House Standing Committee on Energy & Environmental Protection

Alright. Good morning, everyone. We are here for the Joint Committees on Energy and Environmental Protection and Committee on Labor. It is Tuesday, March 19, 09:30AM. We are in Room 325. We have one bill on the agenda today, SB 3326 relating to Energy. And first up to testify is Consumer Advocate.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Michel Angelo, Executive Director, Division of Consumer Advocacy. Stand on our testimony, comments, available to have some questions.

Thank you. And then we have the Public Utilities Commission.

Sorry. Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Jon Itomura with the Public Utilities Commission. We stand our testimony and available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And Life of the Land?

Aloha chair, chairs, vice chairs, and committee members. This bill talks about separating the transmission grid from the generation grid. So Lifeline has spent several hours over several days looking at islands throughout the world to try to figure out where it's been done on islands.

And a true separation through an isolated island anywhere in the world has not been done. There are some that come close. Singapore is 95% powered by pipe gas from Malaysia and Indonesia, and it has a limited role at the base, the base load generation has limited competitive market. Iceland has a limited base load competitive market.

The only other places I could find is Great Britain, which is tied to Europe, and The Philippines, which may or may not have a competitive market. But basically, islands are have restrictions. It's hard to have a competitive market on an island.

So what the purpose of this bill is is for the Public Utilities Commission to waste taxpayer money to find that Hawaii is like every other island in the world and it won't work. Mahalo.

Great. Thank you. And then IBEW 1260 in opposition. We have Sierra Club of Hawaii on Zoom.

Not present in opposition. Land Use Research Foundation in opposition and one individual in support. Is there anyone else here to justify on this measure? Please come forward.

Morning, Chair Lowen, Sayama, vice chairs and members of the committee. Happy Katsura.

Okay. I was wondering if you guys

Hawaiian Electric strongly opposes this bill. This bill breaks apart the electric system, separating generation from transmission distribution. There's no evidence that this works for Hawaii. Bill adds cost and not savings. Most cost do not change as one half over one half of the customer's bills are made up of fuel and purchase power costs, not direct utility costs.

Hawaii already has competition with 40 to 50% of IPPs or independent power producers, third parties already producing power through the PUC's completed bidding. Hawaii is different, coordination is critical. Separation makes it harder. In the Mainland, large interconnected grids can pull power from neighbors.

In Hawaii, each island stands alone, isolated grids, not even interconnected between the islands. This bill creates higher reliability risk, more handoffs, more coordination points, and slower responses to emergency potential.

We might be asking that this bill is requiring a study and why study? Well, a study is can take a lot of resources, especially one of this magnitude. It uses time and resources, many consultants.

It distracts from priorities such as renewable energy, reliability, and resilience. And we already have several studies, even one for wheeling that's already going on that was done that's given to us by, the legislature. We have others that are going on in terms of continuing IGW, PBR, and other things that we're working on as well.

This has already been studied extensively by the commission. The commission opened an investigation looking at all forms of deregulation.

They found this was a multiyear analysis. It took over five years to issue a decision where many parties had stakeholders got together, presented evidence with embedded things through consultants. And, basically, they found that the benefits were too speculative.

That demonstrated that all customers would receive adequate, safe, reliable, and efficient service, and that's where the competitive greeting framework came from. This took a long time to actually resolve because there were so many different opinions and the stakes are very high in terms of getting this right.

I know some of you don't usually, review energy bills but I ask you before you vote yes for this bill that you challenge anyone supporting this bill to provide an example where this has actually worked. Where we'd similar to situation of Hawaii where we have isolated grids, where we have very small population, and we don't have the resources to bring in if we get the generation off from other states or other areas.

The bottom line is this bill does not lower cost, does not improve outcomes. It does increase complexity, cost, and risks. In a way, we don't have the margin of error. This bill adds risk when we need more certainty. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? I've got members questions. Alright. No questions?

Okay. Go ahead.

May for Public Utilities Commission?

Yes.

So the previous testifier and a lot of the testimony here, points out that there's no example of this ever being successful somewhere. Do you do you have any examples? Does the POC have any direction on this?

Like, I feel like this is a exercise that's often done against our Public Utility to determine, I don't know, to force some point. I'm and I'm just trying to just see some clarity on what what's the angle here. It seems like a lot of energy on the PUC's part to try and determine this. And all the points raised just seemed to point in the opposite direction. So, I okay. Give me if I feel like we're just really swimming upstream here.

Yes. And in anticipation of any more complex answers, I'm gonna also bring up one of our subject matter experts, Daniel, from our office who has studied this for over ten years.

So as HECO mentioned, the doctor was opened in 1996, and it was closed in 2003, so well over five years. And then as indicated in our written testimony, As we can see, nothing has changed with regard to what this tries to address, which is I will say the intent is to address cost and affordability.

And given the reasons that HECO stated as well as what's provided in our testimony, those aspects are critical to separating transmission and distribution. And if that those haven't changed, those elements haven't changed, then you still may actually raise cost to to rate payers, and that's our concern.

Do you have anything to add?

Yes. So to answer your question, I'm personally not aware of any sort of island or anything like that that, you know, as I think if Mister Curtis testified earlier that to my personal knowledge, I'm not aware of island system that has fully restructured in this sort of manner.

So, essentially, this is a redo of a prior seven year study that came to no conclusion that nowhere else has been found. I feel like this is just another witch hunt against our utility that people are mad at. We have high energy costs, and it's understood 60% of the grid and the company are tied together, but 40% are through independent power producers. Correct?

Well, on behalf of the PUC, I wouldn't characterize it as a witch hunt. I think there is a valid concern of the cost that we pay for energy. And everyone's searching for solutions. But, as Daniel noted, you know, I'm curious to look into The Philippines because it's it is one of the only places that Mister Curtis mentioned does it.

But having said that, if no one else has done it and it's failed in the states where they have access to, you know interstate energy, it doesn't look promising.

Yeah. Yeah. I agree. I that's why I'm just searching for what would be the impetus behind this. Thank you.

Sure. You can stay I mean, I guess, it's interesting that The Philippines and Great Britain were raised as possible examples, but, I mean, what's the population of The Philippines?

I'm not aware of The Philippines. I mean, the population for The Philippines, but we can provide that supplemental information to you.

I think it's larger than Hawaii, however.

Significantly.

Significantly larger. Grid that might change the dynamics considerably. So we're talking about small island grids and maybe this full separation not being feasible. I would I would just

118,000,000.

118,000,000, and Great Britain also much larger than Hawaii.

100 times. 100 x.

100 times.

I guess I mean, I would also point out or I mean so is a lot of power generation in Hawaii is separated ownership of power generation is separated from the utility. A lot of power is provided through, contracts with independent power producers.

That's correct.

Yeah. So it's not like there's a 100% monopoly over that with the

Yes. That's correct. And a significant portion of the more recent generation as well has been procured through the RFPs that.

And then the competitive bidding process, can you explain that briefly so that members understand?

Yes. So as I believe it was mister Katsuya who was who mentioned, at the end of that previous investigation that the commission conducted into studying like, restructuring and whatnot, one of the decisions the commission subsequently made to that was to establish a competitive bidding framework.

And the short version of this is this is to sort of try to mimic a competitive environment without sort of imposing that on HECO. Right? So HECO would have to procure generation, whether it's their own self build or from an independent product producer, in a way that would sort of mimic if it had to sort of get that in a competitive open market.

Right? So there are certain restrictions about, you know, how HECO has to sort of procure those bids, the independence of the bids themselves, like no collusion, even with the self build option that HECO presents, and the independent evaluation of each of those bids. So that way it it's very similar to sort of like how the state does procurement, right?

Where you we have to issue RFPs, and we can't sort of, you know, try to personally favor one particular proposal or so. So that's in place right now, and HECO has to sort of follow the competitive bidding framework for any new generation that they wish to procure. They do have the ability to ask for an exemption from the competitive bidding framework for certain projects.

Commission has not been granting these exceptions in recent years. We're really trying to emphasize the competitive bidding framework. This is how we keep the generation related costs low. Right? And that's why we've had three rounds of this latest RFP, and we are we're very confident that as long as we continue to utilize the framework that we have in place, we're going to keep generation costs as low as possible for our ratepayers.

And then final question from me anyway. I guess considering the concerns about costs and ongoing discussions both about this and other sort of options for future, would it be like an appropriate time maybe for the commission to look at undertaking a more broad study looking at, you know, what is the least cost path forward for Hawaii's energy comparing, you know, a range of alternatives and not looking at it narrowly.

But so that there would be a opportunity to assess the cost of, like, a high renewable deployment scenario, consider possible advances in renewable energy technology, consider, you know, various alternative pathways for it, and what would be the most cost savings for Hawaii's residents and reduce risk also of of exposure to volatility from imported fuels.

So I would add before answering that specifically is it's not only cost, it's also reliability.

And reliability.

And of what you just mentioned, I believe can be incorporated in the study that we would be doing subject to what's currently provided. Maybe language could be provided that specifically addresses it, but I can't imagine that we couldn't do that even under what's provided currently.

Okay. Alright. Thanks. Oh, go ahead. Question.

Actually, you can stay.

So sorry. So I'm wondering, doesn't, this measure kind of duplicate or or to put it another way, didn't the work that we do did last session around wheeling, kind of start to get at some of the intent behind this measure so as to create more competition and kind of more opportunities for generation and production? Or do you see the these two measures as being completely separate?

Yes.

Yeah. I'll again briefly say that wheeling, I wasn't here last year, but my recollection of wheeling is is a different animal, so to speak, but I'll let Daniel elaborate. Or yeah. Mister O'Coffee is our expert.

He actually hasn't been speaking about the meeting.

Thank you, Vice chair. You know, I'm on the billing docket. Just noting that we are planning to have the half day workshop very soon. I apologize. We had to reschedule it because of timing issues and other work parties. So we're gonna have that. You know, we do take note of your full of your committees and and act your committee's work on and contribute to act 366. I apologize.

I wasn't ready for this. But in terms of the potential competition that would bring, you know, I imagine that it'll be around the same lines as the current RFP process. You know, you're just allowing this to occur, and you would have third parties come in.

Hopefully, it will reduce cost for some rate payers And certainly, put in the in the proceeding in the willing proceeding, we do want to make sure that we're not harming other rate payers as well. So make it fair for everyone.

So there's no own cost in your side.

So it's not as dramatic as this bill in terms of like, making creating a separation between production and distribution?

Yeah. There are certain guardrails that you folks have put in, and we're appreciative of those guardrails in Act 266. So I think that is I don't really wanna characterize it that way, but that is not as big as, you know, what this is this study may result in. But I do wanna say that it is, you know, it's, it will, it will be a sizable impact and maybe it will help you know, people.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions members?

Okay. Everyone are gonna go straight to decision making.

So for this bill, we're going to alter the language to ask the Public Utilities Commission to open a proceeding, to do an independent comprehensive analysis of the state's energy pathways, and this would be to identify the best potential paths forward to maximize cost reduction and minimize financial risk to energy while energy services while meeting established state energy goals and maintaining reliability.

And so this would, allow more equal comparison of, you know, pathways of continuing with high use of fossil fuels, other imported fossil fuels, high renewable deployment scenarios, and potentially, in there could also be considering this, you know, whether there is value of separating generation from distribution, although that's not explicit called out.

But this would just be a more open ended study to look at ways that we can reduce costs for our customers going forward. And that is basically it. So that that will just be study language in there. Members, any questions or discussion?

Alright. Seeing none, vice chair. Oh,

One more question. No. Just

Chair, I appreciate the the change you made. I would be really interested to see in the study what the cheapest cost would be going forward without everything else. Just very broad, what is the cheapest path forward for our rate payers.

I think that's basically what, what I was asking for. I'm mostly

Without the energy goals, just cheapest past work. Or if you could do both, I think that would be interesting to add to the study.

It's a crowd favorite.

Agree. Yeah. Yeah. They agree. But thank you for the change.

Thank you. Alright. Vice chair.

On SB 3326 SD 2, chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, chair and vice chair voting aye.

[roll call]

Chair, recommendation has been adopted.

Alright. For labor committee, we'll be recommending the same amendments to this measure. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair voting on SB3326 SD2. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye.

[Roll call]

Recommendations adopted.

Alright. Thank you, we're adjourned.

Reconvening the Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. We're convening a new hearing. So today is March 19, 2026. It's 9:40. We have several items on the agenda. Just some reminders for folks, if you're submitting testimony or testifying online, please keep yourself muted and your video off while you're waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete.

If you're disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits. Please note that the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifier's end. So in the event of a network failure, it might be necessary to reschedule the hearings or schedule a meeting for decision making.

In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please avoid using any trademark or copyrighted images, and, of course, please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Such behavior might be grounds for removal from the hearing without the ability to rejoin. We're going to commence with... Oh, sorry. Our first measure is SB 2497, SD 2, relating to electric energy.

Requires all electric utilities other than electric cooperatives to provide transparent customer bill impact analyses that are accessible to the public in an electronic format reasonably usable by ratepayers. Establishes requirements for bill impact analysis and requires electric utilities to submit annual reports to the PUC. So first to testify on this measure, we have the DCCA, Michael Angelo, with comments in person. Good morning.

Good morning. Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michael Angelo. We stand on our written testimony providing comments. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have the PUC, Jon Itomura with comments in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Jon Itomura, Public Utilities Commission. And we support the intent of the measure and we stand on our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Life of the Land, Henry Curtis, with comments in person.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Part of this bill calls for an online tool or something. It's probably useful. But part of the bill says that the bill impact analysis disclosure shall be reasonably usable by ratepayers and others for the purpose of reviewing and analyzing the underlying assumptions and calculations, and shall be sufficient to allow sensitivity analysis and scenario testing.

Our understanding of what that would take for a member of the public to understand the economics, statistics, linear programming, power system engineering, utility accounting, Hawaii law, and regulatory requirements would take the average person between 300 and 4,000 hours of study over several months to years to begin to understand that. That put that in this bill would do one thing. It would say to customers who can't understand bills and blame the utility to say that you have come up with a solution that they don't understand either. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaiian Electric, Nancy Bernal with comments in person. You're not Nancy.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Greg Shimokawa for Hawaiian Electric. So Hawaiian Electric remain in our position with concerns over this bill. I mean, even with the changes, there's still some concerns that it's going to it's going to raise costs, slow down projects, chill competition, and then introduce regulatory issues. That's all been in our previous testimony.

I think even with we wanna point out, the commission already has a lot of the tools and the information needed to to achieve the bill's stated purpose. And I think in addition to through our integrated good planning, a lot of that information and analysis is already available, publicly available. So I think a lot of the intent of what's been, this is already there.

And then I wanted to also note the changes to use and useful in the language here. I think that's, appreciate the intent, I think, but that it's so problematic because it's those the concerns are not limited to any particular procurement around having the information out there is still concerning to us. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Hawaii Clean, Hawaii Green. Sorry. Hawaii Clean Power Alliance in support. And we have one individual, additional individual, Veronica Moore, in support. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure online or in the room? Seeing none. Chair, do you have any questions?

I do not.

Then we shall move on to the next measure, which is SB 3183 SD2, relating to renewable energy. This would prohibit individual or jointly filing taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or greater from claiming the renewable energy technologies income tax credit for certain solar energy systems installed and placed in service on a single-family residential property to certain exemptions. It increases the adjusted gross income requirements for an individual taxpayer to elect to have any excess credits refunded. First, to testify on this measure, we have DOTAX with comments in person.

Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. We'll stand on our comments, available for questions.

Hawaii State Energy Office with comments in person.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Munashe for the Hawaii State Energy Office. We stand on our written testimony providing comments to SB 3183 SD 2. I'll be here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika with comments on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. I will stand on written comments and be available for questions.

Mahalo. Hawaii Solar Energy Association, Rocky Mould in opposition on Zoom. Not present.

So, Vice Chair, I'm here, Sandy Wong. Rocky was supposed to be on Zoom, but we'll stand ...sorry. He's on the East Coast, so we'll stand on our written testimony in opposition, and I'm here for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is all who, those are the only people who have signed up to testify. In addition to, testimony and opposition from energy advisers, PV Tech, Photonworks Engineering, Alternate Energy Inc, Independent Energy, Solar Tech Hawaii, "Solarc", High Power Solar LLC, EPQ Sunsphere Energy, Legacy Energy, Hawaii Energy Connection. We also have nine individuals in opposition. Is there anyone in, the room who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none, Sherry, do you have any questions?

I think two, I guess, maybe for DOTAX. I'm curious for the tax credit claims, and I don't know if you have this information at your fingertips. But what's the breakdown of claims by individuals versus third parties who are owning the system that are not the owners or residents of the home that it's installed on?

Don't have that information. I could make inquiries as to whether or not we do have that, and if we can provide that, I can get back to you.

Okay. And the refundability of the tax credit, do you know how much that would end up getting claimed by some of the third party

I can have one...

Providers of leases? Like, are these businesses able to fall under that threshold because of deducting business expenses and what like, to what degree is the refundability aspect of the tax credit claimed by third parties versus individuals?

Could I have just a moment to review this portion of my prep to see if that's included in here. I don't believe it is but let me just double check. Sorry. I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I can attempt to pull it and get back to you.

I wonder if I'm probably gonna defer decision making on this until next Tuesday and then take some time in the days before then to look at some different scenarios and what the impacts might be. Like, who at DOTAX would be the best person to go through that with me?

You do have a legislative coordinator, so when I get back to the office, I will pose these questions to the legislative coordinator who is Krista Sakamoto who is the first deputy and then she will reach out.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay. If there are no other questions, we're gonna move on.

Oh. I have a question. I'm sorry. I guess maybe for Sandy or I mean, if anyone's available from any of the solar companies, they might know. I'm curious for if you have any understanding for jurisdictions that that might have a similar tax credit, but don't allow it to be claimed by a third party, like, what other types of financing options has the market produced?

I do not know the answer to that. I can get you the the response. But I do know that, you know, these companies are pretty creative in finding alternative financing options. And then in looking at this bill, I think they're working on some financing options right now.

Got it. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Now moving on to SB 2032, SD 2, relating to consumer protection. This would require any person or entity selling a residential solar energy device to comply with consumer protection laws. It would prohibit the sale of a residential solar energy device without a contractor's license or a contractual affiliation with a licensed contractor.

It would require a standardized disclosure form to be developed by the DCCA for use in all residential solar proposals and contracts. And the first to testify on this measure is Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, Jenna Seagle, in support in person. Not present. Next, we have DCCA, Mana Moriarty with comments in person.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair. Mana Moriarty, Office of Consumer Protection. I'd like to just introduce my office since we have not had the pleasure of testifying at this committee. Our office is responsible for enforcing the state's consumer protection laws. We're the primary enforcer. We have a small office.

We also have the pleasure and the responsibility to advise the legislature on matters affecting the consumer public's interest. So with that responsibility in mind, I'm here before you today and you've seen my written testimony that we need more from this particular measure. We need more protection from consumers. We like where this is starting, but let's give some concrete rights to consumers in this bill, even apart from just the right to be informed in a standardized disclosure.

So what you have before you is a bill that has a disclosure requirement. That's great. It would be required to be provided to consumers before they enter into a transaction for installation of the residential solar system, lease of a solar system, whether it's a lease, a sale, or a power purchase agreement. What we've suggested and what was in the, what is in the House position on the House measure, the House companion measure already, is that we give a three day right of cancellation to consumers. This is like the cooling off period.

Right? You enter into a transaction. You have three days to think about it. And within those three days, you can exercise your right of cancellation at any time. And we've also put a very specific provision in there that requires companies to provide their email address so that you can exercise your right of cancellation by sending an email to the company.

We don't wanna get into a situation where companies are updating their responsibilities on the notice of cancellation side. We put in an additional provision about voidability, recommending that provision that the contract be voidable at the election of the consumer if the disclosure requirement is not complied with.

Having this expressly in the law and in the notice that is provided to consumers, we think is an important protection. We've also recommended deleting the safe harbor provision because it just it contradicts the existing, the intent of this bill to provide additional protections about misrepresentations. This is not in our testimony, but I would just urge you to, you know, you'll hear from other testifiers here about the problems.

We've heard from our friends at the utilities and at other agencies that there are problems with door knockers coming and making representations about who they're affiliated with and complaints that these are untrue or have at the very minimum left consumers confused. So when I come before you wearing the enforcement hat, we have a small office.

And if we pass this legislation, I just urge you to give consideration to the fact that, if we pass good policies, we need to have the resources to stand behind implementation of those good policies. So a staff attorney position would be wonderful. And I know you're constrained. But I'll be here if you'd like to ask us any more specific questions about our recommendations, which again, they're already the House position, the House companion measure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

We have Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Beth Amaro, in support. Next to testify, we have Hawaiian Electric, Shannon Alivado. Thank you. Hawaii Solar Energy Association, Rocky Mould, in support.

Sandy Wong here for HSEA. We are in support of this bill. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Credit Union League with comments in person.

Good morning. Stefanie Sakamoto on behalf of the Hawaii Credit Union League. We'll stand on our written testimonies suggesting amendments. Just clarifying that the consumer protection requirements should not apply to lenders, as we typically have no control over how the proceeds are used depending on the loan product. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from Energy Advisors LLC, Alternate Energy, PV Tech, Independent Energy, SolarTech Hawaii, Solarc, EPQ, Sunspear Energy, Legacy Energy, and seven individuals in support. Is there anyone else?

Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this measure?

Seeing none. ...Sure. Are there any questions?

Quick question, I think, for Hawaii Credit Union. To your knowledge, is your recommendation already in the House version of the bill? Okay. Yes. That's my question. Thank you. And then for Consumer, DCCA person, could you just explain what is the safe harbor provision?

Sure. Let me, reference the bill. So, I'm looking at page 5, lines 8-11. It reads, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit solar energy device marketing sales or their marketing activities provided that the person or entity complies with requirements of subsection d". The point of this bill, as I read it, as I understand it, is to constrain marketing, sales, and financing activities.

And we not only have this law covered by perhaps subsection d, that clause, but we also have other state laws on the books. We have chapter 480-2, which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts or practices. This provision at lines 8-11 goes so far, I think, as to jeopardize our ability to enforce the general prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts and practices. That's why we requested it be stricken.

All the questions.

Thank you. We're moving on to SB 2487 relating to the Public Utilities Commission. This measure clarifies that for electric utilities, performance-based incentives include revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms, rewards for superior performance, and penalties for subpar performance. Confirms that the PUC may adopt alternate alternative rate making procedures to establish electric utility rates and performance-based incentives. Requires the Commission to apply a presumption in favor of considering historical cost trends and external indices that reflect incentives to control costs if the Commission resets an electric utility's allowed revenues based on consideration of the utilities' costs.

First to testify on this measure, we have DCCA, Michael Angelo with comments in person.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Michael Angelo, Division of Consumer Advocacy. Just noting we're in the middle of the first review of the multiyear rate period. Hawaiian Electric is already in requesting for revenue increases beyond what was allowed under PBR, and our hope is that they will focus instead of rate increases on delivering better quality of service to customers and for better performance, which is the intent of PBR. And beyond that, stand on our testimony providing comments available for questions. Thanks.

Thank you. PUC, John Itomura with comments in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, John Itomura. We stand on our written testimony available for questions.

Thank you. Henry Curtis, Life of the Land with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Henry Curtis, Life of the Land. This is a very complex bill. It has many positive and negative aspects to it. We're at the eighth year of the PBR docket.

We're at a critical juncture. The PUC can be given the flexibility to move forward or it can be hamstrung with, reforms listed in this bill, some of which are good and some of which are bad. There's a presumption clause in here that does not have a carve out for energy equity. And the basis of this seems to be that we should look at only historic costs even though wildfires, resilience, grid modernization, we're in a period of rapid transition. And, therefore, the PUC needs to have the flexibility to use historic costs in some cases and future costs in others.

This is very nuanced. And at this critical point, we need to give the PUC flexibility. Therefore, we urge the commission of this body to either hold it or significantly modify it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaiian Electric, Shannon Alivado, comments?

Hawaiian Electric stands... Thank you.

Earth Justice, Isaac Moriwake in support.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Isaac Moriwaki. I'm an attorney with Earthjustice. We had a robust discussion on the house counterpart of this bill previously, so we stand on our testimony available for any questions. I I would note that this bill is all about giving the commission flexibility.

And, in fact, I'd further note that, the Consumer Advocate is now on record in their latest filing that the commission has really no discretion but to go to a full traditional cost of service rate case. So, basically, going backwards to cost of service is not only necessary but required. So maybe the guidance in this bill is helpful after all. Again, available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next to testify, we have Ulupono Initiative, Michael Colon Support. Hello.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Michael Colon, Energy Director, Ulupono Initiative. Thank you for letting me testify this morning. Yeah. Just, you know, the spirit of PBR was, you know, guidance to direct the utility to perform better at its core, and the incentives were designed to incentivize that. What we're looking at now and why we're here is that the issue of rebasing or what happens when the utility wants to raise rates wasn't addressed in that initial engagement.

The can was kicked down the road a little bit. So, the parties in that docket have been working for the last couple years towards a solution. Near the culmination of that, Hawaiian Electric requested and received commission approval for a cost-of-service rate case. And after that, they opened the door to trying to negotiate something different, an alternative approach. What's great is that, you know, something was submitted and that's in the backdrop.

And so that's kind of the context for where people are making references to something happening, but that doesn't mean that it's been approved. The commission still has to determine it. Party still need to take their positions and argue for them. But the purpose of this bill is to clarify and give more guidance to the regulator and give cover in some respects for them to step fully away from cost of service. The question on historical test year, you know, I think is still up for debate.

The true embracing of cost of service embracing of PBR away from cost of service may not actually need for historical look, but it would require a true embrace of change in business conditions. So we have a full gamut of interpretations going on right now, and it's precisely why we need this kind of bill to provide that clarity and cover to the regulators to make those decisions to fully embrace and enable PBR. I'll be around for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Seeing no additional testimony, is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Chair do you have any questions?

Yeah. I have a question for Olupono. Just looking at the the language regarding the applying a presumption in favor of considering historical cost trends, like, what is the can you explain that in, like, a simple way to us, I guess, what the intention of that part is.

So under a a regular cost of service rate case, Hawaiian Electric forecasts their cost going forward. So, essentially, they have to build the car from the ground up. Every little piece they have to account for in this kind of hypothetical. So it's a forward-looking test year. What the concern about that you know, if you have the opportunity to build from the ground up, you might pad a little bit because, you know, you might not be coming in for a rate case in the future.

And, historically, there was long periods between rate cases. Right? It wasn't, like, every three years. It could be ten years. It could be more.

So you kinda had to live with whatever budget adjustment, whatever rate increase you've got. So there was a tendency to a little bit inflate. I know Hawaiian Electric would take, you know, exception to that. But that was the concern is that if you have the chance to kind of say what we're gonna be spending next year, you can add a little bit more into that, and that's kind of always a ongoing critique. What the historical look was is that, you know, you you may be able to inflate a little bit, but you are constrained by your existing budget, so you can't really do too much.

And so, I would say probably the vast majority of electric utilities around the country use a historical. Hawaiian Electric has enjoyed the benefit of a forward looking. But, really, you know, it's if we were to do just a change in business conditions and embrace true PBR, you don't necessarily look need to look at a historical. And if everyone's wrapped around that, that's something, you know, people can discuss. But I think the overarching spirit of this is more important is, you know, we wanna be breaking that direct link between the utilities cost and the revenues going forward, and that's the real question that we wanna stay focused on with respect to the legislation.

If the vast majority of utilities look at historical cost as a basis, like, why is what's the genesis of us doing it differently than that?

Honestly, I don't know the answer. I think it might have just be one of those we've always done it this way.

Got it. Okay. Thanks.

Yep.

Okay. With no additional questions, we're gonna move on to SB 3136, relating to lead materials and water infrastructure. This measure would amend the prohibitions on the use of lead materials in drinking water distribution to align with the Safe Drinking Water Act and related code of federal regulations. First to testify on this measure, we have State Health Planning and Development Agency, Paula Doan, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is John Sadorra with the Department of Health Safe Drinking Water Branch, and we stand on our testimony in support. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Department of Health, in support, in person. State Health Planning and Development Agency. Okay. So Plumbers and Fitters, UA Local 675, Kika Bukoski in support in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Kika Bukoski on behalf of the Plumbers and Fitters, Local 675. We did submit written testimony. We just wanted to highlight, you know, this particular bill is a perfect example that illustrates the importance of maintaining and updating our building codes on a regular basis. This measure proposes to bring our state laws consistent with federal laws related to lead in our water.

And just to point out the importance of our building codes, primarily the it was specifically in this case, the plumbing code. The plumbing code since 2015 has already had the federal standards related to lead that are contained in this legislation in the state plumbing code. So that's we just wanna point out that that the state building and the state building codes, primarily the plumbing code in this case, does serve to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. And we wanted to highlight the importance of ensuring that the billing codes are maintained and updated consistently. Thank you.

Thank you. And, Dr. Lewin, I called you earlier, but you were not present. So please.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair. Appreciate that very much. SHPDA is in strong support of SB 3136 and we think that this is a prudent measure for us at this time to consider because we, you know, we've, safe drinking water, you know, the Department of Health does an amazing job in this regard.

But we think that we still have lead in drinking water infrastructure for vulnerable kids and others. So we think this is a modernizing state standard approach is gonna be really a valuable thing for us. Probably will incur some resources to consider, but it's something we need to do. But thank you very much for hearing the bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Chair, do you have any questions?

And we're gonna move on to SB 2485, relating to solid waste management. Establishes a temporary solid waste management working group in the Office of the Governor to examine materials management policies and programs that reduce solid waste and protect the environment and to present a list of alternative technologies to address solid waste management. Requires a report to the legislature. First to testify on this measure is Green Party of Hawaii, Susan Roberts Emery in support. Not present. Reworld, Ryan Toyomura in person.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Ryan Toyomura on behalf of Reworld. We just have comments for this bill. We respectfully request an amendment to include representative of state in state waste to energy provider in membership of the working group. But as you may know, Reworld operates the HPOWER facility here in West Oahu, which does waste to energy, providing about approximately 10% of Oahu's energy needs. So with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them.

Thank you. Simonpietri Enterprises LLC in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Lowen. Aloha, Vice Chair Perruso and Members of the Committee. I apologize. My camera just doesn't wanna work. But Naomi Kukac here on behalf of Simonpietri Enterprises. We are a small local business with expertise in the areas of waste management, energy and nutrient recovery, and the circular economy.

Our focus is on developing innovative ways to address challenging waste in Hawaii that have limited or no reuse options currently, like construction and demolition debris, invasive and pest infested biomass, and other solid waste. And instead, we wanna turn them into things like fuel, power, fertilizer, and recycled building materials. Our mission is to do something better with the waste than to put it in a hole or let it sit and take up space.

And so as a company who's passionate about and advocates for sustainable solutions and environmental stewardship, we're in support of seeing this working group established. And additionally, not sure of who would be the one to contact, but we'd like to express our openness to participate as part of the group, should there be an opportunity to do so. So thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and have a good day.

Do let me just make a statement that we do prefer if people on Zoom can turn their cameras on that they do turn their cameras on. But please go ahead.

Re-use Hawaii, Mariane Uehara on Zoom in support.

Hi. Good morning. Morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. I'm Mariane Uehara with Re-use Hawaii. So we support the SB 2485 because we see it in our day to day work. So much of ends end up in the landfill, like lumber, fixture, hardware that could still be used. So when we salvage, it becomes affordable for families, nonprofits, and small business.

So for over 20 years, Re-use Hawaii has been doing this work by taking materials out of demolition, getting back into the community, and training people for construction jobs along the way. So this is a great step toward keeping materials out of the landfill and making them accessible and creating... Yeah. So thank you for letting us testify today, and have a great day.

Thank you. Hawaii Green Earth, Noah Dodd in support. Sorry. With comments on Zoom. Not present. Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Heaivilin in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. Hunter Heaivilin here with Hawaii Farmers Union. We're in support of this measure. We stand on our written comments, but what I think it's important to highlight, as the next bill speaks to, the waste hierarchy that is applied in addressing solid waste management. The emphasis of this bill seems to be focused on technologies and novel technologies.

Potentially at the expense of well known approaches for addressing solid waste and source separation to reduce the volumes that end up needing to be processed through potentially novel and costly technological fixes. So for that, we do support the inclusion of the composting industry, the reuse industry, and others, and to support this measure going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from the Energy Justice Network, Zero Waste Hawaii, BPI, the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and 11 individuals in support, one with comments. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide testimony on this measure? Seeing none. Chair, do you have any questions?

Yeah. I have questions for Department of Health, even though you didn't testify on this measure. I have a couple things I'm curious about. One is, like, any idea why this would be housed in the Office of the Governor and not the Department of Health?

I am not certain on how it was drafted, but I believe we are on the list of...

Right. Right. Right. I guess I'm curious. I mean, the source for, how much is the... This, I'm trying to figure out the genesis of this bill because I don't I don't really know where it came from. It does seem I think a a solid waste reduction, you know, is a goal that I've pushed for a long time, but I think there have been, have there been working groups? Or it's part of the environmental, you know, and part of your division's core functions, I would think, to think about these things. And what work are you doing currently?

Talking about the genesis of the bill, I'm not familiar with the genesis. But by my recollection of the reading of the bill, I think the intent was to look at technologies for those that cannot be recycled or composted. So that's how I saw or read the bill. I don't think it's necessarily putting aside source reduction and the lack of importance of source reduction.

I think it was focused on this one area mainly because we're given only six months to deal, to address the question. I think if you're gonna expand the study, then maybe more time might be needed if we are gonna be looking at it a little bit further. So that's maybe something for consideration.

I'm just curious. I mean, it seems if we're talking about new technologies or novel technologies, I mean, it's sort of, like, chemical recycling or these kind of proposals. And I'm certainly not opposed to the idea if they can, if they are environmentally sound and cost effective. But my understanding is that the technology, some of these, you know, newer technologies are hard to scale in Hawaii. And I'm just, you know, I mean, I think we have to be careful about stepping into a sort of venture capital space. Like, I'm just not sure that what kind of, from your assessment as an expert on these matters, like, what's your take on that?

So there's a lot of innovative technologies out there that are still in the research or scale arena and have not been proven technologies in the large scale. You're right. But I think they're for the counties to consider use here, yeah, I think they would want something that's proven. But for if it's something for just discussion purposes, I don't think it, I think it's fine for discussion purposes. If the intent is to try to expand into uses, then I think we have to evaluate what's feasible.

Great. Thanks.

Thank you. We're gonna move on to SB2101 SD1 relating to Organic Waste. Establish a statewide goals for solid waste reduction and organic waste diversion, requires each county to incorporate into its next integrated solid waste management plan revision.

A plan to reduce all organic waste produced within the county by facilities generating more than a specified amount of organic waste per year in alignment with established state benchmarks. So first to testify in this measure, we have DLNR with comments in person.

Hello, chair, vice chair. My name is Patrick Chi. I'm from the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Hawaii Invasive Species Council.

We recognize the need, for waste diversion, and especially for organic waste, but we are concerned, of course, with green waste and the ability for it to transfer, coconut rhinoceros beetle to places where it currently is not. So, in this bill appears to be a planning bill, so in the planning, we you know, want to comment to make sure that coconut rhinoceros beetle risks, are calculated into the the various measures, that are used.

And also, I didn't put it in our testimony, but of course, also in compliance with the EPA and the Department of Health's own green waste management regulations. So, thank you for the opportunity to comment and I'm here for questions. Thanks.

Thank you so much. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, Leah Laramee in support in person.

Aloha, Chair Lowen, Vice chaie Perruso. Leah Laramee with Climate Change and Adaptation Commission. We stand on our testimony in support and here for questions. Mahalo

Thank you. Department of Health, comments?

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of community. Lene Ichinotsubo with the Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony offering comment. Two of which I wanted to highlight is one, we note that some of the benchmark dates for organic waste diversion come before the county's next integrated solid with solid waste management plan update.

In addition, the bill requires the department to reimburse the counties for their plants. However, the plans will be completed after the proposed allocation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. We have Hawaii Green Earth, Noah Dodd, whose comments on Zoom, not present. Hawaii Farmers Union, Hunter Heaivilin in support on Zoom.

Chair, vice chair. Hunter Heaivilin with Hawaii Farmers Union. We're in strong support of this measure. We view it as a critical mechanism to increase the volume of soil amendments available for local agricultural production while simultaneously reducing the volume of organic materials that end up in our landfills or incinerators.

I think as the previous testimony noted, this bill the timing alignment, so it may be slightly misaligned. This has been a measure we've been advocating for, for some years. And when we first put it forward, a number of those plans were in active development.

However, the thrust of the bill to define a timeline by which we will be requiring the diversion of organic materials from landfills, I think is one that is possible to be met. And to address the concerns shared by DLNR, other versions of this bill, like, I honestly can't remember if it was this year or previous years, had included provisions that would have delineated distances that counties could set where a diversion would be required, which is to say, you know, if you're in North Kohala and the nearest facility is in South Kona, you would not be required to drive that distance.

And I think delineating those at a county level also can get towards the concerns around the transfer of invasive species in some of these materials. So the potential of reintroducing some of that language and having county defined, whether it's in those planning processes, which as previously testified, are some ways out in some cases or just delineating them within the bill or stating that counties are to determine them.

I think, is one way to to see the efforts and the the intention of the bill move forward. Happy to answer any questions. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. I also have testimony providing comments from BPI, testimony and support from Recycle Hawaii, Hika Solid Waste Reduction Task Force, Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and Climate Protectors Hawaii, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, and Hawaii Food Plus Policy, Propof Maya Foundation, along with three individuals in support.

Is there anyone else who would like to submit testimony on this measure?

Seeing none. Chair, do you have any questions?

Yes. Department of Health.

I'm just noting in here the the language I mean, I always chuckle when I this language is still in law, the the office paper reduction. So probably time to to remove that. I hope that we've reduced office paper since 1990.

But it it replaces it with language that says it's the goal of the state to reduce organic waste stream disposal via incineration waste to energy or landfill. I'm a little concerned about how that could be interpreted. I think in prior versions of this bill, in prior years, we've used the word prior, so organic waste stream reduction prior to incineration waste to energy or landfill. Would that be a change you could support?

But if you say prior, would that mean by reducing the diversion?

You're reducing the amount of waste produced prior to it being sent to incineration, so you cannot count the waste sent to a consideration or landfill as sort as reduction.

So when we calculate waste diversion or the only data we are able to collect is from permitted solid waste management facilities. It's really hard for us to measure source reduction because we don't have requirements for anyone to maintain that data. So it would add some challenge to identifying whether or not we're meeting those standards. So, I mean, we can we can certainly think about how we can phrase it. I understand the focus is on prior to disposal.

So all we are looking for is the changes in total waste that is either recycled or disposed, composted, and then separating that versus what is being disposed and calculating the diversion. So the source reduction part is really difficult for us to think through.

I think what I'm gonna ask is because I know your testimony also mentioned maybe you had some specific suggested amendments, but then you also, like, hinted at maybe needing to amend some definitions to clarify the impact to human health. Do you think, if we defer decision making until Tuesday that you can get back to us with more specific of what definitions you'd like to amend to include those concerns regarding human health? And then, maybe also talk with DLNR and determine if there's a need to add any language regarding concerns about invasive species to this as well, if this is the appropriate vehicle to add that concern or if they just wanted us to note it. I'm not totally clear. But and let me know specifically what amendments you would suggest.

And then maybe also looking at suggestions for the timeline, and maybe you could talk to mister Hevelin as well who brought up the the time concerns about the timeline. And then if you can get us some more specific suggested amendments that we can move look at moving forward on Tuesday.

Great. Moving on to SB 3138, relating to independent audits of deposit beverage distributors. This measure would limit the independent audit requirement under the state's deposit beverage container program to deposit beverage distributors who can distribute 5 million or more deposit beverage containers a year.

It would identify the frequency of obtaining and submitting independent audits based on quantities of deposit beverage containers imported, manufactured, or distributed and creates a minimum requirement for independent audits. First to testify on this measure, we have the Department of Health in support in person.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Lane Otsu for Department of Health. We've submitted written testimony in support of this bill. But I just wanted to emphasize the importance of the bill for program wise and also for our constituent distributors. So it's a highly inequitable situation now with respect to audits that all of our distributors right now are required to have to achieve or obtain.

And then we do know that these audits cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. And so the inequity is that even our smallest distributors are required to, you know, pay for their own audits. What we're doing here with this bill is just trying to create fair fairness tiers, whereby the majority of our distributors would be exempt from submitting audits. So thank you.

Thank you. Maui Brewing Company, Garrett Marrero, in support on Zoom.

Aloha. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. I'll stand on my written testimony, but I I definitely wanted to mahalo the legislature, the State Department of Health, and this bill is so important. As the gentleman prior to me said, just as a case in point, we have one location that paid about $8 in fees that would be subject to a $20,000 audit every other year. So it that inequity is what we're trying to address, but this is the type of legislation that supports small businesses. So, again, a huge mahalo. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Tax Foundation Hawaii, Tom Yamachika, with comments on Zoom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We'll stand on our written testimony and be available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii Food Industry Association, Lauren Zirbel in support on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair and Vice Chair. I'm Alexis Chapman for HFIA in person. Just we'll stand on our testimony. I just wanted to highlight, as previous testifiers said, this is extremely essential for our small local distributors. And it's not just Maui Brewing. We've had a number of locations that are reporting that the audits actually cost more than they pay into the program each year. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much for hearing the bill.

Thank you. That's the last person we have signed up to testify. We also have testimony submitted from the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii in support, as well as Down to Earth Organic in support. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Chair, do you have any questions?

Sure. Hawaii Food Industry Association. I mean, I'm just curious, since HFIA refuses to work with us on any level to improve the deposit beverage container program. I mean, maybe these audits are necessary to ensure proper oversight since we're not able to ever get any buy in or support from, you know, your side to move anything forward that would improve it on any level?

Chair, I apologize if that's been the, you know, if that's been the impression that's been conveyed.

It's not an impression.

We definitely agree that there are aspects of the deposit beverage container program that need improvement and would be happy to work with the legislature on...

But that hasn't been my experience year after year.

Again, I apologize if that hasn't been your experience. I think that, our obviously, our kuleana and our responsibility is to advocate for the food industry and for our members. And I think that this is an example...

Solutions that will potentially actually take burden off of retailers, there's just a knee jerk reaction in opposition to anything. All of it, like, year after year after year. And then you come asking us to help you guys out, but it's very frustrating.

I understand that. And if you have specifics, I'd be happy to discuss them with you. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to, so I'd be happy to, you know, hear or find, you know, different context to discuss with you specifics of where you feel like we were not open to improvements. We absolutely recognize that improvements are needed to the program.

Do you? Because that is very unclear. The testimony year after year on everything we propose is always opposition. Always opposition.

Well, we're in support of this measure. So definitely and, like, we recognize that there's other facets of the program.

It just helps you out.

Well, I think by us, like, the small local retailers who sell or manufacture beverages, yes, this does help them. And I don't think, I also don't think that the intent of the original measure that created this mandate was to create this obligation for the small local retailers. And I do think that this does improve the program because it makes it more functional from what it is right now in terms of for the small local retailers. But if there's other specific improvements that you'd like to see that, you know, you wanna discuss with us...

You're not aware of things that have been proposed?

I mean, if you can give me an example, I'd be happy to...

Every bill that we've introduced over the years related to the deposit beverage container program?

I don't think that we've opposed every single bill related to the deposit beverage...

I disagree. Thank you. I guess for Mr. Marrero on Zoom, are you still there?

Yes, ma'am. Garrett here. How are you?

Good. Are you a member of Hawaii Food Industry Association?

No, ma'am. I work only for Maui Brewing Company, Maui Brewing Restaurants, and then I serve on the board of the Hawaiian Craft Brewers Guild.

Okay. Alright. Just curious. Okay. I don't have any further questions right now.

Yeah. And just to add to that, all of the brewers, we, I'm just kinda, I'm the one who can spend the time on the political side. So all the brewers got together to talk about this separately, and I believe none of us are members if that's an issue. But happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other questions?

No. Thank you.

Moving on to the final measure, SB 2756, relating to conservation enforcement. Appropriates funds for the purchase of equipment for the Hawaii Island branch of the Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. First to testify in this measure, we have DLNR, in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members. Jason Redulla, Enforcement Chief with DOCARE. The department will stand on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have testimony in support from OHA, Kuaaina Ula Ulu Awamo, Hawaii Ocean Legislative Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, and six individuals in support. Is there anyone else who wishes wishes to provide testimony on this measure? Seeing none, members, are there any questions? Seeing none, I think we're going to—we're gonna recess prior to decision making.

Alright. We are back for decision making on the 09:40AM agenda, Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection. First on the agenda, Senate Bill 2497. This is the customer impact analysis, bill impact analysis. So this is just requiring more transparency from the utility of sort of how they arrive at their estimation of what the impacts to customers will be at their proposal.

So we will adopt the amendments of both consumer advocate and the PUC. There's a little bit of overlap there so but taking both sets of amendments and re-defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Miss Chair.

On SB 2497 SD 2, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Representative Chun?

Aye.

Representative Kahalua?

Aye.

Representative Kusch?

Aye.

Representative Quinlan is excused. Representative Matsumoto?

Aye.

Chair recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. And then Senate Bill 3183. This is the Renewable Energy Income Tax Credit bill. So, we are going to defer decision-making on this until Tuesday, March 24th, at 11:00 AM, here in Room 325. We'll take some time in the meantime to talk to stakeholders and figure out what pathway we wanna take forward.

Next on the agenda, we have Senate Bill 2032, relating to consumer protection. Basically, for this, we're going to take the House position and match this to the contents of House Bill 1644, House Draft 2, and move this forward. And we will make sure that it has a defective date of the year of 3000 to be consistent. And that is all. Members, any discussion? If none, vice chair, please state the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. For Senate Bill 2487 relating to the Public Utilities Commission, this is sort of reaffirming the performance-based rate making, we're going to just defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. Members, any discussion? Seeing none, vice chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 3136, relating to lead materials and water infrastructure. We will move this forward as is. Members, any discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. And Senate Bill 2485 relating to solid waste management. We're gonna defer decision making on this to Tuesday, March 24th, 11:00 AM, here in 325, while we figure out exactly what we wanna do with this. And then, same for Senate Bill 2101—deferred decision making to Tuesday, March 24th, here at 11:00 AM. We will wait for the recommendations from DOH on more specific language to do this to address some of the concerns raised in testimony.

And also, for Senate Bill 3138, relating to independent audits of deposit beverage distributors, we will defer decision making to March 24th, 11:00 AM, here in Room 325, and come back to you at then. And then, we have Senate Bill 2756, relating to conservation enforcement. For this, we'll just defect the date to the year 3000 and move this forward. And then, finally on our...

We have to vote on it.

Oh, sorry. We do have to vote on that one. Vice chair. Any discussion, members? If not, vice chair, please take the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And then, finally, we have decision-making on the Renewable Fuel Production Tax Credit bill from earlier this week. We're gonna make some amendments to this. So, we're going to use House Bill 1695, House Draft 2, as the starting point, with some amendments to that.

So, the amendments I'm gonna announce now are amendments to House Draft 2 of HB 1695. First of all, we're going to take out the purpose clause, just because we're making some changes, so to avoid confusion. And then, on page 5, for the amount of the tax credit, we're going to increase this to 85 cents, and we're going to make the cap amount for the amount any single entity can claim, $7,000,000.

And then, in this language here, it's going to specify the tax credit shall only be claimed for low-life-cycle-emission renewable fuels. So, basically, in lieu of doing these extra dollar riders that are included later in the bill, we're gonna make this a tax credit that will only be able to be claimed for low-life-cycle-emission renewable fuels, and this would essentially be the renewable fuels that are made using local feedstock.

And then, given that change on page six, we will strike out these, you know, Subsections 2, 3, and 4 that add new language to the bill with these extra dollar riders for the different sort of thresholds of emissions or types of fuels. And then, just on page nine, this is just my preference for style. We're going to just add back the dollar amount for the total program cap instead of calling it the program cap and then defining the program cap in definition because I find that just sort of obfuscating. And then, there's some just, like, changes we have to make to comport with the changes earlier in the bill, including striking out these references to sustainable aviation fuel, etcetera. And then, we will also make any changes for definitions.

We know a lot of our need, and we'll make sure the defective date is the year 3000, and we will move this forward. Members, any discussion? Alright. Seeing none. Vice chair.

[Roll Call]

Alright. And that's it. We are adjourned.