House Standing Committee on Transportation

Morning. Convening today's Committee on Transportation for our Tuesday, March 24, 9am agenda, here at the Hawaii State Capitol in Conference Room 430. Thank you folks for your patience and the delayed start time. Just trying to get everything ready for this morning.

Thank you for folks who submitted their testimony on time, and thank you for being continually engaged in the process. This is our, one of our last substantive agendas before we head into resolutions for the legislature. So thank you, folks, for your patience. And I anticipated all of these bills would take a little bit more time than normal.

That's why they're all on today's agenda. Okay. And for the purpose of testimony, I want to share that my staff sent out the PDF version to Committee Members. They had trouble getting the red leaf on. And we did process it, so you folks had ample time to review. Also, the public as well.

So I wanna thank them for processing over 400 pages of testimony, I think, or up to 400 pages, including the bills. So with that, also when you're testifying today, just ask if you can confine yourself to the two minute time as we set forth in the committee to continue allow other folks to testify as well.

So with that, our first agenda item on today's for our first measure on today's agenda is SB2694 SD2 relating to water carriers authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to establish automatic adjustment mechanisms to address economic factors as fonted on or on an application by water carrier requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish a water carrier inflationary cost index automatic adjustment mechanism, authorizes the public utility commission to waive or exempt any water carrier from any requirement under the Hawaii Water Carrier Act.

Sunset 7/01/2023, effective 07/01/2050. Please share for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

You're muted, deputy. So I can't hear you. I see your mic is off. It could be us.

Someone says they can hear it in the Zoom.

They can hear it in the Zoom? Yeah. Deputy, you wanna try again? Yeah. I still can't hear you.

Hold on. Deputy, let me come let me come back to you. Wait. Hold on. Can you try now?

Can can you hear me?

Thank you, deputy.

Here we are. Thank you. Okay.

Yay, technology.

Deputy director, community.

Thank you for hearing this bill. Department of Transportation stands in stands on its written testimony and strong support, and we're available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. DCCA, Division of Consumer Advocate Advocacy with comments.

Chair, vice chair, members, Mickey Knox for the Consumer Advocate. I just wanted to highlight one thing really quickly. In YB's last rate case, they were required to submit a business plan. A lot of that business plan is about cost control. So, respectfully, we think that they should be focusing less on automatic rate increases and more on implementing the business plan and finding cost control.

I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in support.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Agriculture and Biosecurity, we stand and I raise the testimony in support.

Hello chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Agriculture and Biosecurity we stand on, available for any questions.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of committee. Anand Samtani with Public Utilities Commission. We send out a written testimony. We're available for any questions.

Thank you. Ryu's Hawaii in support. ABC stores in opposition. AARP Hawaii with comments.

Maui Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

I'd like to speak if I may.

Yes.

Is this

Sorry. Hold on. Oh, is this

Yes. Go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We really appreciate the top opportunity to be here with you today and hope you'll read our full testimony, but wanted to make some key points. We feel this issue hasn't been well publicized. It's not on the nightly news. There has not been an extended timeframe for public testimony.

Like, we see, months prior when the PUC hearings are going to happen. So, you know, we've been working hard to make sure impacted businesses are aware of this, not only across Maui, but across the state. And we are seeing industry groups align and ringing in representing hundreds of businesses statewide and thousands of bus, um employees. Yet it's been hard to mobilize, especially in the recent storms. However, we did do, as we promised to do, at a recent meeting a survey and we are getting survey responses.

And so I wanted to share a few. On how much shipping costs affect your pricing, 35% said major impact, 40% said significant impact, meaning 75% said major or significant impacts. Only 25%, 10% moderate, and 15% said minimal. Do you support YB's ongoing rate, an ongoing rate structure with increases in bills 85.71% said no, only 14.29 said they were unsure, and need more information.

They could have also said yes, but they didn't. Do you believe automatic rate increases for YB will result in higher cost of goods for consumers across the state? 95% said yes. Do you feel ratepayers are at a disadvantage given YB's service monopoly? 85.71% said yes.

Do you feel local manufacturing will be hurt by these bills? 100% said yes. The Public Utilities Commission denied Young Brother's rate request for a water carry inflationary cost index in the 2025 approval rate increase and prohibited rate increases for two years. We support their stance. We've detailed the words of the PUC in their decision in order, number 42,100 on the approval of rate increases for Young Brothers prior to establishing any kind of automatic rate adjustment mechanism, such as a WICI.

The Commission finds that Young Brothers must first demonstrate that it is prudently operating its business. This was sort of just mentioned, including managing expenses and debt and maximizing operational efficiencies. Otherwise, the operation of a WICI may inadvertently serve to offset inefficiencies in other areas and mask shortcomings of YB's operations to the detriment of consumers who ultimately bear these higher costs. And not said by them but us pass those costs on to all Hawaii's residents.

In our testimony, we discussed the issue of the monopoly and our concerns with that. I won't go through that now. While this draft of the bill does delay automatic rate increases for two years, we are concerned that the bill will already be in place without a meaningful opportunity to make changes as residents and businesses learn more about it. Our goal is to get YB information through the survey.

Can I ask you to summarize, please?

Yes. I'll finish. I am finished. But we feel that we need to all come to the table and work on this in the next year with YB as a critical partner, hearing from the PUC and stakeholders and the customer. So mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony today.

Thank you. And for folks testifying on Zoom, if you're able to, please have your camera on and available.

I will for future

Thank you, then.

My apologies.

No worries.

Valley IO Enterprises in opposition, Local Food Coalition with comments, Hawaii Restaurant Association in opposition, Hawaii Harbor's users group in support, Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Hi. Yes.

Hi. Thank you guys for allowing me the opportunity to testify. I really appreciated the opportunity to meet with chair earlier with representatives from YB and some of our board members as well as the Maui Chamber of Commerce and a few other industry groups. I thought it was a really productive conversation. We continue to have conversations, including yesterday.

Our Director of Operations met with Young Brothers, individual who's been named for helping with some of the the customer service issues. And and we do hope that we continue to make progress on that. And and we do believe that that was the intent of the PUC's decision, in in which they explicitly, have designated somebody to review customer service issues, have a a more detailed budget plan put forward.

And with this rate rate increase that they just provide, they had offered a two year pause on rate increases so that we can see if we can make progress on some of these other key issues that we believe are driving cost at a really fast pace or a pace that that outpaces any other comparable shipping entity. And I realized there's no apples to apples comparison because there's no other inter island shipper, but that's sort of the whole point.

Our members are just deeply concerned about the cost of living. One in three people cannot afford enough food to eat. If we live in an island state, shipping is a huge cost of living piece of the puzzle. And with the recent war separate and apart from this bill, we know that the fuel surcharge charges will increase. And that is separate and apart from base rate increases, which is what we're talking about today.

So whether or not you pass this bill, consumers are already going to be hurting. If you pass this bill, it would make it even worse. We we urge you to to not pass this bill. And if you do, to please adopt the PUC's amendment. They are the regulatory agency that has all of the financial data necessary, and we believe that they should be allowed to regulate this entity.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Matson Navigation in support. Malama Hospitality in opposition. Hawaii Pilots Association in support. Maui Hotel and Lodging in support. Young Brothers in support.

Hello, my name is David Veltri. I'm Associate General Counsel for Young Brothers where I work on regulatory and legal matters. YB stands in strong support of this measure, including the implementation of interim inflationary rate adjustments, also known as WICCI, which was the Hawaii Water Carrier Working Group's top recommendation. This would start a much needed process of modernizing the regulatory framework for local water carriers.

Let me explain. So interisland water carriers like YB play a vital role in our supply chain. Their rates are regulated like a traditional public utility as a result, and that's based on essentially the the regulatory compact, which is a balancing act. I'm gonna oversimplify it for all the PUC and CA people who know all the details of this. But basically, on one hand, you've got the customers who receive a service.

And on the other hand, the utility is allowed to charge rates to cover reasonably incurred costs and a fair return on that service or to to make that service necessary. Under current regulation, these rates can only be adjusted through a complicated regulatory process known as a rate case. And these rate cases are expensive, time consuming, and often they can get really contentious for everyone involved.

And then the rate cases process is obviously designed to protect consumers, but the the practical effect is extended periods of stagnant rates while costs to provide service rise. This creates a cycle where rates and costs start drifting really far apart and under recovery starts to accumulate, financial pressures build, and large disruptive rate increases are required to catch up after years of delay.

This cycle has real consequences. Capital for reinvestment becomes really expensive and less available to the to the water carrier that's providing those services. Short term cash management starts to become prioritized, often at the expense of long term savings. And larger rate increases, of course, it means more contentious rate cases, which means more expensive rate cases, which means more costs are being passed on to customers. So Wiki is just a common sense modernization tool designed to address these challenges.

It doesn't replace or reduce regulation. It doesn't mean YV can stop working to improve. There are clear guardrails, to ex to address the exact concerns that are being raised, including a cap at 5%, and a mandatory rate review that will reset rates every third year.

David, if you can summarize, please.

Yeah. In short, annual Wiki adjustments help keep rates aligned with real costs, support sustainable operations, and keep our local supplies chain strong. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

The maritime group in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in opposition. Not present. Central Pacific Youth Athletic Club, Toughman Hawaii in support. John Lucas, Port Manager from Young Brothers in support.

Maui Brewing Company in opposition. Ashley Kishimoto from Young Brothers in support. Not present. Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Construction Industry of Maui in opposition.

Maui Printing Company in opposition, West Maui Taxpayers Association in opposition, Kone Heke Corporations with comments, Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Hawaii in opposition, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce in opposition, Big Island Motors in support. Steve Hunt, individual in support on Zoom.

Morning, chair Kila, vice chair Miyake, members of the House Committee on Transportation. I'm Steven Hunt, I'm currently serving, at the privilege of Mayor Kawakami of Kauai, but I wanted to emphasize that today's testimony I give is on behalf of myself as an individual and as a former member of the Hawaii Water Carriers Working Group, where I served as the chair for the small group on rates.

While I stand by my written testimony, I wanted to add a few key points that the objective of Wiki was to achieve something that was both for the consumer, which was to avoid these large step-ups after rate cases, so there'd be something more incremental.

And from the water carrier side, it was to ensure that, in between the cases, there wasn't always a catch up that was maybe three, four years behind their operational costs, that it was more timely, and that the the safeguard and and the rails that would still be on would be having that three year mandatory rate

case as sort of a having that three year mandatory rate case as sort of a equalizing to vet what those increases could be. There was a maximum of 5% set on that regardless of what the inflation was. I think the other thing that is very important is if this, the water carrier were operating as a free market, they wouldn't have the same route schedules that they have.

I think that's something that someone written or that people really haven't accounted for the fact that they're running three weekly routes to Maui, two to Kauai, two to Hilo, two to Kawaihae, two to Molokai, and one to Lanai each week. These aren't necessarily all profitable routes.

They're at least at the time I was on the rate committee, there were a couple profitable routes, but many were negative earners, meaning they they cost more than they generated in revenue and that they didn't necessarily have to make those based on a load volume that they were running them because it was a required run. And I get that because of the agricultural products and things that need to be moved on a timely basis so they don't rot on the docks.

But in reality, you're you're essentially the regulatory issues on these are forcing them to run a schedule that is not necessarily in sync with how a private company would be running this to have, you know, the the most profit. So that's something I wanted to emphasize. And the other thing I guess is is more of the concept of penny wise pound foolish.

Saltchuk is no longer subsidizing the water carrier YB's losses. And the if we were to lose these, they can only incur hemorrhaging cash and and negative earnings for so long. I know they're already negotiating with some of their lenders and and we're on the verge of being in default. Losing the carrier altogether would be tragic. And I think the barriers to entry given the high cost of capital

Steven, if you can summarize, please.

Sure. Just the the high cost of capital and the regulatory environment would be very difficult to attract the suitor. So I stand by that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Council member Tom Cook from Maui County in support. Council member Kalanoye Batangan, council member from Maui County in support. Two individuals in support, three in opposition, and one with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB2694 SD2?

Thank you, members. And should we have questions? So I'm gonna start with PUC, please.

Yes.

Morning. What is the history of PUC's acquisition or regulatory framework of water carriers?

I can't hear you.

What is the history for the inception of regulation of water carriers?

History?

Yes.

Yeah. We use it's it's based on the statute, the the 271G. Right?

That was enacted when?

I have to look it up. I'm not sure.

Yes.

So was the intent to treat water carriers like a public utility in the

I mean, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

What?

No. No. But what technically oversight does the PUC then treat the water carrier as a utility in that framework?

We regulate them as as, like, any public utility.

Okay. I think largely, I think one of the biggest things I've drawn concern with, I think, is setting setting forth this unobtainable expectation that if we regulate this industry, that we are also just gonna continue to be the ones to have to take the brunt for it. Right? And I'm I'm I'm not not criticizing that, but I think it, like, sets this false expectation or reality for the public that if we're gonna do this for, like, as a utility, right, they are still an independent company.

And so I don't wanna put you on the spot, but the PUC, you folks have political autonomy.

Right?

Political, I'm sorry.

Political autonomy.

Yeah. Yes.

Yeah. In the sense where nobody from the

We're supposed to be quasi judicial.

Right. So nobody from the executive branch ever interferes or tells you when or when not to hear cases?

Well, the the the commissioners make decision. Yeah. I don't know. I mean I mean, they take all the information that the staff and stakeholders put together in the record records. So the decision is based on what is in the record.

Would you be able to comment on why there was such a delay for hearing or opening the rate case? Because this was opened twice. Right?

Right. I think what happened is that they actually asked for an emergency rate increase.

Right. Right. Right.

Yeah. So we we granted that within a short period of time. You know? And we need to look at it, and then we actually gave them an 18% increase for the the temporary rate increase. And then we went into the the actual rate case, which was a few months later, which we offered it. We rendered a decision in December.

But the docket was left open for the whole time for a decision. Was it several months?

Well, when we first, we had an old one. Right? The old old one that was concluded. Right? The 0117 docket that was included.

And then we opened this docket, and it was suspended because I think this it just said that we had the Wiki and we wanted to we weren't sure.

The proposed Wiki. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. The proposed Wiki in, it was actually part of the rate case at that time. I mean, it was actually a separate, and then we decided to include that in the rate case in in terms of making a decision.

The proposed Wiki.

Do you folks have administrative rule authority to adopt the wiki?

So that's one question we we're still kind of looking into right now. That's why we wanted some some clarity from the ledge on that. Okay. Yeah. I mean, in terms of, like, what we have authority to establish the wiki.

Now, we that that's why we said in doing rate case, we can, you know, change the rates at that time. But going back to the reason, in terms of the wiki itself, we we're not against or for it, you know. We just wanna make sure they're they established history of financial stability before you, you know, implement it.

I've I've talked to a few attorneys on our side and some say that, you know, it it's possible that we could actually open a new proceeding just for the wiki. You know, so that's one thought, one possibility.

But first, we wanna make sure they establish that that financial stability, the history, right? And, like, CA mentioned earlier that, we have, we just recently actually, approved the rate increase, right, 25.75 increase in December, and it's forward looking, right, in terms of how, the business is moving forward. In addition, we're gonna we have the updated business plan from Young Brothers, which includes cost, they're looking at cost of revenue, everything, LCL, cargo, which is the

Can you tell everyone else what LCL is?

The the cargo that actually has to, you know, actually containerized, you know, that they actually put inside the containers. So it's actually individually stacked. Why we can talk more about that? But that's one of the top cost. It's more labor intensive, I think that's why.

Where it versus containers which are already packed. Right? So that's why it takes more more time and effort on that part. So more labor intensive, I would say. So that's one thing they're looking to in terms of efficiencies, in in the business plan.

And then on top of the business plan, we have a special observer that's gonna, at which we we actually did an RP for that. And we're hopefully gonna have that, special observer in place by July or soon. And that person would make sure they monitor the implementation of the updated business plan.

Do any other of the utilities have independent

In the observer.

Yeah. We have we have multiple I mean, could you give an example for the community based regulation community based renewable energy docket? We have an IO for that.

Oh, the utilities, oh yeah. Well, I mean, in the in

For the IGP, the integrated grid planning, we have an IO, independent observe, and an IE, independent engineer, too as well. Yeah.

For the future plan?

For future planning. Yeah.

Okay. And And then, I'll I'll hold. Does anybody have a question for POC? Rep Cochran.

Thank you. Good morning. So I see you have neither gone for or against, you submitted comments. Right? So, I'm noticing, first off, that you're changing the shells to maize

And so I, did you hear miss Tumpap's testimony from Maui Chamber of Commerce? Are you familiar with what she was speaking towards about at all?

Correct.

Correct.

To give you the opportunity of flexibility.

For the consumer, that big cost on consumers.

Well, that no. Besides that, but that currently, you already have a prohibition on a two year rate increase currently as we sit here.

So the order itself says a 22 year stay out period. But then if the why we can still come to us if for some you know, if you have an emergency for any reason, they can come to us for, and and request a rating increase. But for the the period for tier period, we told them to stay out period.

Right. But so I think the other point to that, through miss Tumpap was that this bill undermines that. Just prohibition that you've already implemented.

Right.

Right? I mean, are you agreeing to an agreement with that?

Yeah, I mean, we would prefer to have that in place, you know, that two year, sale. Yeah.

You prefer to have it currently as is.

Right. Exactly. But we put in the order, basically. Yeah.

Right.

Yes.

Okay. I just wanted some, clarity on that.

And that's what we had the May. Right? So it gives us the option.

Thank you.

Yes. And I mean, that's okay. That's well, I just wanted clarification on that.

Okay.

Members, any other questions for PUC?

Not for PUC.

Could I, thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Could I ask YB?

Morning.

Morning.

Can you share with the committee what LCL was that was just discussed?

What is LCL? LCL stands for Less than Container Load. So to give you some additional information about that, I guess prior to 1970, the shipping industry was less containerized than it is today and progressively has become more containerized. So excuse me. So, basically, LCL is things like, that are not in containers.

It's less than container load. So it's things that are on pallets. It could also mean just loose items that are placed into containers. So Young Brothers serves less than container load shipments and and that is a that is something that's unique or maybe not unique, but very unusual in 2026 as far as shipping companies go. We serve less than container load, whereas most shipping companies serve primarily just containers.

It it makes loading very efficient because you're only loading one container type. You can use the same type of loading equipment to load all pieces of cargo that are coming into your facility. Just to explain that.

Okay. And for inter island cargo, you folks from your inception have been regulated by PUC?

Since I don't believe that's true because Young Brothers was founded in 1900, and I don't think that the regulation began until, I think 1917.

Okay. Yeah. And then when you folks are doing the inner island cargo, do you folks subsidize any inner island cargo?

It's internally subsidized. So the way that it works, let me explain internal subsidization. So Young Brothers is, you know, as a regulated utility there's certain services that we're required to provide and those services and all

Set forth by PUC?

Well, Young Brothers sets them forth and then the PUC approves them or denies them. And if there's any changes to those services or routes, then we need to go seek PUC approval for that as well.

So you have a certain number of sailings to certain number of ports and a certain number of commodity types including LCL that need to be served. And all of that's, enshrined in our tariff, which the PUC approves or denies. And any changes to that tariff have to be approved, by the Public Utilities Commission with the consumer advocates input as well.

So where cross subsidization fits into all of this is you like, like Steven Hunt was saying, there's certain routes and certain services that are not generating enough revenue to cover the cost that it takes to serve them. And so when you have these more profitable routes, you take some of the additional revenues that you're earning from those more profitable routes, and you use those revenues, sort of subsidized these services and nonprofitable routes to continue to make sure that universal service is still possible.

And that's just what it means to be a regulated transportation.

So what service is subsidized?

So the nonprofitable services, right now, I'm not the expert on this and maybe Ashley Kishimoto, our Director of Finance can double check me here, but it's basically LCL services. Some of the smaller ports like Molokai and Lanai, some of the more remote ports like Hilo, those things cost more money to serve than the revenue that's currently being generated.

But that fluctuates over time and with certain, you know, economic events or something like, for example, if there's a major construction project happening in one location, then all of a sudden, there's a lot more volume going to that locationand that can change the economics of it.

Ashley, you have something.

So, LCL, we've

Can you introduce yourself quickly?

I'm Ashley Kishimoto, Director of Finance. Thank you for having us today. So LCL, we've said publicly has lost us over $25,000,000 in a year to just provide that service. It has a lot of touch points because we are packing containers. So containers aren't just showing up for us that we just put on the barge.

People are bringing individual pieces that then we are stacking and putting into a container. So we are acting as also a freight forwarder, not just moving the goods on ships. We are packing those goods. We ship freights of all kinds according to our tariff, and so that allows us anybody to bring up. You could bring up your lamp to ship.

You could bring up a

Giraffe.

A washer, dryer, and we're shipping those and packaging them. Or if I'm a farmer in Hilo, I could be bringing, you know, my crop of bananas, but I can't have enough to fill up my entire container. So I'm bringing out putting it on a pallet and that's getting loaded onto a barge.

So you guys are subsidizing crops pretty much?

Not just crops. I think we're sorry. Go ahead.

With subsidizing crops? Probably. We do have an agricultural discount for the shipping of locally grown produce. It's 30% to 35% depending on whether it's LCL, 30%, or container load, 35%. We're trying to incentivize people to use containers because it's, you know, more cost effective and it's just more efficient. So in that sense, that discount is cross subsidized. Yes.

But I mean, we're not yeah. So, yes, we're

I think we wanna try and figure out, right? so if you're subsidizing this industry, it's off the back of your other customers. You don't even have to say it like that. Right? But you're subsidizing somewhere.

Yeah. That's what cross subsidization is. Yes.

But that was put forth because of the PUC or that was a good faith effort by YB?

These are policy decisions that have to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission. If you look in statute, there's actually a specific statute that enables the PUC to make policy decisions to give prep what they call preferential rates for agricultural customers.

And I think that's the basis for the agricultural discount that the PUC approved.

Is that correct? Okay. Because I like, we don't subsidize. So if we didn't have to subsidize, would we be in this situation? We're having this discussion.

That's speculative, but I think it's a large part of the problem. I think it's a big because

I think, like, I would argue we don't I would I'm not against agriculture. Right? But I'm like, there are other things like medical equipment, construction supplies that I think also subsidization would play into final cost. So I'm just trying to figure out where else we can look at. So

Right? See if we're

Having this conversation.

Yeah. We definitely you know, we support the ag industry. It's like, a huge part of our business.

Well, I don't want you to say that you don't, of course.

But, yes, there's the rates are being subsidized. Right now, those subsidies are internal. It'd be great if they could be externalized, like through general some sort of general funding source, but I understand that those types of measures

Yeah. I mean there was legislation proposed this year, but my grave concern was like, we subsidized one industry that I'd said every industry should spend the table for discussion. That's not your position to say anything, but I think that's my concern. Right? We wouldn't subsidize this, and I don't I think we should subsidize other things or we don't. Right?

I think that's what I'm just trying to figure out where all of that. Thank you, David. Thank you, Kim. Does anybody have other questions for you, Dave?

Sure.

A rep operator.

I'm sorry. Did were you

No. No. Go ahead.

Hi. Thank you folks for being here. So I guess, a bigger general question. You're, aware of the other HB. There's HB and SB quite similar in this context.

Do you prefer one over the other?

I think the differences between them are I think that we should be having the discussion about the differences between those two bills. I do think that kind of the overarching concern of establishing financial stability is our primary objective. I think both of them would accomplish that. And if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to address a question that you brought up earlier through the the Maui Chamber of Commerce's testimony.

Yeah. So there was a quote that was read from the test from the PUC's order speaking about why they were denying wiki.

Sure.

And I think Anand from the Public Utilities Commission kind of clarified something that I would like to just sort of emphasize, which is that part of the order that was not quoted, which was the following sentence, says, should YB return to a state of financial stability, the commission and the commission develops confidence in YB's ability to reasonably control its cost, it may revisit whether a Wiki is appropriate at that time. So like the PUC was saying earlier, they're not necessarily opposed to Wiki.

And I mean, I certainly I think company certainly agrees that there's operational improvements and efficiencies that need to be made, and we are working on them right now.

And I think everyone agrees that there's financial instability that's causing a lot of problems for everybody. I think where the disagreement is happening is whether we can continue delaying this the implementation of a tool to establish financial stability until financial stability has been established without it.

It just seems like right now we're in a situation where we need to pull all of the levers. We need to do internal efficiency improvement and we need to do an updated regulatory structure. That's just where we're at.

Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up to go through the same cycle that we've all just been through twice.

Follow-up, Chair?

Yes, please.

And thank you for that insight. And I think all businesses have to weigh all those things you just mentioned. So this auto adjustment allows you to do rate changes in between the rate cases. Right? So this is like there's rate cases going through you know the process but in between while that's being held or whatever not progressing you folks, this bill will allow you to just go ahead and wake up and you know, adjust your rates.

Not exactly. So the way that the bill is, the way that the mechanism was designed by the water carrier working group, it's on a three year cycle. So there will be one automatic rate increase in year one, and that would be tied to Wharfage capped at 5%. And then in year two, there would be one automatic inflation increase tied to Wharfage capped at 5%. And then in year three, there would be a rate case.

And a rate case does not always mean that prices are going to go up. If we're if we're being pulled in by the Public Utilities Commission to do a rate case, they're just reviewing our entire rate structure top to bottom, building it up from the ground up. And they can say, hey. Those automatic rate increases that you had in years one and two, they've made your rate structure over you're over earning under the rate structure now, and it needs to be knocked back down.

So the mandatory aspect of that third year rate case, it cuts both ways.

And it's that's why it's a guardrail. It's not just another opportunity to add more rates. It could also be an opportunity for the PUC to cut us back down to where they think we should be. That's why it was designed this way by the water carrier working group. It's an attempt to provide stability in the interim while also offering the opportunity for the more frequent opportunities for the PUC to basically reset our rates to levels where they should be.

Okay. And then sorry, chair, if you don't mind.

Okay. I understand that. But I guess people some testimonies I've been deciphering or claiming that this will reduce public participation and scrutiny, you know, in between because you folks have this now automatic, you know, increase.

They I mean, I think I'm not sure what that means because we'd be required to go into the rate in for a rate case every three years, which currently we're not required to go in for every three years. So there'd be more frequent opportunities for review of Young Brothers rates than what currently happens today.

The idea is that if you do this more frequently and more regularly, then the rate cases themselves become hopefully much less contentious because there's much less rate increases that are gonna be needed if you haven't basically had 0% in year 1, 0% in year two leading up to the catch up rate key case in year three.

And last, sorry, to verify with me. Yeah. Currently, PUC granted you 25.75% increase, and that's an effect just started in January.

Yes.

Is that right? And so are you anticipating through this via this bill to increase even more? Because wouldn't this give you that opportunity now?

I think that's exactly what the bill is designed to do. It's designed to prevent these large double digit rate increases like the 25.75% rate increase by allowing us to do spreading them out more. You know, year one and year two, we're gonna take an increase that cannot possibly be more than 5%.

And then by the time you get to year three in that rate case, if the economics justify it, they're gonna the rates are gonna be based on the PUC's review and the CA's review as well. That's it's just gonna be built from the ground up based on our application.

It's full review. That and we're trying to avoid these large rate increases in the future. That's the point.

Alright. Well, thank you for your time and explanations. Thank you, Chair.

Sure.

Okay. Yes. Thank you, Rep. Cochran.

Thank you, David. In HFIA's testimony, you you spoke about Wharfage fees earlier. In their testimony, they said that, Wharfage rates do not accurately reflect the operational cost of interisland water carriers and shall not be used as a primary driver of rate adjustment. Why is the Wharfage fee a good index?

So when this when the water carrier working group originally was conceiving of this mechanism, the wiki mechanism, they wanted to do an inflationary increase. You have national metrics you can choose from like CPI or GDPPI. There's, of course, way more specific ones that you could pick as well. And we basically decided that in this iteration of the bill that Wharfage would be preferable to one of these national indexes.

And the reason is because it's an existing maritime specific, state specific, regulatory approach that's already used. And it's I mean, by virtue of that alone, it's more specifically applicable to to what Young Brothers is doing. It's our customers, every time that they pay a bill, they already pay Wharfage. So they're used to seeing Wharfage as a line item. It's essentially like a tax.

And the policy behind Wharfage is that, just the maritime industry, whether it's the actual vessels that are shipping or the or the the docks that support those vessels, the docks and harbors and commercial ports that support those vessels. It's very capital intensive as you can imagine. You're right by the ocean. There's a lot of salt water. There's a lot of heavy machinery.

And so it's just it creates a situation where you need to have something that accounts for the capital intensive nature of the industry. And Wharfage does that for the State Department of Transportation Harbors Division, and we think that's directly applicable to to us as well. And essentially, what it is, just sorry to break it back out. Bring it back to the original intent. We need something that's tied to inflation to account for inflationary costs, which are real.

Inflation is real. And this was the most specific targeted thing we could find that accounts for that.

One more question.

So the PUC denied it. Right? Yep. But why should we even do Wiki if that's the case?

The PUC denied it. The PUC I think it just goes back to what I was telling Rep Cochran, which is that the PUC is asking us to return to a state of financial stability before we before they allow us to have a tool to establish financial stability. What we're asking the PUC to do and what I guess what we're asking the legislature to do is to give us the tool that's necessary to establish financial stability.

Because at this point, given the level of financial deterioration, we need to use all the tools available to us, not just internal cost cuts. That's super important.

We have to do that. We have a business plan. The PUC is monitoring us closely on that. They've installed a special overseer to help that progress along. But on top of that, we also don't wanna end up in another cycle again that leads to another large rate increase where we're having a contentious rate increase and everybody's angry and it's very expensive to get through.

It's just not it's just gonna continue to repeat the same cycle that we've been through twice now. So

I appreciate that. Thank you for your response.

Sure.

Thank you, chair.

Members, any other questions for YB?

Yes. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. It's hide in writing. Go ahead.

Oh, Rep. Cochran.

Oh, man. Thank you. And so I just had a I mean, we all wanna make more money. But are you also looking at ways for businesses and consumers to save?

Yes.

And so I think the one in this version of the bill is to exempt the auto adjustments for agriculture, you know, agriculture people, which I think, Chair Kila brought up. So, yeah, I just was wondering where

Well.

Instead of just looking at increasing, increasing, increasing, spreading out the big the wide load in small incremental

I think

portions with savings. Perhaps there is.

Ashley, do you wanna take a stab at this?

budget person?

Okay. Well, yeah, I think right now, we're trying to establish financial stability. And I understand that in the short term, we're talking about small rate increases, more frequent rate increases.

But that to me, that actually ends up saving money in the long term because you don't have to well, for one, you don't have to spend so much doing a contentious expensive rate case, that it's gonna I think our last rate case cost $3,000,000.

And you also don't do things that end up costing the company more money like deferring vendor payments, deferring maintenance that could result in a more catastrophic failure in the future that could cost you more because now you're financially stable.

Now you don't have to pinch pennies and defer maintenance and avoid paying vendors and taking on those fees. Your cost of debt will also go down because now you'll your lenders will have more confidence in your ability to service that debt and they won't charge you as high interest rates for it. So there's a lot of reasons why being more financially stable actually does save money for customers.

But on top of that, we're also working to become more operationally official and more operationally efficient and lower costs overall. We are working on that, and we are being closely monitored on our ability to do that by both the PUC, the special overseer, and the consumer advocate. So we're being closely monitored on all of these efforts. And so I think that's the answer to to how we're trying to help save money.

Well, thank you again for your explanations. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Rep. Cochran. Okay. Members, any other questions?

Rep. Kitagawa.

And I guess I'll ask it to oh, not to

Thank you, guys.

Sorry. Thank you. Maybe I'll ask it to Maui Chamber if you're still on.

Maui Chamber.

Yes. I'm still here.

Thank you.

Okay. Great.

Thanks, Pamela. I thought, maybe I'd ask you because you're one of the people who spoke about being in opposition to this bill. And having listened to the testimony as well as the question and answer, I guess my question is, if the water carrier or YB is unable to meet, you know, their debt obligations, pay for their expenses, they no longer are in operation, they go under.

Are you aware of any like, regulatory mechanisms or other carriers who would be able to continue service to the neighbor island? And I think that was also brought up by Mister Hunt that there's that, you know, concern in that he shared in his testimony.

And just thinking about it, what are what's the other option for the neighbor islands?

Thank you for the question. And this is something that has come up, in the it'll be, 20 years this April that I've been with the chamber. We've long heard of the same concerns about, you know, YB subsidizes these services and what happens if YB couldn't subsidize the services. And first, I'll share something that hit me the other day because when we had this small meeting the other day, the issue of a monopoly wasn't our top concern.

Really, our top concern was our members and the concerns over the rates and how this was done.

But the and having transparency in the process for them to ring in. But as we were discussing the monopoly issue and we, the President was there of YB, And, you know, they talk about the subsidy and they talk about how it's a loss leader. And so we asked, well, if we got rid of the language in the law that so, you know, which makes it a monopoly.

Well, but they don't agree that there's a monopoly, but many of us do and feel that there could be some minor tweaks to the language of the law that would take them out of the monopoly because they also say, well, nobody else would do it. So, there were some discussions, and there are some people who say that, you know, yes, on this issue of the cost to do these larger boats that are coming in with less than container loads, so not fully loaded.

There are other boats in other areas that could be smaller boats and navigated within the neighbor islands. Are we concerned that if YB can't do it, is that gonna be a problem? And, of course, it would be a problem if we don't have any backup carriers. So I know some said they would reach out to other carriers in the state to see if they could do that. I've had a conversation.

I thought it was interesting that YB mentioned today that some people are shipping on their carrier things like, washers and dryers and lamps and small items. There are people who could do that and expedition who also coincidentally falls under this water carrier service could look at doing things like that that could go on their smaller ferry. Not obviously bigger things like containers, but they're they could do some of that.

That doesn't mean they're, they're willing to say yes today that they, you know, there's have would have to be some exploration. But currently, the way the law is written is also concerning if you think about it in another thing that came to me the other day after that meeting.

Right now, YB has put the PUC and this legislature on notice that they're subsidizing this. And so to your point in your question, if they went suddenly said one day that they can't. Right? The law currently prohibits somebody else for coming in.

Which would mean that even if there was an emergency proclamation, we wouldn't have anybody ready because why would any other business start pursuing taking on a service like this or even exploring it when the law currently prohibits them from doing so?

Okay.

And so I think that's something that has to be considered, and it has to be considered in the overall sustainability picture we're looking at.

Okay. Great. Thanks for that answer.

Thank you.

I have a question

Rep. Miyake.

Since Pam is on. Hi, Pam. I know we had a lot of robust discussions about Wiki. And I know like, based on your testimony that the automatic adjustment mechanisms are problematic. What alternative process do you recommend for us or for YB or water carriers to address the inflation increases?

So thank you, Tyson, for the question. And, you know and again, in our conversations, you know, if you and again, I have not put together financial statistics. I don't have the the bandwidth right now, both in in terms of our capacity with many other things that we're dealing with to analyze all of the data. Others have and we're taking a look at that and you know, there's criticisms on both sides.

So I will say this, you know, the big challenge that we have with this bill is, you know, I think your philosophy was, and I understand and heard that, right, that if we were looking at 5% and we were looking at that in year one and year two, you were trying to stabilize and others in this process.

We're looking at how to try and stabilize both the company as well as what ratepayers would be hit with. Right? So that we were trying to avoid these big large rate increases. So couple of things. One is that on we believe in what the PUC is trying to do, which is understand and regulate this industry really looking at these rate increases and say, you know, we keep doing these big hits.

We need to not be doing these big hits, but we also need to better understand YB's operations and fully have a report. In the meeting I was in, it was very clear that that report was not gonna come to you in time for this legislative session.

And also, even when the PUC finishes the report, we learned that because, you know, the nature of the data some of it, which is proprietary, YB would then have an opportunity to review that report and would have to have the opportunity to, quote, sanitize it. That's my term. To make sure that no competitive information or proprietary information was released because once it goes to the legislature, you know, it's gonna be out in the public.

So we're a ways away from that. So we feel that this is just moving too fast. But what we do feel is the bigger issue was the capping at 5% over year one and year two, if they couldn't then just go back and get a big rate adjustment in year three, right? that while they got some money, you know, over two years and then go back in for a rate adjustment is highly concerning. So to have that open ended is highly concerning.

Number two, to the point of the gentleman who served on that committee, and to the gentleman from YB who spoke to it, they said, well, you could go back in year three, and you might not see a big increase.

In fact, they could say that you don't you know, you the increase isn't warranted because, you know, maybe you haven't made the strides in economic efficiencies and other things that you could do. So but then if they said, well, we already gave you too much in year one and year two, which conceivably could be up to 10%. It could also be less. How do we get the money back if we feel that they shouldn't have even gotten 10%?

This doesn't give us a mechanism to retrieve money either if we then feel that, even the adjustments along the way you know, did not equal out equalize out at the end.

So, I again, we feel that we need to take some time to really look at this comprehensively, bring the partners together. And by that, I mean, lawmakers, YB, ratepayers, you know, Department of Transportation, the PUC, and say, and I think that's what the PUC was saying. And again, yes, I would agree there are, there was more context to that, but the context was not now. Because we still don't have it, and we still don't have that report.

And we think that, quite frankly, to really look at comprehensive solutions, we should be we should all be looking at that report and bringing everybody together.

And in the past, there were opportunities where YB came to our membership and educated us before they went for a rate increase, and that hasn't happened of late. So, yes, you're seeing a lot of concerns, and you're seeing a lot of industry concerns. These are our concerns. And we did offer to do a free survey to help them better understand concerns.

And I think we'll have more data later, but in the interim as quickly as this is moving, we're just highly concerned that we're not going to be able to pull it all together.

But, I guess my solutions would be to say, look at systems where we can get more information. I don't know if there's any way to expedite that report. I know the PUC has a lot on their hands, but we feel more information is absolutely needed. And then we need to look at that year three. And what considerations can be done and if, for example, they ended up getting more and then it was not warranted, then how do we get that back?

And we do feel that there are solutions to again, another solution is taking out the monopoly language. So while YB says nobody else would would bid on it, then there shouldn't be any fear of taking out that language because they can still provide the services as they wish to do. See if there is any competitive bids, see if there's other solutions with smaller boats going in between the islands.

On some of the services where they get more paid for the bigger lucrative services where we're talking about bigger items that require those types of containers and their barges. But it's a lot to take in, and it's a short period of time.

So I can't come with any concrete thing because I feel like we need to give discussions.

Can I follow-up here? Please.

And thank you. I know it's a long discussion on the first agenda, but Pam, to just to answer some of your questions, the tiered, the two years, alright, the mandatory that rate case, in year three, it would require the PUC to do a full rate review, and that's the guardrail that is in place. So based off of the first two years, the full route review will be on the third year one.

We understand that.

And I know you spoke about the smaller boats expeditions. In his testimony, he stated that he only had two fare increases in 36 years. But, also, when I served on the county as Chief of Staff, he was subsidized during COVID for just to keep running his Lanai, Lahaina Lanai ferry. So that subsidy is not stated in here, but I know of that. Right?

And this is not a subsidy for, YB. So, I mean, if expeditions is willing to go to Kauai High, Kauai, Lanai, yeah, Hilo, then we can have that discussion, but that's a passenger ferry. Right? So it's not a a barge ferry. And, yes, like, I know stated in YB's testimony, the lamb, the bananas, and stuff.

Maybe he can carry that. But it is not apples to apples of water carriers. So, I just wanted to state that. But you

Well, if I could if I could respond to that point, Tyson. So well, two points. And then I'm happy to go on. When I was talking about small well, one, I agree with you. No.

Expeditions could not carry bigger things. The ferries I was talking about with smaller boats was not expeditions. Expeditions could carry those things that YB mentioned like a washer and dryer and a lamp. There are, in discussions we've had with other areas, there are smaller boats that could be deployed that are not yet deployed to go between the islands. I'm just saying there's other solutions and we don't I'm not saying we have somebody lined up to do any other solutions.

I'm saying we're just trying to identify what alternatives we could have. And in terms of when YB goes for a full rate increase, you know, again every time we see this rate increase and they mention it's contentious. And part of the reason it's contentious, yes, is the multi year issue. But another reason it's contentious is because we're always under the threat that what happens is the service goes out.

And so we're always under the threat of we have to look at what they need and how to adjust the rates to move up.

And I we rarely there is some movement and, yes, we feel the PUC is the right person to do it. But when we get to these, other rate increases, given what historically we have seen. And I know the Wiki is trying to address that, but. The public, you know, still has great concerns. And, again, we have great concerns because we don't have this report.

And if we're talking about, you know, transparency and belief in the system, then we need to see the facts that will help people believe that maybe there should be less concern in year three given the PUC's oversight. But showcase what the PUC's oversight has been and what they're trying to do, and that's not well understood at this point.

So Pam, how does your members address inflation? And would they prefer, like, smaller step increases, what Wiki is, trying to do? Or are they or do they prefer 0% of like, status quo, what I asked you? And I you've been serving for twenty years, you said. So, I mean stay, status quo 0% across the board, and then roll the dice and PUC will say 25.75%.

Like, would your members prefer the most predictable rate capped at 5%, so no more than 5%, or stay how we are right now and nothing at 25.75%? And this is just over time, not it could be more, it could be less. Right? So would your members

I mean, we've had this coming Would

Would your members prefer?

Tyson, it's not that simple. I mean, obviously, you know that, in terms of the concerns, right, they have come from big jumps. Right? So it's big been big jumps, and that is a part of the equation. But it is a broader issue.

And, as I shared with you earlier on, we are doing a survey, which includes our members and others from across the state. And, I could go over those numbers if you wish. And and we will be updating the survey. We just launched it last Friday. So you know, the numbers will be increasing and the partnerships are increasing.

But I think again, as as President Steen said himself in a news report that. One of the key mechanisms in this is he said the first thing he would do, first and foremost, top priority was to work with his trusted and dedicated employees. Second priority was to meet with his ratepayers and customers. We are at a point where we need to have discussions with the ratepayers and customers. And we don't have that broad data.

We're trying to get it as quickly as possible to help influence this process. I don't know that we will in that timeframe. And we'd like to see the PUC report. It's a broader issue, and we have to discuss it. But you know, definitely do the rate payers not wanna keep seeing huge jumps that would be accurate.

But to say is that one or the other right now when there's other issues coming to the table on complaints, fear, retaliation, damage, and claims. Have you

Would you be able to would you be willing to put that question in? Would you would you prefer smaller predictable increases or a large increase every few years as one of the survey questions?

And we do have, I will take that back and take a look at that. We are, yes. We are happy to share the survey data Okay. Once we get the survey concluded, and I will look at that question.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for the robust discussion. Quite frankly, I'm just at the point where it's like, maybe no oversight is better than oversight. Because off the record discussions, every cargo carrier left at the PUC regulatory framework and that is why nobody else wants to do it.

So whether we obliterate the subsidies, so nobody gets subsidized, have a crack at it, have fun, no oversight, have crack have a crack at it, have fun, or once sent to the market. But quite frankly, the cargo carriers that exist, there's a reason why they're not doing inter island cargo because they don't want the oversight. And so whether we move to a future of no oversight, obliterating the subsidy, obviously, we're still having the robust discussion.

So thank you guys so much of where we are at now. Moving on to the next agenda item as we continue talking about oversight.

SB 2400, SD 1, related to transportation. Exempts persons operating wing in ground craft from the application of the Hawaii Water Carrier Act. Defines wing in ground aircraft. Vice Chair for testimony.

Public Utilities Commission with comments. Jon, Chair. Oh.

No. No. It's fine. Sorry. Sorry. Vice Chair, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Andrew Okabe. I'm a, I'm an engineer at the commission. I'm here on behalf of Chair Itomura and the commission. Available for questions committee may have. Only offering comment on SB 2400.

Thank you. Aero X Ventures in support. IBEW Local Union 1186 in support. Hawaii Technology Development Corporation in support. Not present.

Yeah. David Molinaro with HTDC. We stand on our testimony.

Sorry. Thank you, David. REGENT Craft in support. Hi. Go ahead.

Hi. I'll be showing just a a quick video to help everyone in in the room understand REGENT's technology just a bit better. My name is Cedric Hughes.

Wait. Hold on. Before you go forward, I do want to acknowledge I had previously told them, because we deferred the previous measure, I had shared that I would allow them to play this video so the committee has context of what is being proposed. Because I think that was one of the concerns the last time. So just for your testimony, could you just please play the video, and then I would try to confine the time. So thank you.

Of course. Thank you.

Continue.

Okay. I just sent a request to be able to share.

Can you allow him? Thank you.

Just let me get the the audio a bit. This is a three piece step in our test campaign, moving from the hull to the foil. So sea gliders float, foil, and fly. This hydrofoiling mode is the key differentiation between a sea glider and everything that's taken off from the water in the past.

As we come up to sea here, you can see it coming out of the water on those hydrofoils. They're automatically controlled, monitoring the water, and making minute adjustments to stay perfectly locked and stable as we're five feet in the air.

Watching the sea glider foil, you get this amazing visceral sense of exactly how efficient it is. You can't really tell because we're on a boat now and our engine's pretty loud. But with the sea glider, you cannot hear it at all. We have these extremely efficient electric motors. You can also look at the sea glider and see behind it from those foils, there is no wake.

The big challenge with seaplanes or flying boats or even wing in ground crafts in the past is that they use normal hulls. See how hard our test boats are working. This is how conventional hulls work. They're pushing the water out of the way, skipping over the surface.

All of that means inefficiency. A sea glider is different. Sea glider uses its hydrofoils to get up to speed, so it's keeping this very efficient state to get that speed required for takeoff. And so a sea glider is really the definition of how to be an incredibly efficient vehicle.

That means speed, that means range, that means payload, and very importantly, that means efficiency enough to use our battery systems. Safety is the name of the game in our test campaign, and we have to make sure our each step moving up to flight is incredibly safe and well tested.

So what we're doing right now in the hydrofoil campaign, we're starting off with these relatively slow speeds, 20 miles an hour or so, and then we're building our way up to closer to 50 miles an hour when we'll take off later this summer. Watch as it comes down into the water exactly how smooth that is.

You can see the waves coming up on the bow and being shed as it enters the water. That's how a sea glider will work as we're landing. That hull comes down, cuts through those waves, sheds that wave energy, and so onboard is extremely comfortable.

Thank you. That was kinda helpful. Now I can kinda see what you guys are trying to accomplish. Okay. If you can provide your quick testimony.

I believe my colleagues have previously submitted testimony, and I'll just be standing on that.

Thank you.

The Maritime Group in support. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support. Energy Justice in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chairs, and Members. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Mike Ewall, Executive Director of Energy Justice Network and Co-Chair of Environmental Policy of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. We enthusiastically support Senate Bill 2400.

It is a refreshing and clean alternative to the many burnable fuels that are being promoted for aviation fuel, none of which are clean or carbon free. Electrifying transportation is the only way to truly meet the greenhouse gas reduction mandates in the Navahine settlement and in state law.

And the HDOT draft energy security and waste reduction plan would have the state move to expensive and differently harmful biofuels and waste based fuels before transitioning a second time in less than 20 years to electrification. So supporting this and going directly to electrification will save a lot of money for taxpayers and consumers without building up a harmful industry in between that will lobby against that second transition. Mahalo.

Thank you. HCDA in support.

Morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, and Members of the Committee. Craig Nakamoto with the with HCDA. We're supportive of this measure for the potential that wing in ground vessels mean for the state and for our communities that it eventually will serve. For HCDA, we're looking forward to the potential that wing in ground vessels could be ported or terminal at the Kewalo Basin Harbor. Thank you.

HMSA in support. Hawaiian Council in support. Kamehameha Schools in support. David Uchiyama, individual in support on Zoom.

Chair, Vice Chair. Strongly support this. It's been an effort that I've helped with since 2001 in going out to the communities and going out to the different organizations like the Hawaii Canoe Racing Association, OHCRA, KUA, which oversees the fishponds and fishing grounds surrounding the islands. We've touched all the environmental groups, and we continue to reach out to the communities. So very strong support for this measure. Thank you.

We also received two testimony in support from individuals, three in opposition, and one with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB 2400, SD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. PUC, I have a question. Okay. So what they are trying to accomplish is, or so we don't have set forth what a wing in ground aircraft is? Or we do? So the proposed legislation is setting up a new definition. Right?

It what's up with the definition, I believe, in the context of water carrier wings, I think. Yep. In 271 G6. Alright. 271 G... 271 G5. Okay. Yeah. So what it would do that that we don't currently have that definition in the statute.

So if we say we're inclined to exempt them from the operation of regulation as it relates to passengers, but still subject to cargo regulation. Is that possible? Do they need either or they need all? I think what I'm trying to figure out is that if I exempt them or if they're proposed to be exempt from oversight of passenger carrier. And let me just add context, not for safety, just for regulation. But they're still subject to regulation with the cargo. Is that possible?

You know, I don't know the answered this one. I would have to double check. I need a few, maybe 24 hours to get back to you. I will note that, you know, our some of our utilities do run unregulated operations and regulated operations. So subject check, perhaps, if you did somehow say, hey, passenger carrier side is unregulated, potentially, it could work that way. I don't want to say yes because, again, you know, I haven't heard of this kind of setup where we have officially, yeah. Well, I have to double check. So I'll take the back as an action item.

Please. Thank you. Because I think that's what I'm more inclined to discuss or discover. So thank you. You're good. Anybody else have questions for PUC? I have a question for REGENT Air Craft. So would you, is your intent to want to have full autonomy for the movement of passengers and cargo, or you would rather just have the passenger part and subject to cargo regulation?

Yeah. So that's a fair question. In the current submission of the bill, we're looking for a full exemption.

Right. Okay. So if you were to be, what kind of cargo can you actually move towards something that size?

Good question. So the the vessel has a payload of around 3,500 pounds. So whether that's being used for essential medical transportation, fresh food and produce, that would be up to the operator. We're just the original equipment manufacturer.

Okay. The 3,500 pounds is not gonna accomplish much. But are you, for context, you guys are testing a larger aircraft potentially, or you folks are drafting that?

Down the line, yes. But for the immediate focus, it's that...

12 passengers, is that? Okay. Do you guys understand how big some Hawaiian people are? 3,500 will be real quick. You can laugh. It's okay. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you just adding more context. I know previously in this committee, we deferred the other measure, and I've had to learn. I've learned more, and I think the committee has also learned a little bit more. So thank you for that. Members, any further questions for REGENT? Rep Cochran.

Sure. Hi. Good morning. Thank you for being here. So this is sort of a pilot kind of prototype concept. Right? Is it already in full bore being used elsewhere in the nation or world?

Good question. So the status of the vessel, we're still in the prototyping phase. So REGENT is conducting its full scale prototype testing in Rhode Island currently. There are no active deliveries anywhere in the world.

Okay. Thank you. A follow-up, Chair? And so Rhode Island, your ocean conditions, your currents, your winds, your, you know, waves, does it compare to Hawaii?

It's a good question. No. Of course, there's differences in the winds, the waves, all of those those conditions that would impact operation. That's why, in each of the markets that we could go into, we conduct feasibility studies, and that's what we've done in Hawaii.

Where we've done a whole study and analysis of the wind and of the wave state there to look at what are the envelopes of potential operation, what are the limitations that we're facing, how can we operate safely between islands when we're carrying either cargo or people.

Okay. And Chair, another. And so with that also, you looked at the potential harbors, you know, in regards to infrastructure, the cost and adjustments that may be needed to service?

Absolutely. So oh, apologies.

Yeah. To service your, you know, your company. So what what type of improvements and upgrades and, I guess, potential costs that could happen?

Absolutely. Yeah. So we have wrapped up earlier, or later last year, we wrapped up a full feasibility study that looked at 12 harbors across Hawaii. And these harbors were analyzed for everything from how their existing infrastructure could it be fit for sea gliders to what passenger experience would be to those wind and wave models that were developed to look at at how would a sea glider operate in and out of those channels.

So we did look at at those 12 harbors all across the state, and we're now using those, the results of that study with potential operators to see where would make sense, how can we operate with them, how can we activate using existing infrastructure, to get at that second part of your question about infrastructure costs, where our goal is to leverage to the degree possible existing infrastructure.

And, Chair . And so if the last time this is heard, I think, at another, you folks have been interacting and in discussions with Department of Defense and the military since we have such a huge, you know, presence here in Hawaii?

Well, if I can add to that too. Right? Can you expand on your guys' Coast Guard, I guess, oversight and how that plays into? I think that's where Rep Cochran is asking it because if you can add the Coast Guard oversight into this discussion. Can you answer that?

I guess military interaction or discussions along with Coast Guard too?

Yeah. Absolutely. So we are a dual use company. So we are both selling on the commercial side as well as the defense side. So we do have those defense contracts. There's, currently, we're not looking at at active deployments out involving Hawaii.

We're still in that prototyping phase right now, and a lot of those contracts with, on the defense side are still being negotiated and exactly what comes out of that are is still yet to be seen. But in terms of, I just wanna make sure I answer your baseline question that that yes. We are a dual use company.

Okay. And the oversight by Coast Guard? Has there been discussions with their oversight. United States Coast Guard.

Absolutely. So they... Apologies. I keep interrupting you. Yes. The US Coast Guard, they were one of the first groups that we started interfacing with because we are a type a wing in ground effect craft that is regulated in the United States fully by the US Coast Guard. So we're not regulated, you know, by the FAA or another regulatory body. The US Coast Guard is our regulator.

Okay. And lastly, Chair. Sorry. Have you taken into consideration or how are you going to address our marine sanctuaries here?

Yeah. That's a great question. So marine safety, that's a nonnegotiable to us. So we use a combination of infrared computer vision, underwater acoustics, and sensors to detect wildlife far in advance. And those are systems that we're developing and testing right now in Rhode Island.

More importantly, because sea gliders are maneuverable and don't require deep water channels, we can proactively avoid mapped whale sanctuaries or other marine life sanctuaries entirely. So we're designing this technology specifically to be safer than the heavy propellers and the displacement hulls that are currently operating in Hawaii's waters.

Do you know the history of sea flight that we once had here in Hawaii? Have you heard of that? Did you look into that operation and the closure of that operation here? Sea flight Hawaii.

Personally, I don't wanna overstate any knowledge.

I just was curious if you had looked at previous hydrofoil type companies and services that were that were active here in Hawaii, but no longer. Chair, that's all for me. Thank you.

So one more question. Yes, Mr. Uchiyama. Real quickly, please.

Yeah. So we consulted with both Admiral Fargo early on to learn the do's and don'ts, and I'm very aware of of sea flight. And that's why this vehicle flies above the ocean surface so you don't have the the motion of the ocean, which was one of the setbacks of sea flight.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. So wait real quick. Back to REGENT. Would you folks, because you're technically now saying you're federally preempted, so any oversight in Hawaii waters is null and void?

So we are regulated by the US Coast Guard. So that's gonna apply to our regulation in in Hawaii.

To your operations in Hawaii?

To the operations in Hawaii. Yes.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Members, any further questions? Seeing none, let's move on to our next agenda item, sp 2695 relief s d one rate to pedestrian safety. Clarifies the driver's obligation at crosswalks, requires drivers to stop and remain stopped for pedestrians at crosswalks, Strengthens penalties for traffic violations, particularly in school zones, expands the offense of negligent injury in the second degree to include bodily injury to a vulnerable user by the operation of a vehicle.

In a negligent manner effective 01/01/2027 vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Larry Dill for the DOT. We stand on our written testimony as submitted in support.

Thank you. Department of Health in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members

of the committee on reserve. I'm representing the Department of Health. And the Department of Health supports SB 2,695 SD one on promoting optimal health and long years of life. And, we do this by look looking with towards partners to create environments and policies and systems change that will help make the healthy choice the default choice.

Well, this is difficult to do when, we see that, our crash rates have increased in 2025 and that one third nearly one third of all traffic fatalities in 2025 involved a pedestrian, many of whom were lawfully crossing the road.

So SB 2695 would reduce that conflict between the pedestrian and the vehicle drivers because the pedestrian will always lose against a vehicle. And so, we support SB 2695 and coupled with then, engineering designs that make the pedestrians visible and also, then ask the drivers to also be aware and vigilant and to slow down. Well, actually help us then work towards vision zero. Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Oahu MPO in support. Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. National Federation of the Blind of Hawaii, mister Castro in support.

Thank you, chair Keelah, vice chair Miyake, members. National Federation of the Blind supports this bill, but we're asking you to restore, a provision that was in the original, HB bill, HB 2186, which this committee did approve. This is the provision about failure to, stop and remain stopped for blind and visually impaired in crossing the roadway.

The senate took that provision out, and I think on the basis the record shows that it was on the basis of the deputy attorney general's testimony that it would be inherently difficult to prove. Whether that's true or not, I don't I don't you know, I'm not in the proof business.

The provision would save lives, which I think is what we should be looking at. Whether the person, I mean, maybe in the violation case, you worry about proof, but we're talking about the not violation case where the driver responds appropriately and stops and remains stopped. Now since this provision was taken out, then this bill becomes a basically a crosswalks bill.

You know, I'm not honestly sure every time I'm inside the lines of a crosswalk because there's no way I can seal it see them and you can't feel them with a cane. So could be outside of the prop crosswalk and this bill does us and myself and 24,000 other people in Hawaii that are don't see enough to see the crosswalk all the time.

You know, a whole lot of good. So please restore this this provision on failure to stop and remain stopped for blind and visually impaired when crossing the roadway. It would put us on a par with Oregon and North Carolina in regard to the same kind of provision in their laws and, mahalo for your, attention. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Marie Cuthhood, individual in support on Zoom? Not present. Not present. We received four individuals' testimony in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB2695 s D1?

Seeing none.

Members, any questions? Seeing none, let's move on to the next agenda item. SB 2026, SD 2, relating to traffic safety. Requires drivers of vehicles approaching stationary motor vehicles stopped in any location on the roadway, shoulder, or roadside to slow down and make the lane change if necessary. Effective 3-20-2075. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Larry Dill for DOT. We stand on our written testimony in support as submitted. Thank you.

Thank you. Attorney General's Office with comments.

Good morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, and Committee Members. Michael Moriyama, Deputy Attorney General. The department supports this bill that amends HRS 291 C-27. Requires drivers to slow down when approaching a stationary vehicle. Department does have a few comments regarding the bill as currently drafted.

First, the department recommends that vehicular warning signs be added to page two, lines 11 through 16, of the bill to recognize that a raised hood or trunk lid of a stationary vehicle whose emergency lights are inoperable may serve as a warning signal to approaching drivers.

The department also recommends that the specific speeds that an approaching driver must slow down to be eliminated. Establishing whether an approaching driver slowed to the specific speed required may prove difficult and as a result make the law unenforceable.

HRS 291 C107 prohibits speeds greater than what is reasonable and prudent in their existing hazards and conditions and can be used along with 291 C-27 to ensure that, to ensure the safety of police officers and stranded motors. Lastly, HRS 291 C-27 on page three, lines eight through nine, of the bill, requires approaching drivers to stop if necessary only when making a lane change.

As a result, the current law does not require an approaching driver to stop anytime it's necessary. For example, the law does not currently require an approaching driver to stop if an accident victim, such as a jogger or a bicycle rider, is lying in the roadway. The department recommends that the bill be amended to require that an approaching driver stop anytime if necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. We also Oahu MPO in support, Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition in support, AAA Hawaii in support, and one individual in support. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB 2026, SD 2? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, I can move on to the next agenda item before us. SB 2463, SD 1, relating to the use of intoxicants while operating a vehicle. Lowers the blood alcohol content threshold for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Vice Chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Larry Dill for DOT. We stand in support on our testimony as submitted. Thank you.

Thank you. Office of the Governor in support. Not present. Office of the Public Defender in opposition.

Hello. Deputy Public Defender Sara Haley on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. My office opposes this bill. We oppose it because it focuses precious resources and our already overburdened criminal justice system on the wrong group of people. To reduce the devastating effects of drunk driving, Hawaii should focus on prevention of higher blood alcohol content level offenses and repeat offenders.

And this bill does the opposite. It focuses those resources on criminalizing a new group of people, those driving with as low as a 0.02 alcohol level. A responsible driver who has consumed as low as one or two drinks is not the category of driver that needs those penalties.

Also, we already have law that criminalizes this type of driver if they do drive impaired regardless of the blood alcohol content. For these reasons and others in our written testimony, my office opposes this bill, and I am available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Oahu MPO in support. Department of Health in support. Hawaii County Council Member Jen Kagiwada in support. County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake, Committee Members. Hawaii County prosecutor Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong support of this bill. This bill isn't about criminalizing behavior and locking people up. What this bill is about is saving lives. Alcohol related traffic fatalities continue to be a significant concern across our state and nation.

International studies show an average 11% reduction in fatal alcohol related crashes after lowering BAC limits. Lowering the BAC to .05 is common across the globe. In fact, it's the international norm. Almost 100 countries have already made the move, including France, Australia, Japan, Germany, and others. The US is just a little late to the table, but it's not for a lack of efforts.

Back in 2013, the National Traffic Safety Board published a report which identified the most effective scientifically based actions that could save lives from alcohol impaired driving, and they recommended that all states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico lower their BAC to .05. Now let's address some misconceptions.

Contrary to what some may argue, the opposition has argued, lowering the BAC will not result in significant increase in arrests, nor is it gonna place additional burdens on police resources. Also, those in opposition may argue that most fatal alcohol related traffic crashes involve highly intoxicated drivers. And that's true. The types of highly intoxicated drivers that can be addressed in SB 2392.

But it doesn't mean that the drivers with lower BAC levels cause traffic fatalities. In fact, in 2023, there were 2117 people in the US that were killed in crashes where a driver had a BAC between .01 and .07. That's over 17%. That's a significant number. Unlike SB 2392, which focuses on highly intoxicated drivers, this bill will address drinkers at all BAC levels by serving as a general deterrent to drinking excessively and driving.

It will encourage people to think twice before they get behind the wheel, to be responsible, plan ahead of time, get a designated driver, use ride share, or get a taxi. This bill will educate and spread public awareness. Simply put, .05 will save lives. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify today. We submitted our written input, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Maui County Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in support. Honolulu Police Department in support on Zoom. Not present. Hawaii Bicycling... Oh, I'm sorry.

Hi. Sorry. I'm trying to get my camera up. It's not working. But this is... Hi.

Oh, there you are. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Acting Captain Torres on behalf of the Honolulu Police Department, and we stand by our written testimony in support.

Thank you. Hawaii Bicycling League in support. Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition in support. Hina Mauka in support. Lanikai Brewing Company in opposition on Zoom. Not present. SHOPO with comments. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Coalition of Safety Organizations in support. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support on Zoom.

Morning, Chair Kila, Vice Chair Miyake. My name is Rick Collins. I'm with Hawaii Public Health Institute, and we stand on our written testimony in strong support. I just wanna make a few quick comments on some of the testimony you've heard and talk about some of the opposition points.

First of all, I just wanna point out to you some of the organizations, but it's not it's not the whole list, but the organizations that are supporting .05 BAC as a general deterrent to prevent alcohol impaired driving. American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine.

National Transportation Safety Board, World Health Organization, Vision Zero Network, etcetera, etcetera. So my point here is to say that these organizations do not lightly recommend policies such as this. That they weigh the research and the evidence to ensure that policy recommendations they put forward are gonna be effective. These are also the expert organizations around traffic safety as it relates to DUIs and other traffic related issues.

And so I just wanna sort of put that out in the front and say, while there may be opposition from other the alcohol industry saying this is ineffective, they're sort of going against a multitude of these international and national organizations that are really saying, hey. We need to support this, and the evidence is really clear that this will deter DUIs and deaths and the other related traffic or traffic issues.

So that's the first and foremost. The second thing I wanna just say is that there's a misconception out there that this only addresses DUIs within .05 to .08, and that is a false, that's a false claim. This basically has a broad general deterrent because people that get behind the wheel of a car that have been drinking, they don't know their blood alcohol content level.

And so what we do know, what the science does show is that when we lower it, people, it act as a general deterrent across all BAC levels and it has an effect across all those BAC levels. So for this, it's one of the most impacting policies that we can put in place because it affects the most amount of people.

Can I ask you to summarize, please? Sorry.

No problem, Rep Kila. That's all I wanna say. I'm here for questions, if you have them. Thank you.

Thank you. Big Island Brewhouse in opposition. Maui Wine in opposition. Mothers Against Drunk Driving Hawaii in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Makena Young, and I serve as Program Director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. We are in strong support of lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration to .05. Every day, our work puts us in contact with individuals and families whose lives have been permanently altered by impaired driving.

We speak with parents who will never see their child come home again, spouses navigating life after an unimaginable loss, and loved ones trying to make sense of something that never should have happened. While this is the work that we do, it is not the work that we want to keep doing. We do not want to receive these calls.

We do not want to sit with another grieving mother or look in the eyes of a family trying to understand why the loved one is gone or why themselves are severely injured. But the reality is, without meaningful prevention, those calls will keep coming. Every impaired driving crash is preventable. Every single one. Blowing the BAC to .05 is not about punishment. It's about creating a shift in behavior. It's about making someone pause and ask themselves, am I okay to drive?

That moment of hesitation can save a life. Right now, too many people believe they are fine to drive when they're not, and families are paying the price for that belief. This bill sends a clear message. If you are drinking, do not drive. It strengthens a culture of responsibility and reinforces that even small amounts of alcohol can impair judgment, reaction time, and decision making.

We cannot undo the tragedies that have already happened, but you have the power right now to prevent the next one, the next phone call, the next knock on a family's door, the next life taken too soon. So please stand with the victims, choose prevention, and support this measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Maui Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

We stand on our written testimony in opposition.

Thank you. National Transportation Safety Board in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee.

Good morning. Please go ahead.

Trying to get my camera, trying to get my camera to work. There we go. My name is Tom Chapman. I have the honor of serving as the 46th member of the National Transportation Safety Board. I'm speaking to you from our offices in Washington, DC.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 2463. Since 2013, the NTSB has recommended that states establish a per se BAC standard of .05 or lower. In 2018, Utah became the first state to do so and subsequently saw reductions in both its fatal crash and fatality rates relative to the rest of the United States.

Passage of .05 legislation in Hawaii would make it the second state to embrace a change that will save lives and cut the number of senseless and completely avoidable crashes. In 2023, there were a staggering 12,429 alcohol impaired driving fatalities in the United States. That represents 30% of all traffic fatalities in 2023.

The state of Hawaii alone lost 39 lives to alcohol impaired driving in 2023, which was 42% of the state's total traffic fatalities, 11 percentage points higher than the national average. That makes Hawaii first in the nation for the portion of impaired driving fatalities. Various countermeasures to combat alcohol impaired driving have been tried over the years, and some have made a significant difference.

Thomas, I'm so sorry. Can you summarize, please?

Yes, sir. Well, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We have long supported this proposal. We commend all of you for considering it, and we hope you will support it. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm so sorry. I forgot to note. Because I would like to try to move some of these measures out today, for the remaining testimonies, can you please, I'm gonna ask that you folks just have a... I'm going to cut to a minute of testimony.

And I would just want to acknowledge that is why we try to make all the testimony available to this committee much more beforehand so they have sufficient time to review these things. And so if you're gonna stand on it or add any more context, that's what I would appreciate. So moving forward, that is the plan for the remaining agenda items. Vice Chair, continue testimony, please.

Thank you, Chair. Wine Institute in opposition on Zoom. Not present. Brittany Cass, individual in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. A life can change in a blink of an eye. One moment, I was a busy wife, mother, and military spouse. The next, a drunk driver collided with me at a combined 120 miles an hour. And everything I knew was ripped from me. My name is Brittany Cass, and I'm a survivor of a horrific drunk driving crash.

I was left unconscious, barely breathing, trapped in a twisted metal of my car as first responders fought to keep me alive. I broke both my femurs, my hip, my back, shattered my knee, suffered internal bleeding, a traumatic brain injury, and spent five days in a coma while my husband had to go home and tell our three young children that their mom wasn't coming home. And here's a picture of that.

I don't know how to fully describe the fear, the gut wrenching terror of waking up to pain so intense that it's unbearable, of not knowing if I would ever speak, walk, or hold my children again. I don't know if I ever will get my life back. Every day was a battle against my own body. Against muscles that refuse to work. Bones that screamed with every move and mind clouded by trauma.

And the pain isn't just physical. It's the nights of crying alone, memories of my children's faces as they tried to understand why I wasn't there, and the fear of the life that I loved so much was gone. My identity, my future, my story nearly ended because someone said they were fine enough to drive. I'll wrap it up.

You've heard my story before, and I will continue to stand in support of SB 2463. I just wanna close by saying, at some point, we have to ask ourselves, how many more of these stories do you have to hear before we act, before we create change?

We know this isn't the first cycle or the second or the third. And so to continue to prevent families from having to go through what my family has had. And I'm grateful for the voice that I have to be here to physically stand and to be in front of you and to share my testimony. Thank you for having me.

And thank you, Brittany. I know you've had a robust interim, and I just thank you for continuing to show up before this committee. And the work that you and the advocates do. If I don't have time to thank you, I would like to publicly thank you.

Thank you. We also received 13 individual testimonies in support and three in opposition. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB 2463, SD 1? Seeing none, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, I can move on to the next agenda item. SB 2253 lanes to highway highway safety. Amends the offense of negligent injury in the first degree to include injuries negligently affected by toxic tree intoxicated drivers, effective 07/01/2026.

Vice chair for testimony.

Department of Transportation in support.

Larry Gill for the DOT. Chair, we stand in support on our testimony as submitted. Thank you.

Thank you. Oahu MPO in support. Kauai Police Department in support. County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in support.

We stand on our written testimony. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. We're available for any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Thank you. Maui County Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in support and one individual with comments. Anyone online or in person wishing to testify on SB 2253 SC2? Seeing none, chair.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing none, let's move on to the next agenda item, SB 2392. I'm I'm sorry. And I just wanna apologize.

I'm trying to be present in the committee while also responding to community efforts of dealing with the flooding after the post Kona Loa. So I I please know I'm I'm trying to be my best present in these two places at once, and thank you to all our first responders.

S p two three nine two relating to traffic safety specifies that operating a vehicle under influence of an intoxicant or highly intoxicated drivers is a misdemeanor for the first offense or any offense not pursued in a ten year period, specifies that it specifies and imposes specifies and imposes additional sentencing probation requirements for a person convicted of a misdemeanor operating on a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant offense, upgrades the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicant law, highly intoxicated driver to a class c felony under certain conditions, specifies as imposes an additional sentencing and probation requirements for past felony Offensive operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicant.

Well, a highly intoxicated driver prohibits a deferred acceptance of guilty pleas for persons that convicted of operating a vehicle under influence of intoxicant. I share for testimony.

Department of Transportation and support.

Larry Dill for the DOT. DOT stands on our written testimony in support as submitted. Thank you very much.

Thank you. State of Hawaii judiciary with comments.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions of the first circuit as well as for judiciary administration. We will stand on our written testimony providing comments just advising the committee of potential impacts the bill may have on judiciary operations. These include because of the elevation of the offense from petty misdemeanor to a misdemeanor and C felony.

Defendants charged with misdemeanors and C felonies do have a right to jury trial in circuit court. Given the anticipated statewide increase in jury trials and demand for probation services, under this bill. And in light of the constitutional right of all defendants to a speedy trial, the judiciary may require, additional resources for both probation and our courts, including an additional judge. But I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Office of the governor in support.

Hello, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Angie Chapman on behalf of Lou Kings and adviser. The office of the governor stands on his stands on for a testimony in support.

Thank you. Office of the public defender in opposition.

Thank you. Deputy public defender Sarah Haley appearing for the office of public defender. We do oppose this bill. Based off limited time, I'm going to just highlight one or two points from our written testimony. The main one I wanted to highlight is proportionality.

This bill would increase their probation periods that it is out of step with all other misdemeanors. The probation period would be four times the standard probation period for other misdemeanors, and it would be two times the only other misdemeanor that has an, an extensive probation period or extended probation period, which be domestic violence offenses. So even domestic violence offenses would have half the probation period of what this bill is proposing.

I'd also just note that we do support, penalties that are based off evidence based strategies, prevention, early intervention, substance use treatment, ignition airlock requirements, and those are all already in place. Thank you.