Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection

Hi. Aloha. And welcome to the joint hearing with the Senate committees, economic development, tourism, energy, and intergovernmental affairs and commerce and consumer protection. Today is Wednesday, 03/25/2026. And this is our 09:30am agenda.

And We are in Conference Room 2To 9. This hearing is being streamed live on YouTube. To the right of me is our illustrious chair from intergovernmental affairs, Senator Wakai, and to the left of me is our CPN chair, mister Jarrett Keohokalole. And if you can pronounce his name correctly, you get an extra seconds on your testimony. And, Senator Chang to the right of vice chair, chair Wakai, as well as Senator Fukunaga to the left of Jared Keohokalole and Senator Lamasao.

We have a one minute time limit for all our testifiers as we have various agendas to get through this afternoon. This agenda has only one bill, HB1590HD3 relating to vacation rentals. Testifiers list, we have Hawaii Department of Taxation testifying on behalf of Hawaii Department of Taxation.

Good morning. Kristen Sakamoto, Deputy Director of Taxation. DOTAX provided comments on this bill. I just wanted to highlight that for part two, we proposed some amendments, which we believe will result in a more efficient administration, in increased compliance, and, be a collection of additional tax revenue. So we would, request that you adopt the amendments and pass the spill out of committee. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, Maya Vandrunen, testifying for the attorney general's office on Zoom. Not present on Zoom. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning. I'm with the attorney general's office. Our office provided written testimony with comments and recommendations to address the definition of a hosting platform and the Internet tax freedom act. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next up, director Tokioka on behalf of department business economic development in support. Caroline Anderson, interim interim president and CEO of Hawaii Tourism Authority with comments. Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Lindsey Garcia testifying for Hawaii Realtors.

Senator Thomas. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. Next up, Edward Jones testifying for Castro. Hello?

Should I sit?

Oh, please.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, and members. I'm not sure if that's the exact greeting, but thank you.

I'm Ed Jones from Kama Aina Occupied Short Term Rentals Oahu and commenting today. An illegal vacation rental prerequisite court finding requirement, is a step in the right direction. I'd like to talk, that about act 17 with just one sentence here. It wasn't successful. It's really not successful until county ordinances actually enact or that ordinances are actually enacted that are both constitutional and respect federal court orders. What the state needs to do to be helpful in this process is to clarify that owner occupied is under the residential landlord tenant code and not the zoning enabling act.

Property rights really are not related

So can you wrap up your testimony?

Yes, chair. Are really not related to home rule. They are universal across the state. Mahalo for, you know, all of your hard work on this bill.

Thank you. Next up, testifying for High Mass Alliance on Zoom.

Aloha chair and members of the committee. My name is Caitlin Miller, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii Mid and Short Term Rental Alliance, High Mass for short. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on HB fifteen ninety HD three today and support the bills efforts to modernize tax administration and clarifying hosting platform talks, tax collection responsibilities. These provisions represent constructive steps forward that can improve compliance and administrative consistencies across the marketplace.

As the committee considers implementation of part one related to screenshot evidence, we would like to briefly share one practical example.

Recently, a host living locally on Oahu received a notice of violation that included a screenshot showing only a small portion of her listing. The image did not reflect the full context of her rules despite her operating lawfully and in good faith and what she was required to engage in the violation process. This is particularly meaningful given that the County enforcement penalties can reach up to $10,000 per day. High mass understands the intent of the billable allowing screenshots as an enforcement tool.

Our request is simply that screenshots function as part of an investigative process rather than a standalone determination. The, amendment that we offered is in our written testimony and we stand on that as well. And we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next up, testifying on behalf of tax foundation of Hawaii, Tom Yamachika on zoom.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, committee members. Tom Yamachika for Tax Foundation. We have submitted written comments. We're generally in accord with part two of the bill. Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, Mackenzie Chase testifying for Expedia Group also on Zoom.

Good morning. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mackenzie Chase here on behalf of Expedia Group. We stand on our written comments. Broadly, we are supportive of becoming tax responsible for short term rentals in the state of Hawaii, and we greatly appreciate the amendments that were incorporated in the HD and HD2 versions of the bill, and we urge you to move that section of the legislation forward.

I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you so much.

Next up, Benjamin Saroski for Unite here local five with comments. Janzo Kosen, testifying for Airbnb also with comments. Ross Isukane in support. Tonic Bill in opposition. Susan Alden also in opposition, as well as Nicholas Zurer in opposition.

Anybody else wishing to testify on that measure? Oh, yeah. He insists. Please.

Margaret Oran. Hello. Hello. From the East End, Hollywood. I wish to be Auntie going to come talk to you.

I've been at this for seven years and I've been trying to earn my right to earn a living. And so far, it hasn't happened. And I are trying to get a carve out for all of those people who live on their property. They're not gonna sell.

So, in support or in opposition of the measure?

In support. K. Go ahead. These are comments. Thank you.

Alright. Anyway, we want a simple carve out for people who live on their property. They're not gonna change the houses. For this, we keep coming to these hearings. And I've discovered a trend because I take notes.

I've discovered a trend and it's not a happy one. You find 70% of the people are in favor of things short term rental. 30% are opposed. Those are the hotel people. Okay?

The 70% are your constituents. These are the people that voted you into office.

I can need you to wrap up your testimony Yes. Please.

Alright. But the vote is always for the 30%. So I'm just scratching my head. Thank you. And I urge you to support a carve out for us.

Thank you. Mahalo. Kiko?

Or do you anyway, can you go and listen? Please. Yeah. Sir, are you good? I was fine.

Okay.

Chair DeCoite. Chair Keiko. Chair Keohokalole. It takes an extra second to say his name, so it's really not fair to give us an extra second, Chair. The Hawaii Hotel Alliance and the American Hotel and Lodging Association did provide late testimony. My apologize, apologies for being a little late. The crux of our testimony relates to us having been here for ten years working on this most critical issue. And if you recall in 2016 and 2017, there were a number of measures that made their way through the legislature that would have deemed licensed any short term rental listed on a hosting platform. And we wanna be very cautious when we approach this. And and our comments relate specifically to making sure that we do not allow taxation to be misconstrued as legitimacy. And, you know, DOTAX, they're obviously supporting this because we want to collect any due tax. And VBID is always supporting this because they want legitimate providers of TAT to to be paying their fair share. And and that is the theme of of our testimony. I will say that you've seen the the polls and the polls are not as advertised. More than 70% of registered voters in the state of Hawaii oppose illegal short term rentals. Happy to answer any questions on behalf of HJNAHLA on this issue. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure?

Chair. Hi. Janelle Cousins from Air and Media. Just now I'm ready to finish.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify on the measure? Members, any questions? No questions? Okay.

Seeing none, short recess. We are back for decision making. In regards to HB1590, committee on economic development tourism relating to vacation rentals. We are gonna be passing with an SD one by incorporating the amendments recommended by Airbnb have indicated to me that they also had discussions with dual tax and that their changes were not objectionable to them.

Also incorporating the suggested amendments offered by the Hawaii realtors to address their concerns, their real estate licenses, managing rental properties could be unintentionally included and required to become tax collection agents and re defecting the effective date to 07/01/3050.

Members, any discussion? Seeing none, vice chair Wakai for the vote. Chair goes aye.

{Vote} Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Chair's recommendation for HB1590 is to pass with amendments. Chair votes yes, vice chair votes aye.

For members of EIG, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, Senator Chang, I vote yes.

{Vote} Recommendation is adopted.

CPN committee, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, passing with amendments, chair votes aye. {Vote}

Thank you, members. And with that, we are adjourned.

Morning and welcome. This is our 09:40AM, Wednesday, 03/25/2026, joint committee hearing agenda in Hawaii State Senate Capital, in Hawaii Capital Conference Room 229. This is a joint hearing between the committees on commerce and consumer protection, and the committee on economic development and tourism to consider House Bill 2575 House Draft 1 relating to taxation. This measure applies the retail or higher general excise tax or use tax rate to purchases or imports of new motor vehicles by rental car companies.

It also appropriates funds for a position in the Department of Taxation.

As noted earlier, this meeting is being streamed live on YouTube. And in the unlikely event that we experience technical difficulties and need to abruptly end this hearing, we will try to reconvene again in this 90 minute hearing time slot before 11AM since we are on a hearing deadline this week. For all the testifiers, the consumer protection committee observes a two minute testimony time limit.

For first time testifiers, we observe a time limit because again, this is a 90 minute hearing and we're on a deadline this week. So all of the subsequent measures on these agendas need to be voted out today.

We have received written testimony from everyone who's registered and reviewed that written testimony. So while the the time limit is, yours to use, we respectfully request that you, take your time if you elect to to come and testify to add to the written testimony you submitted and not read it verbatim. And if you'd like to stand on your testimony and acknowledge the fact that we've receded and reviewed it, then we'd appreciate that very much. First up, we have Gary Suganuma, Hawaii Department of Taxation offering comments.

Good morning chair, vice chairs, and committee members, Gary Suganuma, Department of Taxation will stand under the discussion for writing comments.

Thank you very much. Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. Good morning.

Aloha. Good morning. Sarah Milianta Laffin on behalf of HSTA. Good morning, chair and vice chairs. We're sitting at time. Obviously, we've we've seen the news. Our neighbors are drowning in floodwaters. This is a time where we're gonna need significant financial, revenues to go ahead and handle what we've been going through.

We also know at at this time, thinking about from my pace's education, the Federal Government's in a lot of flux with the Department of Education, and we're not sure where that money is coming from. So we need things to be able to regenerate revenue for the state. For myself, as a teacher, I've been teaching for 21 years. I'm one of your state's few computer science teachers, and I make $55,000 a year. So I know these big corporations that are worried about their taxes changing.

These are billion dollar entities. They have enough money to be able to handle that. We need to generate money for our state so that we can take care of our communities, so we can rebuild after this flooding. And so we can make sure that teachers are paid and our schools are the best for our Keiki. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Josh Dover for Avis budget car rental in opposition. Good morning. Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committees. Jolene Garidan Prietzo on behalf of Avis Budget. We stand on our written testimony respectfully opposing HB2575. Just wanted to highlight that Hawaii tax law and regular and regulations have distinctly supported the framework for wholesale treatment at acquisition for rental car companies while preserving the retail G T on rental receipts. This has been confirmed by Hawaii case law and thus reinforcing the statutory basis.

Additionally, the bill does not contemplate behavioral change as it would increase the costs per vehicle for rental car companies, which could then lead to the retention of vehicles for longer periods and thus shift over higher mileage vehicles into the used car sales market. With affordability being a constant concern for many of us, this bill will have a negative impact on local residents and local businesses. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Servco Pacific in opposition. Good morning.

Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, and committee members. My name is Daniel Chang. I'm the head of tax at Servco Pacific Inc. And I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to HB2575. The state's longstanding tax policy established over several decades has been designed to allow the wholesale GET of a half percent to apply in situations where the sale of property is followed by a resale, lease, or rental of that same property in a subsequent leasing or a retail transaction. This is to avoid having retail GET, apply twice. So yes, it's true that vehicle sold to rental car agencies are are subject to GET at a half percent, but taxation doesn't end there.

GED at the retail rate of four and a half percent applies on the rentals of the vehicles over the fleet lives. And on top of that, each vehicles rented out a subjective surcharge tax of $7.50 per day.

And this has been going up over the last several years. It goes up again to $8 per day, starting next year. The state collects another round of GT when a rental car agency sells that vehicle to a local dealership, which then sells it to a local customer. Servco does buy a number of used vehicles from rental car agencies at the end of their fleet lives. So we see this firsthand.

So there there's been reports in the media that there's this tax loophole that the rental car agencies have long been enjoying, but that's simply not true. Our our state is already collecting a healthy amount of taxes, on the rental car industry, and it's in the thousands of dollars over the life cycle of each vehicle. So, you know, what this bill is proposing to do is break our longstanding tax policy, for a single industry. And, you know, we wouldn't want this to happen to other industries.

For example, food, if food distributors are selling to local restaurants and they get the half percent, is that a tax loophole?

I don't think so because we know that the restaurant is going to pay four and a half percent retail GT on the sale of food to dining customers. So increasing tax on the rental car industry is only going to increase rental prices during a time when local residents and tourists alike are already price sensitive. We shouldn't let this happen, and let's not break our state's long standing tax policy today.

Thank you very much. Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii in opposition. Thank you for standing on your testimony. Chris Caulfield, Hawaii Democratic Party Education Caucus in support.

Good morning. Hello. Chris Caulfield speaking to you as the chairperson of the Education Caucus. Thank you so much for hearing this measure. We see this as a measure that's about fairness and values. And as you heard already, this is a time when we need money. We are seeing dramatic federal cuts, including education, that are hampering our education system, the storms of just ravaged the North Shore on Maui, and a number of other communities.

So we need to generate revenue, and this is an innovative way to do it that doesn't impact working families, imposes the financial burden largely on the visitor industry, which is something that the legislature has looked at in recent years. Again, you know, rental car companies operate large fleets, and under current tax treatment, they I've been able to pay the lower wholesale rate on fleet purchases while, re people who are renting their cars are paying the retail rate.

Residents who rent their cars are paying the retail rate. And so we see this as an imbalance to Bill corrects, and largely shifts some of the the financial burden for taking care of, some of the shortfalls that we're facing onto the visitor industry so that they're contributing their fair share to public services. I just wanna note from an education funding perspective that state allocates 15.1% of its state and local expenditures to K-twelve education according to reports that came out from That's well below the national average.

We actually spend the lowest amount of combined state and tax revenue on education of any state in the country. So we need innovative revenue mechanisms to take care of our education, to take care of our students, to take care of support supportive programs, make sure that we have quality teachers in our classrooms and we hope that you will move this forward because public education is one of the best investments we can make for the future of our state. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in opposition. Independent Car Rental and P2P Association, Trent Gifford in opposition online.

Good morning.

And committee chairs, can you hear me?

Yes.

My name is Trent Gifford. I'm the CEO of the largest independent car rental and peer to peer car sharing association. The reason why I'm testifying today is because we're hearing a lot about big car rental. The reason why I'm here is to talk about the hundreds of residents of Hawaii who offer their vehicles either through private car rental or peer to peer car sharing that are affected by this bill. We oppose this bill because it's going to put an unbalance in the competitive marketplace.

I stand on my written testimony, and I just offer myself for any questions you might have in that regard.

Thank you very much. Next, we have the Tax Foundation of Hawaii with comments. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committees. Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. As set forth in our written testimony, we don't think car rental companies are fundamentally different from other equipment lessors that are taking advantage of Section 237489. That statute was put in in 1971 and we think creates settled expectations among people in the industry. If you really want to have additional taxes come in from car rental companies, there's a vehicle for that.

Pun intended. Go to the, RV surcharge tax, Chapter 251. They're right there. We would we would rather not, mock up the GE tax with creating exceptions for, you know, long held wholesale rate categories. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much.

Enterprise Mobility in opposition.

Not present on Zoom

chair. Yeah. They're in the room. Thank you, Kent.

Good morning. Good morning, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committee. My name is Jason Oka. I'm the group commute manager for Enterprise Mobility. Enterprise Mobility stands on our written statement, but I'm on here testifying on behalf on opposition bill 2575.

And just kind of talking about our different mobility lines and how we help out local residents. Not only does Enterprise run out to the tourist tourism industry, but we also rent out to local residents. We have numerous of local branches across the state. And as we all know, being from over here, we got friends and family that live on different islands and stuff like that.

And, you know, we we've got to come in for doctor's appointments, sporting events, work. As far as the commute with vanpool division, you know, we support thousands of local residents with challenging commutes to get to and from work. We have vanpools across the state. We support industries in the farming and agriculture, construction business, government, tourism, and even some nonprofits like Goodwill. So I kindly ask you guys to defer bill 2575 and help support our local residents here.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Hertz corporation in opposition online.

Hello, chair. My dear, committee members. Seward Akahi, with Hertz Dollar Thrifty Rent a Car. We are here respectfully opposing House Bill 2575. And to my counterpart's point on local residents and supporting the local residents' travel, we do have a lot of local residents traveling from the Outer Islands into Honolulu for business, medical purposes, x x Y Z.

Right? And I think this really can potentially, unintentionally, affect that, with the with the pass through. So we, again, you know, respectfully, oppose 2575. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Karen Polk, Kapolei Chamber of Commerce in opposition online. Good morning.

Good morning, chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. Karen Polk, executive director and CEO of the Kapole Chamber of Commerce, and we respectfully oppose this measure. And I'd like to highlight today, the impact on our small business, small small and medium business, here in our state. You know, businesses are already facing high operating costs, workforce shortages and inflationary pressures. And this measure just adds another cost burden that many can't absorb.

Rental vehicles are essential business tools. They're not a luxury. They're used for projects based work, visiting partners and supplemental fleet needs and neighbor island travel. And higher fleet acquisition costs lead to higher rental rates. And these costs are passed directly down to our local small businesses.

So all that being said, I would just like to respectfully ask that the committees, defer this measure.

Thank you very much. Shelby Davis in opposition. John Fitzpatrick in support online.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

That's all the registered testimony we have from individuals who indicated they would be present. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? HB2575. Good morning.

Good morning and Aloha. Thank you chair, vice chair, chairs and committee members. My name is Dave Erdman. I am the Interim President and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Our Retail Merchants of Hawaii opposes HB2575HD1.

Well, this is not a core retail issue. The measure has real impacts on local business and our retailers. Rental cars are essential for interisland operations across retail and our broader business community. Increasing these costs adds pressure to already high cost of business in the business environment and impacts both our employees and the employers. We respectfully urge to defer this measure.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Anybody outside? Knock twice.

I I would Aloha. This is Pamela with the Maui Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to testify in opposition and stand on our written testimony.

Hello, Pamela. I think Aloha. I think we have you.

I think you have you.

Submitted the testimony. Right?

We'll stand on our written testimony on this issue, and and I'll be back on the young others.

Okay. Thank you.

Mahalo.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. Members, questions? Senator McKelvey?

HSDA. Looking to looking to the bill, I didn't see any direct allocation at all for education or DHHL or anything. It just goes right into the general fund. So how can those supporting it for that reason be assured of such a thing when it's not in the middle?

Well, additional revenue, obviously, it helps, you know, the Department of Education, our teachers are, you know, it's all funded by the general fund. So this money would go to the general fund and still potentially help, education and other services.

We've increased this before. Proponents has come forward, seen we need education, yet we still are being told that we are not funding education enough. Yeah. So I guess I mean, it seems to be we passed tax bills all over the place to for the general fund for education, but then it is put back on us that we're not funding education enough. So how how are we not gonna end back up at the same place with this measure even though it's generating revenue?

Senator, I think teachers like me, the way we look at it is these are billion dollar corporations. They're fine. And teachers like me are hurting. Our schools are hurting. And we wanna do whatever we can to support that that mission. The corporations will be okay. And it's not a problem.

Okay? I'm not here to work. I'm I'm no fan of corporations looking at my track record. Okay? So I'm not gonna get into that argument with you.

Because what we're trying to talk about is simply a question of representations that this will go to education. I believe previous versions of the bill did send you the funding, but this one doesn't. Right? So there's not a 100% guarantee that's gonna help us in that

And and you're right. And we're just looking at we do know there's gonna be a shortfall, and there's a deficit with our state funding. And so we're just looking at other ways of revenue that'll mostly impact the visitor industry and not local families. And so this is one of the creative ways to look at it. And so we're just trying to figure out ways to raise revenue for the state.

If revenue is the object, why don't we just basically do it across all businesses that pay this kind of tax?

mean, wouldn't that generate I mean, tax wouldn't that generate way more revenue?

And I

It absolutely would. We we we then

this bill should be expanded then. Right? So that it includes all clap all activity that's basically at this wholesale rate potentially would be charged at the key rate.

We would be open. We'd have to look into that, but, yeah, that would be something to look at.

Definitely. Sounds good. Okay.

Thank you

Senator Wakai

very much. Thank you.

Say you can't stay there. I wanna follow-up on Senator McKells line of question. Because I'm just curious as to each HSTA's support for this measure. I mean, I I love education and support teachers. Absolutely.

But if if we were to say that all of the proceeds from these new found dollars were to go to, let's say, Kupuna Care Would you guys still be supporting this bill?

We we do support revenue generation, generally, for the state. We look at many different ways to support revenue generation.

And and teachers care, our schools, our communities, our families, it's all we're all in this together. And I think anything that supports the public like that would be important.

So any tax increase you guys would support?

I mean, we'd have to take a look at it. I'm not sure about every tax increase, but we'd have to take a look at it.

K. Because I I know earlier the the bill earmarked monies to go to education.

And it did. Yeah.

How'd you guys get involved in this bill?

We were we spent down sessions. So one of the issues, is that teachers are still looking at trying to address the temporary hazard pay, situation. You know, there's a lot of different workers that did get temporary hazard pay, but teachers still haven't received it yet. So we were told last year that money was tight,

And so you need to look at ways to be able to raise revenue for the state to be able to fund teacher hazard pay. So during the out session, we got together with various stakeholders, talked to them, and we figured out ways that we could look at trying to address revenue generation that could fund a temporary teacher hazard pay. So we looked at this approach. We saw that it was mainly a tax on the visitor industry, not impacting on local residents.

We saw that it could raise potentially 70 to $90,000,000 annually for the state.

So we decided to go in that direction to be able to fund hazard pay. Split it up in four different installments and be able to get maybe the 10 or $20,000 to teachers for hazard pay. So that's the reason why we got into that, direction and that approach, simply because we were told to come to the session with, revenue and look at that way to be able to provide hazard pay. So we did. And that's the reason why we came into this year.

Teachers do our homework. Yeah.

I know this this is a Touro initiated bill. Who approached you? Did you approach Touro or did Touro?

Yeah. I'm not gonna I I I think we can stick to questions about the substance of the bill rather than getting into speculative questions.

It's not speculation. You can tell us. Right?

No. We we we talked to each other. We talked to other stakeholders. We we were looking at different ways. We were told specifically last year that your ham your hazard pay bill costs money, which it does.

We acknowledge that. And that you need to come in with ways to generate revenue for the state. So we did we went around and did that during the off session like we were told to do. We talked different people and this is we saw this as an approach that brought in anywhere between 70 and $90,000,000 Okay.

Got it. So who approached to? You approached Touru, or Touru approach you?

Yeah. So the the Senate rules talk about, you know, questions around the motive behind testifiers, and I'm gonna ask that we keep the questions directed at the substance of the bill.

Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

So Yes.

Hi, chair. Anyway, sorry.

So, anyway, just wanna follow-up. So, you know, you folks talk about hazard pay.

Yes.

So should we include I think, UPW also is looking for hazard pay. You guys have a problem with us including the other unions that are also seeking hazard pay as well?

Not not at all. We we in fact, last year's bill that we introduced and and drafted included the other bargaining units that did not have hazard pay as well. That was part of our approach. We wanted to be able to bring in solidarity for everyone. So if you take a look, I forget the bill number, but it was introduced by Senator Henry Aquino at the time on the Senate side, include all three bargaining units that inhabit.

I know UPW has already negotiated it and and has it through. It's just a matter of getting it through the Department of Education. And I'm not entirely sure what's going on in terms of their negotiations with the DOE, but they've negotiated already. Whereas with HSTA, we're still in the process of trying to go into that direction.

And so we were told by the state to come up with funding mechanisms at the legislature, but we are also open to any ways, though, that help our our fellow public sector workers across the state.

Absolutely. Because I I think we all agree that education is a priority for all of us. And, you know, when it comes to being fair, I think, you know, fair across the board, everybody from DHHL is also looking to get housing and so forth. Absolutely. You know, I would I would think that at this point, we would include just about everybody who's looking for an increase.

And we definitely think DHHL should be part of it. And if you take a look at the testimony that we did on SB2784 which was heard by this committee earlier on, we actually asked to keep DHHL included for the beneficiary list and use temporary hazard pay for teachers.

Our fund will be done in about three or four years and after which point it sunsets and doesn't go to teachers anymore, and it could go in perpetuity to DHHL or in perpetuity to the general fund or to other, people who need it. And so we look at it just temporarily for teachers. After three years, maybe four years, but probably three years, it sunsets for us.

And then it can help with the beneficiary list or any other people who need the additional revenue.

Okay. So so in regards to the corporations, you realize a corporation can be an individual as well. Right?

It can be.

Okay. So you you suggest that corporations are all they can afford to do this?

No. No. But the majority No.

That's what she said. Oh. I'm asking you. You said that all corporations can. There are corporations that are individually owned as s corporations are.

So you're under the assumption that we whack all corporations because they can't afford this?

No, Senator.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, movers?

Okay. Oh, wait. I got one for dual tax. Sorry.

Thank you. I was a little

bit Tommy Tax Foundation.

Who told you to do who you said you were told to do this. You were told who told you specifically?

No. No. We were told specifically during the session, last session that there was difficulty to fund hazard pay, which it did cost money. So they were talking different senators, different, house members, and we were just told that, you know, we're gonna have a hard time moving this one because it's coming directly from the general fund and to be able to try to come up with revenue generation mechanisms. So that's what we did.

Yeah. But it was from various various people.

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense now, but given that background.

Okay. Thank you.

Cool. Thanks.

Sorry. Tech yeah. Text foundation.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. I went Tom, are you online? Tom, you online.

He's not on Zoom anymore, Chairs.

Find him. Tom, the bear is weighing on you and your testimony here. Okay.

Any other questions?

Can tax maybe answer the question? What tax foundation?

This is not their own. Unless you can push it for them, but You

have a question?

This is in regards to tax foundation's testimony.

Okay. Sorry. Sorry, general. I was just tax foundation, their testimony suggested another route of taxation. That's why I wanna ask you, since he's not here, what you thought about that suggestion?

Well, I'd have to look at that too, but, I mean, it certainly makes sense. If you're if you're going to do something taxing a rental car, so to put a fee under that Chapter 251 I mean, it kinda makes more sense.

Absolutely. It

Yeah. Yeah.

would be probably simpler.

With the revenue, I guess, the gain be about the same. You know?

But I mean, it depends on what a fee would be charged.

Got it. But we you could theoretically create a fee structure that would capture

Maybe maybe the gentleman from Servco, since you testified to it. We the the comment that the tax foundation made was about the rental vehicle surcharge. Yeah. And so can you take the question? Sure.

K. Come on.

If you're in the room, you gotta

Yeah. You

avail yourself of questions. So you guys too. Sorry. I know it's your first time. But

Yeah. There's so many issues with this thing. No. Just the the the suggestion was made. I thought it was my tax foundation.

It was.

I'm done.

Use an alternate tax structure to raise revenue. I just wanted to get the thoughts about that idea.

Yeah. Yeah. So the the bill is currently drafted, kind of breaks the long standing taxes that we have, you know, wholesale and retail. There's a series of transactions. So, yes, that is another mechanism.

But keep in mind, it's been going up, you know, every year for the last several years. It's gonna go up again next year. So I just wanted to, you know, make sure that the members here of the committees understood the price pressure that's already on that

industry. Price pressure on everything. Right?

Yeah. $100,000,000 barrel oil is kinda Yeah. In addition to the the retail DTE, it's it's that surcharge tax, facility charges, all all sorts of things that are burdening the rental car industry. So I I just yes, that's a mechanism, but I just wanted to provide a way.

Turo doesn't pay the rental car facilities or charges, do they?

And when

That I'm not sure I can't speak.

Alright. Thanks.

If if I may, just for the edification of the committee, the the I think the question was related to the tax foundation's testimony, which was that, a a I think I don't speak for Tom.

But what what I believe I understood from his testimony was similar to yours, which is that you have this retail wholesale rate dynamic that exists right now in recognition that goods brought in for wholesale are used in the provision of services and generate revenue and just thus justifies the tax treatment versus the fee which is essentially an extraction of the industry to be utilized for specific purposes as designated by the legislature.

That's my understanding of the of the surcharge tax. Okay. That's how that's supposed

to work.

help us understand why we would consider if we elect to to levy a charge on the industry for whatever reason, why the surcharge versus the the amendments to the the tax treatment retail wholesale?

So can you

Yeah. Because the the the retail wholesale concept is it's a long standing tax policy. It's been in place for several decades. Do we wanna start here targeting one

But is there an underlying policy consideration to make besides all this is the way we've always done it?

Not necessarily, but but are we gonna expand it to other industries? I mean, it it sort of opens up the doors like, hey, what do we what do we go after next? My example on food distributors selling to restaurants that gets the wholesale treatment and then the restaurant selling to end customers, retail g t is paid on that final dining bill. Is that a tax? Although do you But

you don't depreciate food.

Yeah. I can't depreciate food.

Yeah. But depreciation is is separate. That's an income tax concept, not a generalized tax concept. Well, I mean So it doesn't work.

But we have the American Rental Car Industry Association in this committee on the Senate bill saying, if you wanna understand how billionaires become billionaires, then look at how you utilize tax frameworks like this and offset depreciation on your income liability so that you pay zero taxes.

Right.

That's I mean And that the rental car industry is essentially a tax flow operation

Right.

A tax strategy dynamic. Right. Depreciation is an income tax concept. Right now, we're focusing on this general excise tax concept. Depreciation doesn't reduce general excise taxes.

There's no offset. Fair enough.

Okay. Any other

So so just want to follow-up follow-up on that. I guess billionaires never become billionaires overnight without the investment and the and the, idea of there could be a loss on that investment.

There is risk that they take.

So so in in the industry itself, explain to me what, on the wholesale side of it, prior prior to this, what would it look like on the the whether it be an incline increase or a decline? What would be the revenue loss in in taxes to the state if this bill was to pass?

That, that I don't have a a number exactly what the revenue loss would be, but I'd imagine that it would put, like, pressure on rental car customers. So sorry. There's gonna be some price sensitivity. And so I don't know what the net

Would would any rental car here be how about can can you guys get an idea of what the what the losses the state would lose? You know, because we're talking about trying to, help education and everything else. I I realized on the import tax, if you decide to slow imports of vehicles down, that I stand to lose a lot of money for my general fund.

Yeah. And so my name is Scott Halmer. I'm the controller with Enterprise Mobility. Chairs, vice chairs of this company. Thank you today.

That's a great point. A lot of people have been talking about this being a revenue generating measure. The the truth in the data shows that it may not generate revenue. And a lot of that is tied directly to purchasing fleet, cycling fleet, selling the fleet, and and what that does to us. This measure is gonna make it more expensive to buy cars.

And it is going to deincentivize the industry from wanting to purchase cars fleet. The current structure today is set up transactionally. The more we buy cars, the more we pay the half percent. Transactions are good. You generate more revenue.

If car buying were to stop tomorrow or shrink considerably due to this measure, that's going to affect downstream revenues. Not only in the half percent today, but in size of the fleets, all these other buckets of revenue that we generate as an industry. And not only that, when we turn to sell the cars to the dealership.

So when you look at this, even just on simple math, taking a twelve month cycle of a car, which was used in earlier testimony, I believe that's where they came up with the initial 80,000,000 number they were supporting. If we're selling cars on a twelve month cycle today under the current structure,

we'll generate 84% more GET than if we move to a three year cycle under the new proposed structure. That's gonna create a $162,000,000 deficit to the state's GET fund. And so that's just the numbers working out and that's because buying three cars at the current rate and selling them three times to local dealerships such as Servco who can then resell

and get a four and a half percent. There's a lot of money in other buckets, not just from the industry. And I think it's very important to note that there's nothing industry wide that requires purchasing vehicles. And so if this tax were to pass, there's a lot of data behind the fact that it's gonna create an immediate bubble in the revenue being generated.

So if the industry want to purchase vehicles for a year or two years or three years or wait in prolonged fleet, there's no money coming in on purchasing vehicles now.

So so you So so this is Give me give me one kind of cheap say Ipurchased 100 vehicles under the rental car and what would you guys cut back? Like, go half? You guys would say, can I only go do 50? Tell me what my losses would be, or how much how much would I lose going to coming back to the state?

Yeah. Just give me a just give me a clean number.

A clean number just on the twelve and 36. If we were currently cycling everything at twelve months under the current system, moving to a 36 month cycle on the proposed structure, you lose 84% of that revenue. So we're we're gonna lose $162,000,000 over that three year period as far as GT throughout each cycle, including the sale to the final consumer from the dealerships locally.

Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions, members? If not, short recess.

Any other questions, members? If not, short recess.

Okay. Reconvening on this 09:40AM agenda for decision making on House Bill 2575 House Draft one relating to taxation. I'd like to thank the testifiers and the members for the robust conversation on this.

Without objection, given the opposition notes Oh, I forgot to mention in the testimony in total, aside from the individuals who testified today, there were 56 individuals and organizations who testified in support and 76 in opposition. Noting the discussion and the testimony. Yeah. That's after we take into account the live testifiers. Yeah. After we minus the live testifiers.

Everybody holding me accountable here on this, on the YouTube feed as you guys can see. So without objection, the recommendation is gonna be that we defer this measure and continue the conversation into the interim, noting that the teachers and our education system still do need more support than they're getting now. So that's the recommendation for CPS.

On behalf of economic development tourism, you know, I think this is a this is a conversation that we gotta sit down and talk more about. I do not like losing revenue to the state, especially since we wanna support teachers. We wanna make sure that the teachers, are given, the necessary resources that they need to continue to teach and educate our appeal moving forward.

I think we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out something that's comparable for everybody, and to make sure that the benefits there exist. With that being said, same here. Economic development tourism, we are gonna defer this bill as well. Mahalo.

Thank you. We're adjourned.

This measure authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to establish automatic adjustment mechanisms to address economic factors, sua sponte, or on application by a water carrier. First up we have Michael Angelo, DCCA division of consumer advocacy with comments. Good morning.

Good morning chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Michael Angelo, the executive director of division consumer advocacy. We stand on our testimony providing comments available for questions.

Thank you very much. We're standing on your testimony. Johnny DeMora, PUC with comments.

Chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. I'm here on behalf of Johnny DeMora of the Public Utilities Commission. It's time to honor our testimony I'm here if you have any questions for me. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Young Brothers in support. Mister Veltri. Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning.

Aloha. My name is David Veltri, associate general counsel for Young Brothers, where I work on regulatory and legal matters. YB strongly supports this measure, including the implementation of interim inflation rate adjustments or WICI, which was the Hawaii water carrier working group's top recommendation, and it would begin the long overdue process of modernizing local water carrier rate regulation.

To explain, interisland water carriers like Young Brothers play a vital role in our supply chain so they're regulated like a traditional public utility where any general rate case ,rate change requires a time consuming expensive and often contentious regulatory process known as a rate case.

While this process was meant to protect consumers, the practical effect have been long periods of stagnant rates while the cost of providing service continue to rise. Financial pressure builds and larger disrupted rate increases are required to catch up after years of delay. This cycle of financial instability has real consequences. Capital becomes more expensive and harder to access. Costly short term cash management strategies like deferred maintenance and vendor payments become necessary.

And rate cases have to be pursued on an expedited basis, making them more contentious and more expensive. These costs are passed on to the customers that we serve. So WICI is a common sense solution to address these challenges. Does not replace or reduce regulation. It doesn't mean YB can stop working to make operational improvements on its own, and we are working on those.

The WICI mechanism includes clear guardrails. The working group designed it that way. Scheduled, predictable, annual adjustments that are capped at 5%. They're tied to an exist ,an existing state mechanism for maritime fee changes, and they're paired with mandatory full rate reviews and resets every third year. For example, if you go on the Warfridge website today that the State Department of Transportation publishes, you will be able to see that on 07/01/2026, Warfridge rates will increase by 3.9%.

So in short, annual WICI adjustments help keep rates aligned with real world costs. They support sustainable, sustainable operations for our customers and for ourselves and they keep our local supply chain strong.

Thank you. Very much.

Thank you.

I skipped the Hawaii Department of Transportation online. Good morning.

Aloha. Thank you, chair chairs. I'm Dre Kalili, deputy director of transportation for Harbors. We stand on our written testimony and strong support and available to answer any questions, especially those pertaining to our automatic wharfage increases on an annual basis. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Ashley Kishimoto for Young Brothers in support. Ted Kefalas for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in opposition. Lauren Zirbel, Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition online. Good morning.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. My name is Lauren Zirbel. I'm president of Hawaii Food Industry Association representing over 200 companies across the food and beverage supply chain, including retailers, distributors, manufacturers, and producers statewide. HFI stands in strong opposition to this measure. Interisland shipping is not a luxury in Hawaii.

It's the backbone of our food distribution system. Every cost increase moves directly through the supply chain and shows up in the price of food for families across our state. While we recognize that changes are needed in the water carrier system and we understand that rate increases may sometimes be necessary to maintain service, we believe this bill moves us in the wrong direction.

The Public Utilities Commission, the entity charged with regulating this industry, has already reviewed this exact concept in Young Brother's recent rate case and explicitly rejected the automatic inflation based pricing mechanism. They warned that the increasing rates may offset inefficiencies and mask operational short company coming to the detriment of consumers.

At the same time, the PUC approved a 25.75% rate increase based on detailed financial review and did so with a clear expectation of a two year pause on additional increases to provide stability. They also required enhanced independent oversight and monitoring of the company. In other words, the PUC identified concerns, allowed a justified increase, and put guardrails in place. This bill overrides that balanced approach and mandates automatic increases anyway.

It replaces a case by case regulatory oversight with a system that guarantees rising costs without requiring improved service efficiency or accountability.

And importantly, the task force that developed this legislation did not include a single rate payer. For this policy that directly increases the cost of living, it's really important to include rate payers when you're discussing what the options are. We have received an 81% increase cumulatively since 2018. By any mechanism, this is much faster increases in mainline shipping, which by

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Lauren. Pamela Tumpap from Maui Chamber of Commerce in opposition online. She was here. Hello

Aloha. Thank you so much for the opportunity. We are here because we feel this bill should be deferred, and this bill impacts, of course, all of our residents statewide. It has not been widely published, and many are still unaware of it.

Further, we're finding that people believe that fuel is part of this, and it is not. And we hear now that, you know, we're we're all we already have a food insecurity issue. We're hearing that there may be a challenge to food subsidies through YB, and we feel that that's highly inappropriate, especially at this time. With awareness, our coalition is educating businesses statewide, which represent thousands of employees. Our survey is already identifying key challenges.

For example, 75% are saying that this increase coming off of a big increase last year would be a huge, significant, or major impact on their business. Okay? So 75% are in that combined category. Many are noted have, many have noted in terms of claims that it's not even worth making a claim. In the event they make a claim, it takes a lot of time, so there's no point in doing it.

And one person said, no point in filing claims because they're always declined. These were these were things that we discussed with YB at a meeting held with legislators a couple of weeks ago. Many are saying in terms of whether they would support a YB rate structure increase as noted in these bills, 85.71% said no. 14.29% said they're unsure and need more information. So in terms of this, we have huge impacts and huge issues, and I could go on, but I don't have time for that.

The Public Utilities Commission, you know, who is charged with reviewing YB rate increases and has their financial records denies, denied YB's request for a water carrier inflationary cost index, which we call the WICI here. And in the 2029 rate increase after that was approved and prohibited rate increases for two years. We agree with their position and believe this bill undermines their authorities. For that immunity

very much.

We, oppose this bill. Mahalo for the opportunity.

Thank you very much. Okay. That's all. The test.

Those are all the testifiers that signed up to testify. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this measure? Okay. In total, we had 22 testifiers in support, 16 in opposition and seven offering comments. Members, questions?

Quick question.

Senator McKelvey.

Mister Veltri, is he still around?

Yes. I'm still here.

Thrilled about this one. So under this bill, just to dumb it down for everybody out there, basically, if this bill were to pass, it would limit you to this 5% per year of a rate increase.

That would be the upper limit for every first and second year. So the way that the system works, it's it's a three year cycle. So the water carrier working group put this in place as guardrails to prevent, you know, situations with runaway rate increases. So in years one and two of the cycle, it would be a Wharfage index inflation increase. So the way Wharfage works right now and I'm sorry.

I know DOT is on, on the Internet over here and said they can answer questions about wharfage. But essentially, wharfage rates are charged to harbor users every time that they use the facilities. So they're the same customers. And it would be five it would be capped at 5%. Wharfage can actually go higher than 5% but this tie to wharfage rates would be capped at five percent and they could be as low as three percent.

So that would be for years one and two. And then in the third year, it would just be a regular old rate case whether we want to or not. So that means that if the PUC would do a full review of our complete rate structure like we normally do in a rate case, and that means that

it could go up, it could go down. It's just a full ground up, rate review and could be based on it could be a rate increase. It could be a rate decrease based on, you know, inflationary adjustments that were too high. It could go either way. It would be up to the PTC on that.

So the first 25% is tied to the wharfage?

Yeah. First two capped at 5%.

It could be between it could be between three to 5%.

Capped at 5%.

Three to five. But then.

It would be once a year, and you would find out way in advance. Like, right like I was saying, for 2026, we know that the wharfage rate increase is going to be 3.9% on July 1st, today. We know that today because the DOT already announced.

But the wharfage rate rates aren't set on things that are basically, I guess, in its own universe where it's not determined on outside factors. It

it's tied to I believe it's tied to CPI and then it's, a Honolulu index CPI.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. No.

Thank thank you for, helping me walk me through this because, I think there's something to be said potentially about the measure because I mean, oil's gonna be a $180, 200 dollars a barrel. Probably will be that way unless this thing miraculously ends in April 1st for the rest of the year. I'm looking at this now, perhaps, if this might provide some stability protection to consumers because what you guys could be coming into could be quite dramatically higher. Right?

Well, I can I clarify on that? I know this is kind of I I would love to just go along with that logic, but there's already an automatic adjustment in place for fuel surcharges that is incorporated into our rates currently. It's not a pure pass through, but it does pass through a lot of the costs of rising or lowering fuel costs to customers.

Okay. Well, that's actually really important clarification. Thank you for that. Yeah. I can't support the board anymore.

Members questions.

Yeah. I, I just want to say that, with the task force that was in place several years ago with the resolution that we, the legislature, asked for this, this, process. And so I wanna just thank those that were active at that time. It was a large task force. And, you know, just to add that all the counties were involved. We had financial activities with the members that were present.

We'd like to thank PUC as well, for its con contribution. But we're so happy that finally with this WICI's proposal, that you all had come to what had been established, during that time. So just to thank those, because otherwise we would not have been here and then Young Brothers would have been on their own, wanting to hang in there for our neighbor island, this, you know, transportation system.

And we just want to say that for all of you, thanks for allowing us to do that test for several years ago. And thank you, chair, for hearing this measure.

Questions, members? Okay. Brief recess. Thank you.

Okay. Reconvening on, the 09:50AM Agenda, House bill 2386, House draft two. The recommendation is to pass this measure with amendments adopting the Senate position in Senate bill 2694 Senate draft two, which was heard previously and has crossed over into the House. We'll adopt the PUC's proposed amendments, and we will include the sunset provision of seven years that we included in the Senate version. And there's already a defective effective date on this measure.

Yes.

Chair?

So those are the recommendations. Members, any discussion?

If I may, appreciate the changes going back to the Senate position sunset as well as the inclusion of the PUC language. However, I still have a lot of concerns with the measure. We'll be going with reservations now. Make my final determination when it comes to the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you. So noted. Any other? Senator Elefante.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. I appreciate, the suggested amendments that you do have. I do feel it makes it better. However, I share the same concerns as the Senator from Lahaina.

And so I'll be voting with reservations.

Thank you. So noted. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, vice chair passing with amendments, chair votes aye.

Thank you. Vice chair also votes aye. Senator LaMusale? Aye. Senator McKelvey?

Reservations.

Senator Awa? Aye. Thank you. Your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. For the Committee on Transportation, same recommendation is to pass HB2386 House Draft two with amendments. Any discussions for the Committee on Transportation? Okay. Hearing none, vice chair for the vote, chair goes aye.

Thank you.

Chair's recommendation is to pass House bill 2386 House draft two with amendments. Chair votes aye. Vice chair votes aye with reservations. Senator Kanuha? Aye.

Senator Lee is excused. Senator DeCoite? Aye. Madam Chair, recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Calling a joint hearing for our HHS CPN, Wednesday, 03/25/2026 at 10AM. Convened here at Room 229. Person with me is majority leader, Senator Kanuha, my co chair, Senator McKelvey. Senator my other cochair for the joint CPN meeting is Senator Keohokalole, Senator Fukunaga, vice chair of CPN, and Senator La Masaal, also CPN. There's many things sitting live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we must abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding this later at 01:44PM today, March 25, in Room 225. The public notice will be posted on the legislative website to facilitate this hearing in a timely manner. We'll be enforcing a one minute, not two, for CPN, one minute for HHS, limit on testimony. I will be reading a list of individuals who submitted written testimony for each measure.

We apologize if the closed captioning is not accurately transcribed the names. If you're interested in viewing the written testimony, please go to the legislator's website. You'll find a link on the status page for the measure. We appreciate your understanding and remind you that committee does have your testimony, that we review them. So I encourage you to use your time wisely to either add additional comments or stand on your written testimony. First up, SCR 50.

And what is the SR number? The previous one. 29.

49.

49. And SR 409. Establishing the Hawaii health plan working group to design and recommend a basic affordable Hawaii health plan available to every resident on this in the state. First up, we have excuse me. State of Hawaii, DLIR.

Chairs.

Providing comments.

Please stand on our written testimony providing comments. Thank you.

K. Next, we have SHPDA in support.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs. I'll I'll use 45 of my minute. We we I was here as director of health when we did the state health improvement plan in 19891990. It eventually reached to 40,000 people. It was a very inexpensive program.

We're considering uninsured today. We're gonna have to figure out how to do this. This kind of program would be probably 20% of the cost of full coverage. We have to do it carefully so as not to in any wage way interfere with the prepaid health care act. We also have to make sure that anybody who's eligible for other coverage gets that other coverage including MedQuest coverage.

But if we did provide MedQuest coverage at probably $5,000 ahead for the uninsured, it would be very, very prohibitively expensive.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have LRB providing comments, Legislative Reference Bureau. Next, we have Aloha Project, in strong support. Next, we have Aloha Independent Living Hawaii, in support of the intent. Next, we have HPCA in support and offering a friendly amendment.

That's Eric Abe. Next, we have HMSA providing comments.

Yeah. I have to take that. Thank you.

Thank you. Leymo Mekan in support. Johnny May Perry providing comments. And we have Theresa Armbruster in opposition. Anybody else wishing to testify on SCR 50, SR 49?

Members, any questions? Okay. The only question I have is for SHPDA. Did you see HPCA's proposed amendments to add in more people to the working group and

Thank you for the question, chair. I I think MedQuest and DL and DLIR should definitely be there and and we have no objection to having the primary care association because the FQHCs be an important part of the process. So no opposition to that at all, of course, in our management.

Okay. Thank you very much. Met question DLIR. Okay. Thank you very much.

Any other questions, members? Seeing none, are we ready to proceed with decision making? Okay. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. We are gonna accept HPCA's proposed amendment to add in MedQuest, DLIR, member, representative of Healthcare Association of Hawaii and a representative of Hawaii Primary Care Association.

Any other comments, questions, concerns passed with amendments? Chair votes aye.

Okay. Recommendation on SCR 50 SR 49 is a Senate draft one, noting the presence of all members except for Senator Fevella. Are there any AWRs or no? Seeing none, recommendation on both resolutions has been adopted.

For CPN, same recommendation. Any discussion? If not, chair votes aye.

Thank you. Of the CPN members present, are there any reservations or objections? Seeing none, your recommendation is adopted, noting the absence or excuse the absence of Senator Awa.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. And with that, we are adjourned.

Okay. Convening this Wednesday, 03/25/2026, 10:01AM, CPN agenda in Conference Room 229 at the Hawaii State Capitol. First up, we have SCR 118, SR 111, urging the Insurance Division of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Department of the Attorney General to convene a working group to identify feasible options and mechanisms to protect the state and its residents against the effects of climate change on the availability and affordability of insurance.

First up we have Leah Laramie, Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, in support. Thank you very much.

DCCA Insurance Division with comments online.

Thank you, Chair. The insurance division will stand on its written comments.

Thank you very much.

Kayla Economu for Polluters Pay Hawaii Coalition, in support online.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Okay. Thank you. And Johnny May Perry offering comments. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this resolution? Members, questions?

Okay. If not, we'll move to the next set of resolutions. SCR 166 and SR 157 requesting the PUC to ensure that certain conditions are met before approving any infrastructure operations, maintenance, fuel, or other costs relating to supplying and using liquefied natural gas. First up we have the Hawaii State Energy Office with comments.

Thank you very much. Division of consumer advocacy, mister Angelo.

Chair and vice chair, stand on our testimony.

Thank you very much. Earthjustice with comments online. Good morning.

Aloha, chair, vice chair. Good morning. Harley Broyles on behalf of Earthjustice. We appreciate the effort to set baseline conditions to protect Hawaii consumers from the burdens and risk of LNG through this resolution. However, fundamentally, we

should not have to waste our valuable time or money on this However, fundamentally, we should not have to waste our valuable time or money on this LNG venture.

You've heard about I'm sure you've heard about the consequences of LNG through, you know, the media and all of that that's going on as of current and how LNG how those what the consequences would be for Hawaii, prolonging our fossil fuel dependence, endangering our and another rail type infrastructure situation, one that is irreversible and comes with a high cost commitment.

And after HSEO's billion dollar boondoggle that came to the surface at the recent information hearing held by the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection, it is clear that there's no cost scenario where LNG works. I think that Jira's written testimony submitted in opposition to this Community First resolution sets the tone for what we can expect from them should LNG ever happen here. The progress of LNG and our state prioritize over the cost savings and safety of Hawaii consumers.

And we must do everything we can to put Hawaii consumers at the forefront when it comes to our energy future.

Thank you very much. We have Chris Caulfield from the Oumu Alliance offering testimony and support. Eric Montague for JERA Americas in opposition, and Johnny May Perry in opposition. Is there anyone else? Oh, PUC. Did I just skip you guys? I just skipped the PUC. Please come up. Good morning.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? That's why you gotta check. Any questions members? Okay. Seeing none, unless there are objections, I'm just gonna go into decision making.

Okay. So, the recommendation on the first set of resolutions, SCR 118 and SR 111, is to pass with amendments, adding the proposed language requested, oh, adding language to request that the working group work with the Hawaii office of recovery and resiliency to conduct the assessment of insurance exposure for the state and its residents and to request, instead of a report, that the working group share its findings and recommendations with the respective commerce and consumer protection committees. Any discussion, members? Any questions?

Okay. Then the recommendation is to pass with amendments, and the Chair votes aye.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. And the last resolution is SCR 166 SR 157. The recommendation is to defer this measure defer action on this measure to Thursday, April 2 at 09:30AM in Conference Room 229. It's not our intent to weigh in on the PUC's process per se, especially given the attempt for the state energy office to weigh into the process earlier last week.

But the legislature, you know, hopefully we can work out some language to allow the legislature to speak on just ensuring that if we are going to make a generational commitment on energy like LNG that any decision made by the PUC is based off of sound decision making, evidence based approaches and that there's a transparent process.

So, again, without objection, the recommendation is to defer action on this measure to next week. And thank you very much. We're adjourned.