right to vote is under assault at the federal level, Hawaii must take meaningful steps to safeguard our democratic participation.

Shifting from this opt in to an opt out system makes voter registration truly automatic and more efficient while helping government agencies focus on informing people and maximizing participation in our elections. This reform is especially important for survivors of sexual exploitation and gender based violence because they often face invisible barriers to civic participation, including trauma, fear of retaliation, economic instability, and distrust of institutions. Those barriers can silence voices that most deserve to be heard. By removing these unnecessary obstacles to registration, HB 322 can help us create a more inclusive democracy. It allows historically underrepresented communities to participate with dignity, confidence, and greater access to the political process.

I really urge you to pass HB322 and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Okay. Thank you for being here, Amy. Let's see. We have Hoku Pak again. We have Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Not present, chair.

Okay. In support, Green Party of Hawaii. In support, we have Common Cause Hawaii. They're in support. And several individuals, Will Caron, Tim Hayuk, Lily Troy, Lois Langham in support. We have also numerous individuals who are in support. So to cut to the chase, are there any individuals who submitted written testimony on this measure who'd like to testify either here or in Zoom? Seeing none, we also wanna note the late for Indivisible state night Wide Network. They have submitted comments. ACLU of Hawaii, they're in support.

Ralph Cushni, individual, on the State Elections Commission in opposition. Ralph, are you there?

Not present, sir.

Not present. Okay. Vaughn Kaanaha in support, and then Doug mister Doug Pasnick in opposition. Is he Doug here?

Not present, either, chair.

Okay. That's all we have on the measure. Anybody else wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, questions? There are pretty much isn't anybody asked questions of. So knowing that, we're gonna move on to 2469. And this is a regular session review working group. Alright. First up, we have OIP. They have comments. We have Legislative Reference Bureau. They too have comments. And we have State Procurement Office.

Okay. Got it. Okay. We have Kris Coffield, Imua Alliance. Okay. Great. Thanks. Appreciate it. Okay. And Will Caron chimed in in support. And we have one individual, Brett Kulbis, in opposition on this measure. That's all we've received. Anybody wishing to testify in Zoom land?

If not, are there any questions of Kris or Bonnie? If not, I believe that takes us to the end of the agenda. So as is the custom and practice of the Committee on Government Operations, we will defer decision making on all measures heard today. Time certain or... 3-19? Yeah. 3-19. Oh, 3:00. Sorry. March 19, 3:00, Room 225. This concludes this hearing. Thanks everybody for being here.