House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We're convening the committee on consumer protection and commerce. It is Wednesday, 04/01/2026. It'll be April fools day about 02:05pm in Conference Room 329. Vice chancellor, take it away.

Thank Thank you. Before we get going, your reminder that we have a two minute time time limit on testimony just to make sure we stay on track for our agenda. This timer will light up with the rainbow lights, and well, I'll ask you to wrap up your testimony. First up on the agenda is SB 3144 SD one HD one relating to the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law.

Repeals the requirement that the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations regulate hoisting machines and certify their operators and the Hoisting Machine Operators Advisory Board including its role requiring a separate State Green Operator Certificate.

First step is the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations in support. Cool shirt.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi. Madam vice chair Grandinetti, representative, Jade Butay, director of the Department of Labor and Distributions. I understand in our testimony. I want to thank you for your administration bill. Following the meeting that the operating procedures are mutually concluded.

Wasting machine operating advisory board is completed in the oversight. This measure also updates the lower timeline investigation to align with federal standards. Thank you.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure?

Anyone else to testify? Deepak, sorry, director. I have one question for you. I'm intending to move this out of committee upon a with an effective date to try to avoid conference.

Seems like a pretty straightforward bill, but would you rather have an effective date of upon approval, 07/01/2026, or do you think it doesn't matter?

On approval is fine with us.

Okay. Or would you would July 1 work too, or do you do just that? July 1. July 1. It's better.

Alright. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Moving on to SB 2386, SD 1, HD 1, relating to employment earnings. Clarifies that the requirement to disclose hourly rates or salary ranges on job listings applies to full time, part time, temporary, or seasonal employment, exempts employers having fewer than 25 employees, rather than 50, from the disclosure requirement. First up is the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women, in support.

Good afternoon. Llasmine Chaine for the Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on our written testimony in support of this measure as pay transparency is a proven tool in addressing wage gaps that disproportionately impact women and clear wage information streamlines the recruitment process and makes it more efficient by setting clear expectations for both employers and applicants. Thank you very much for your consideration and support.

Thank you. AAUW Hawaii in support.

Good afternoon, chair Matayoshi, vice chair Grandinetti, and representative Iwamoto. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Yonghee Overlee, representing AUW Hawaii. You have our written testimony.

I just would like to emphasize that we ask that you remove the exemption for small businesses with less than 25 employees because this pay transparency is something good for all businesses. And you may hear small businesses saying this is gonna be a burden, but they really do know. All small businesses know what their budget is, so it's just a matter of posting it.

And by the way, gen, gen Z-ers and millennials, unlike us, boomers, know how to find this information anyway, so why not provide and be transparent about it? And if you're gonna ask me what the effective date should be, I will ask for 01/01/2027 to give businesses and organizations like Hawaii Employer Council opportunity to train businesses on how to do this. Thank you.

Thank you. NFIB in opposition.

We're not just giving out effective dates.

NFIB? No, not present. Okay. Anyone else in person or on Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Just noting 13 individuals who submitted testimony in support.

Members, any questions?

Yes, please. For the commission. So, we heard a testimony from AAU, AAUW, and also, the Civil Rights Commission both supporting and not accepting employers, small business small business employers. I'm sorry, can I—I, I don't recall, did you also support removing that exemption?

Yeah. In my testimony—thank you for that question. I am in support of that as well. I think all employers participating in this practice will be helpful.

Thank you.

Moving on to SB 2053 SD2HD1 relating to transportation. Authorizes supporting documents used to transfer ownership of a motor vehicle to an insurance company after payment of damages from the result of a total loss insurance settlement to be signed electronically. Requires insurance companies to indemnify and hold harmless the director of finance for any claims resulting from the issuance of motor vehicle titles utilizing documents signed electronically without a notary.

First up is the Department of Transportation in support on Zoom.

Aloha, vice chair, Dreana Kalili, deputy director of transportation. We stand on our written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Copart Inc in support on Zoom.

Yes. Hi. I'm Mark Binder with Copart, and I ask for your support bill. It will really help the consumer as well as the business community, get them through a a time of tough time in their in their total loss settlement process. If you have any questions, let me know.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom wishing to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Okay. Moving on to SB 3102 SD 2 HD 1 relating to port pilotage.

Clarifies the consulting role and responsibilities of the Department of Transportation in the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Development and Implementation of Port Pilot Licensure Standards, requirements, and criteria. Repeals Port Allen from the list of designated pilotage waters. First up is the Department of Transportation and support on Zoom.

Aloha, chair and vice chair, Dreana Kalili again, deputy director of transportation for Harbors. We know that this is a DCCA, administrative bill, but we are in strong support. We think that the close collaborative and consultative relationship between DOT and DCCA is important. DCCA will regulate the licensure as they currently do of pilots who operate in our facilities, so this absolutely makes sense. And DOT also supports the exclusion of Port Allen, from the waters requiring pilotage.

We understand that this creates a conflict in an in an administrative way for the pilots that need to renew and get their licenses. And should there be an operation that requires a pilotage, there is a process that the pilots have in place to ensure a safe maneuver and operation of the vessels. So we stand in support. Thank you very much. Available for questions.

Thank you. DCCA port pilot program in support.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Danny Chow. I'm program specialist for DCCA. The department sets in charge of part of this bill, and, AbbVie also support the amendments made as well. I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure?

Vice chair. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and committee members. Thank you for having us. Sinclair Brown with the Hawaii Pilots Association. Harbor pilots bring the ships in and out of the state's designated harbors, and we stand on our written testimony in support of this bill, and I'm here to answer any questions or receive any comments. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other testifiers? Seeing none, members, any questions?

It's for DOT or BCCA CO2. Right? Maybe you can come up too. So I know I said it wasn't giving out effective dates, but it's the only other bill. But But I do wanna send out ... for would you rather is it better effective date or 07/01/2026, or do you guys not care?

I don't really think we have any preference. Yeah. And having it passed is.

Okay. DOT any preference?

We would love for it to go to conference with a clean date. So with that said, we we don't have I mean, we're ready to consult with DCCA today, so effective date doesn't matter much to us.

Okay. Yeah. You can avoid conference if it if we send it over clean and the Senate just agrees to it. So okay. I'll make a choice. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you.

Okay. Next measure is SB 2400, SD 1, HD 1, relating to transportation. Exempts persons operating wing and ground craft engaged in the transportation of passengers from the application of the Hawaii Water Carrier Act and defines wing and ground craft. First up is Hawaii Community Development Authority, in support. Okay.

Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Chair, vice chair, member of the committee...here from the Public Utilities Commission. Stand on our written testimony offering comments as part of the intent of this measure. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Think Tank in support. Not present.

Hawaii Sea Glider Initiative, in support on Zoom.

Yes. Aloha, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Michael Perham, Regional Director for North America at Regent Craft, also on the YEC Ladder Initiative as well. I, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in strong support of the bill, and I stand on the written testimony in support.

And I just wanted to add that this, this bill is, is vital because it recognizes that sea gliders are a unique class of, of vessel and, you know, subject—subjecting—them to the same PUC regulations that heavy water carriers would essentially hurt innovation in terms of, of red tape. So, we wanna ensure that this remains affordable and in a competitive service for Hawaii. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, in support. HMSA, in support.

Morning, chair Matayoshi, vice chair Grandinetti, representative Iwamoto. Walden Au on behalf of HMSA. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

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

I have a question for PUC. So, exempting it from the searching designation will mean it would not come to you for a way rate increase. I mean, all of those issues that we hear in this committee. Is that how this works?

Let me try to let—I apologize, representative—let me try to summarize what you're trying to ask us. So, I think what you're—essentially, what you're trying to ask us is by exempting sea glider from PUC regulation or commission regulation, essentially, we wouldn't be meddling and then even not meddling. So, that's, that's—sorry.

I said it, but I, I, we wouldn't be kind of in charge of reviewing any of the rates or any of the safety activities, or any, or need to get an involved in any of the decisions relating to financing or other requirements under water carriers acts and under our normal statutory language for utilities. Largely, they wouldn't need to come to us for any approval whatsoever.

Who would—who would oversee safety regulations?

That would be the Coast Guard because, again, they are a craft vessel, and the Coast Guard does actually regulate all of the vessels in Hawaii still. You know, they still do. It's just we're actually added, added lay—added layer—because of the water, Water Care Act's basic says that we're gonna cover these vessels, the operator of the vessels, make sure they provide just reasonable service.

Okay. Thank you.

So, as far as safety standards, who reg—who would regulate the, these aircraft, these gliders? Is it FAA?

We, we believe FAA would. Based upon our understanding of what's happening in the...they're already going after certificates from the FAA. You know, it would kinda be the same as commuter aircraft and, like, seaplanes. You know, we don't regulate seaplanes. We don't regulate its commuter aircrafts.

So, it'll be under that kind of purview. I, you know, I do wanna note, and I think this was brought up on the companion bill when it died last time about what still remains. It—the harbor, harbor and small bar harbors that see the light will operate on, we still need to abide by any DOT or DLNR regulations, including any types of assessed fees that they would have. So, this would not alleviate them of that.

This will alleviate them of coming to us for any of our approvals necessary and paying us a fee and paying for, annual financial report, other safety and operational requirements that we will put on them.

Chair, if I could, add a rebuttal to that if possible. Sorry.

I think he's on your side. You wanna rebut that?

I, I, I just wanted to make a correction to the record. So, we, we are—we are regulated by the US Coast Guard, not the, the FAA. So, we, we, we will be regulated by the Coast Guard domestically here in the US and then internationally through classification societies and the International Maritime Organization.

Okay. That, that actually comforts me less because, I, I mean, I do wanna make sure what, what, what safety standards do you have to adhere to?

So, the safety standards are built into the process of the, the certification with the Coast Guard. So, that's everything from concept reviews to risk workshop workshops directly with the Coast Guard to design basis agreements, which is essentially the groundwork for how the vessel is designed, the safety, the safety characteristics associated with that vessel. It's about moving through the approval process for that DBA and then doing the construction and inspections and then getting a certificate of inspection from the Coast Guard. It's essentially the same path. Sorry?

Is it—so, maintenance wise, safety, I mean, just operational wise, does the Coast Guard monitor that?

Yeah. So, we work directly with the, the sector coast guard offices in the different regions in the United States. So, you know, we're, we're, we're working directly with the US Coast Guard, you know, as a whole on the certification process, and then we work directly with the operators and the Coast Guards in those specific geographies or the sectors, as they call them, for their operation.

Coast Guard will come to your maintenance hangar to make sure you folks are maintaining the planes properly.

Yeah. We work, we work directly with the Coast Guard in terms of that and developing the safety protocols, the maintenance protocols that are associated with the sea glider operations.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Chair, I have questions for Seaglider.

Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

Seaglider.

I, I think Region is the company.

Okay. Got it. So, yeah, my questions are generally—so, you, you wouldn't necessarily know about the Qumalo Basin Harbor that that could be a taking off point. You don't know about those details, is that, or do you?

Oh, I'm familiar with the harboring. We have a, a good relationship with HCDA and OHA as well, and we understand that they plan to develop the harbor. I'm not saying specifically for sea gliders, but the—there are plans to make that harbor a lot better than it is now.

Oh, okay. Got it. And so, when, when the sea glider is going from island to island, how many feet above the water surface does it glide?

Yeah. That's a great question. And so, it's considered a Type A winging ground effect vessel through the coastguards. That means it always has to stay within a Wingspan's length of the water. In our case, the Wingspan is 65 feet, and so, it'll fly in that 40 to 50 foot range above the water, always reading the wave heights below it and in front of it to determine its altitude.

Got it. So, there's no chance, obviously, we have a lot of whales. We were, you know, they're very—we're a very popular destination. And so, there's a lot of whales breaching, and so they never breach that high.

Is that what we should assume, that there would be no accidental, unintentional collision?

You know, it's, it's very important to us in terms of our—we call it "perception." So, you know, there's a lot of perception on board from the surface to underwater to the altitude and wave perception. And what those are doing is, you know, it's from sonar to radar to ultrasonic, and it's reading what's beneath the water, what's in front of us in the air, and it's also up to the operator to avoid those obstacles.

But I don't, I don't necessarily see that as being an issue.

Okay. And then, who would also determine, like, if it's if the wave height on the South Shore, if it is Kiawala Basin Harbor, for instance, in those areas that the wave height is too like, the surface is too big during the summer or something, like, who would make that call?

Yeah. So, the—that's part of the, the feasibility study that we've done. There's certain operational windows in terms of what the wave heights are during different time frames throughout the year. You know, and what we've really found is, you know, the wave tolerances for the specific areas allow it, you know, an operational, you know, in the 85% range.

And then, of course, you know, the, there's buoys there that are monitored, and then, we'll also, you know, work with the operator setup protocols in terms of how you read the current wave state if, you know, you're entering or departing the Harbor.

Okay. Thank you.

I have a quick question for the PC, actually.

Guys, if I misspoke earlier.

A lot of the concerns expressed by the testimony in opposition have to do with, like, environmental concerns and that PUC removing the PUC oversight would remove a formal mechanism for communities to raise concerns. Are there I mean, the would this kind of oversight even allow you to intervene on environmental concerns and are there other I guess are they subject to other kinds of regulatory systems that that address those separately?

It needs some time to think about that. I apologize if I share. If you're asking us if we know of another agency that would have the type of oversight we would have over, you know, the the the the people that would the the group of people that would run these air these seed ladders, You know, I I don't know fully understand and appreciate the scale of the breakthrough framework outside the commission. I do know that I do note that, you know, we have break cases proceedings.

People can intervene in those.

We have public hearings, whatnot. And if we were to review any application for us, you know, we have the ability to take public comment on all of them. So

Do you wanna Yeah.

I'll help you.

Okay. So

Yeah. Sorry. So because I'm not an expert in terms of the non PC regulatory sphere. Yeah. Yeah.

David Uchiyama, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. So we started this project actually in 2021, and we started with the Ige administration and went through all the different administrative both state and county. The second phase to that was going to all of the environmental groups. Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Earthjustice, Surfrider Foundation, all of them were brought into the mix. We felt that we needed to get community support before we even considered bringing the sea glider here.

The second phase to that was going out to the cultural community. So we went to, at that time, Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, council for I can't remember.

Kamehameha Schools. We even went to organizations like Kua who oversees the fishing grounds and the the fishing areas surrounding the island, the fishponds. We've gone out to the different canoe organizations, both Okra as well as the Hawaii. So we've been and then we went out to neighborhood boards, and we've been meeting with Rotary Clubs and different community organizations to get them their their input in the whole process.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Did you have your question answered

to come here? Not quite. That's helpful context.

Anything else? Okay. Okay. Moving on to SB 2835 SD 1 HD 1 relating to liquor. Part one clarifies that class 10 special licenses may be granted for a period not to exceed three days per application.

In counties fewer than 200,000 residents but not more than 100,000 residents, amend application requirements for class 10 special licenses, including requirements related to electronic submission, naming, and single application for certain adjacent parcels of land and prohibits the conditional acceptance of applications based on certain factors. Part two increases the maximum percentage of fines assessed by county liquor commissions that may be used to fund public liquor related educational or enforcement programs. First up is the Honolulu Liquor Commission in support.

Aloha, chair Matayoshi, vice chair Grandinetti, representative Iwamoto. My name is Jeff Hong. I'm the chair of the Honolulu Liquor Commission. Liquor commissions are organized like the police with the police commission and separate from HPD. Beside me is Anna Hirai.

She is representing the agency as its assistant administrator. Our administrative position is open, and we're looking to fill it. We're in strong support of SB 2835. The commission views its role as facilitating and supporting the responsible service of alcohol in our city while we enforce regulations to protect public health and safety. Honolulu is the only county that currently issues for profit class 10 licenses.

We have been issuing them for over forty years. The 2008 cleanup of liquor statutes provided for free licenses for nonprofits. It is unclear from a strict reading of the current statute that for profit licenses remain supportive. We've been questioned on our authority to issue these license and request this technical cleanup. In the two my two year tenure as chair, we've issued hundreds of these licenses to support our bars, hotels, weddings, and events like the Sony Open.

By statute, we're only allowed to issue temporary licenses to businesses for February. Unfortunately, the current average age of pending applications is 400 days. These licenses provide relief to our businesses. The alternative is for them to see serving after 240 days. We have formed a permitted interaction group to address the delays caused by our rules and processes.

We may return next year with the request for statutory assistance to streamline applications and processes like this bill before you. Mahalo for the opportunity. That's fine.

Thank you. And, commissioners of the Honolulu Liquor Commission, it's Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Gotcha.

So just to be I'm Anna Harai, assistant administrator at the Liquor Commission. Stand on my testimony in strong support of this measure. Happy to answer questions. Thank you.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none, members, any questions?

Well from the liquor liquor commission. Either of you.

We'll both come up We just love Yeah. Appearing together.

We don't have A microphone. You guys can call and speak. Your testimony was a little confusing. You referred to HB 1901 a number of times.

It wasn't clear to me whether you were asking us to make an amendment similar to that done in HB 1901 or if you needed were you requesting an amendment to this bill?

No. I was just sort of providing I think it's mainly from my testimony that for three years, we are pursuing amendments to the class 10 special, which is also included, in this session. But the there was a second, important feature, request having to do with the clarification of the for profit specials, where, where it was suggested that we, continue the discussion and investigation with respect to the retail the retail function of the class 10 for another session. So we were

willing to drop that particular it was just sort of context because the the bill originally surfaced in the in the house bill 1901. And it was, like, the third year running that we are making that request, and we're going to abandon that effort this session.

Okay. So just get the technical cleanup done. That's the most important part that we see in the near future if if we have trouble with with the actual authority to grant the special licenses to forecast.

Okay. And that is not in the bill, to be clear, the the technical cleanup.

The the technical cleanup is in Yeah. Is in this bill, but the ability to take the liquor off premise, that was the part that we dropped.

Okay. Yeah. That was the part I was quite against.

That part's out. Okay.

The for profit portion of this, it it it was this always the purpose of these temporary licenses? I mean, it it it's almost like it's used as a gap filler right now to account for the long delays with the liquor commission. Right now, it's used as sort of like a bad day to fix until the liquor license itself can be transferred or established. Is that is that a fair assessment of

I would say that's a fair assessment, but Ms. Hirai?

Yeah I mean, originally, since we have a number of businesses in the whole county, I'm I guess they won't mind if I name it, but cools and catering, events international, free spirits mobile bartending.

You guys attached the whole list here in your testimony so

Yeah.

So That, basically, are dependent on using the class 10 special in conjunction with their event planning.

And do they continually apply for the special license over and over anticipation of getting their permanent?

No. There's two aspects to it. One is the event planners, and they're like, we're gonna have the Sony open. I need two this weekend. But then the other one is a restaurant that wants to open, and then they get on to their 200 and fortieth day.

We need to grant them something to to keep the vice the the restaurant open.

So the extended use is a relatively recent phenomenon. But over the past forty years, there have been a number of events that are supported by the class 10 for profit special license, but only recently as we've had challenges with the licensing backlog as it and thought to use the class 10 special for that purpose. It's it's extraordinarily expensive to do so.

$90 a day for a nonprofits I mean, for a for profit special, whereas the annual license fee for a permanent licenses can be, you know, between 1,200 and $1,800 a year. So you wouldn't do it unless

You're desperate. Yeah. You're desperate because, otherwise, you have to be closed. Right.

But when do you I mean, it just makes me uncomfortable because it it seems like this license is being used for a purpose it was not originally intended for.

I would say that's correct.

Right. For profit special, all this appears before the commission published on the agenda. If someone truly had a problem with sort of inserting a licensed presence in their in their neighborhood, so to speak, they would have the opportunity to submit protests because that's all the nonprofits are done administratively.

But I'm more wondering when when the end of this issue will occur. I'm assuming that this is not the permanent fix to keep putting Band Aids on Band Aids.

We have been struggling, to be quite honest, to address this issue. You can see in my testimony that the graph is getting worse, not better. We have a permitted interaction group that's looking at streamlining our rules and our processes to address this backlog of licenses. And that's why I said we may come back additionally to have statutory fixes, like the ones that are in the testimony today the bill today to streamline the process of of granting licenses.

Okay. I just want you to know I'm uncomfortable with this situation.

We are too.

Yeah. I think once the back the backlog situation is addressed, the use of the not for profit special will drop off for relatively dramatically because it is super expensive to do it open the business this way.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions, Iwamoto?

Sorry. Can I have a question? So if somebody if there's a a search in specific bar that neighbors have a problem with and say they can actually try to, I guess, oppose their license renewal or something. Is that the way it works in the community has complaint. So I guess my my concern is that if they keep if they get this emergency Band Aid extension, will they have time to, you know, get involved with the community members?

For instance, if they did a Google alert to be notified if this particular community bar that they have tons of conflict with comes up, will they will it be a timely will they still have an opportunity if it's noticed online or something?

So the typical case that we're describing here is somebody has already applied Right. And so they've gone through the process of of getting a license. So there's some notifications there. When we do a special license for profit, it appears as a public hearing of which people can testify in opposition.

Got it. So they would just

there's a requirement to send notice to the neighborhood report.

So it's the neighborhood report. Okay. And so this is, again, Google alertable. Like, for instance, I can tell the community members, well, if you if you if it'll be announced on your website, and that's when they can do a flag situation for that particular establishment. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions?

I do. Yep.

Yep Rep Ilagan

How long is the permit again?

Pardon?

How long is the permit?

Up to three days, but we've been granting, like, a ton of them. You know, not the exact properties of original intent.

Okay

Thank you. Alright. Moving on to our final measure, SB3248 SD2 HD1 relating to labeling requirements. Establishes labeling requirements for Okoleha products. First up is Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Richard Cohen from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity. I'm here to stand on our written testimony, and I'm also available to answer questions.

Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaiian Ola Brewing Corporation in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Naya Halani Breeden, president and co-founder of Ola Brew. I was really hoping I could be there in person, but we actually are opening our distillery today. So, could it be there? I stand on my written testimony and strong support.

And I also just wanted to add just kind of a a little context that, you know, over the last five to ten years, we've seen a lot of interest and, growth in the spirits industry with more niche spirits, like, of tequila, like mezcal, satols, haricias. And that's where we know that, you know, this industry is ready and it's ripe for innovation like.

And it's the perfect time right now that we really, really need to safeguard this this place based spirit because of all the history that we have. I'm also happy to answer any questions later if you guys would like about how Ola Brew and Ola Distillery can actually help to incubate this entire industry. So thank you so much for hearing my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, and congratulations on your opening.

Thank you.

Next up is Brett Jacobson, individual in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committee. I'm actually the co-founder of Ola Brew with Naya, so I'm also here opening up the distillery. We're doing tours and tastings today. It's really exciting. But I am in support of this, and I stand on my testimony.

I'm here for any questions you have. I would like to say I have fifteen years experience developing value added goods from oil grown ingredients. I'm calling how I've been focusing the last five years on that exact product. So I'm I've been very immersed in the the history of it, the commercial cultivation of it, as well as the distillation of it. So if you guys have any questions in regards to any of those aspects, feel free to ask.

Thank you. Thank you.

Jeffrey Hong, individual in support.

I, I stand in my testimony in support. I've actually been to their facility. It's beautiful, and the alcohol is tasty.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions?

I have one for Olafuru. Either of you is fine. So right now, the bill requires 51%, at least 51% local tea leaf root. The I'm considering putting in kind of a graduated requirement over time for 75% in 2030 and then a 100% in 2035. But I want to know from the industry's perspective, I understand you folks use almost all local route anyway.

But not just for you, but if if you know the rest of the industry too, is that a practical timeline to set for this? Or I I don't wanna hamstring your industry.

Naya, you wanna go or you wanna?

You got it. You got it.

Okay. So as I mentioned, we've been commercially cultivating it for about five years now, and we've done recipes from 55% to a 100% key over the years. And we've done below 55% too just to figure out the viability. It's really extended to grow the key root. It's really labor intensive to harvest it.

And what we found is we can win a double gold medal with 55% key root spirit. Once you go to less than that, it's gonna taste like a and so the 51% level for us personally and for, like, an industry producer is that you still have a unique product that you taste unique as long as you keep it at, like, a 55% or above. Another problem that we've had is the fermentation rate. So when you use 100% heat, which is what we're what we're

making and launching right now, you get less than half the production. What happens with the key is is actually a it's a starch, and we cook it, and it turns into a sugar. We the the sugars aren't as fermentable when there's no other simple sugars that help get the yeast to kick start. So, essentially, if you go from aa 95% key root spirit versus a 100%, you get half the yield, which makes the $200

I think we might bottle top. I think we might be talking about two different things. It it's not the composition of it's not the mix. It's being it's you of the key root that you use, right now, it requires 51% cultivated or harvested within the state. So we would just be requiring, however much key you guys use for the composition.

But of that, right now, only half of the key reviews to make that portion would have to be local. We were going to, over time, gradually move that up to a 100%. Yeah.

Are you That that makes sense.

Or are you

Yeah. No. That's less. That that sounds great. A 100%.

I actually I like that a lot.

Okay. And not just for you guys, though, but for the other people in the industry, do you think they'd be okay with that too? Is that Yeah. Sustainable for you folks?

Yeah. I think I don't think anyone has the intent to grow Kihi elsewhere and blend it in. I think the intent is to be able to use other fermentable sugars. And just for perspective too, like, the Kihi root is 20% sugar by weight. So if you do a brew that's 51% key root, it's really about 85 by 85% by weight key root to 15%, like, table sugar.

Okay. Okay. Thank you, guys. Cool. Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Oh, sure. Go ahead.

Maybe I'm not understanding it because, one, I'm not a distiller. Is there a market that's a different demographic with 51% compared to, let's say, a 95% or a 100%? Are there different type of purchasers?

Yeah. Very, very much so. So what we're making right now, we actually just started selling our first bottles a couple hours ago. Our first tour, 80% of people bought the bottle. It was $200 a bottle.

What we would want to do is build this into a very large industry, for all the farmers throughout Hawaii, but being priced closer to 80 to $100 bottle can make that happen.

So when when we're trying to change the percentage of the key, we're actually going to only have this labeling for a certain market area and not necessarily look at the whole entire market. So are we are we limiting ourselves by adding that policy? Or am I just getting this sold to y'all?

I I think as I mentioned with the 5051%, it's a flavor profile. And as you dilute the amount of key root in the product more and more, it turns into more neutral, spirit.

We're not touching that part, though. So what sorry. So the part we're touching is how much of the key root is grown here or not. Okay. So instead of getting imported key from other places to right now, it's 51%.

Okay. So it's just the ground. Okay. Because I I thought we're okay. I got it.

They they can mix it however they want.

Thank you.

I appreciate you bringing that up, though, chair, because I do think that we definitely wanna make sure that people are using key that's grown here in Hawaii, you know, and not not importing key.

So yeah.

Was there any other questions?

That's right.

Okay. Take a short recess.

Alright. We're gonna be reconvening for decision making. First up on the agenda, we have SB 3144, SD 1, HD 1, relating to the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law.

Chair's recommendation is to effect the date and get a clean date of 07/01/2026. Members, any comments? Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call] Representative Ileghan? Aye. Representative Ijeyama? Aye. Representative aye vote Munson? Aye. Representative Kong, aye. Representative Lowen, aye. Representative Martin, aye. Representative Tam,

Thank you, members. Moving on to sb 2386 s d one h d one relating to employment earnings. Chair's recommendation is to amend this bill to make it apply to all employers regardless of size. In the committee report, we will suggest the effective date of 01/01/2027 in order to give the businesses time to come into compliance. I also just wanna note that, yeah, it'll it might restrict the small businesses some, but it sounds like they're trying to restrict wages as much as possible.

So their benefit is on the backs of the workers, which I'm not really okay with. Members, any comments? K. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SD 2386. SD one HD one chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Representative

Hong and Piert. No. No.

Oh, no hope? Okay. No hope for representative Piert. Okay. Any other reservations?

Any no's? Okay. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

K. Moving on to sb 2053 s d two h d one relating to transportation. Chair's recommendation is to defect the date. We will also be amending that the, language regarding the declaration and affidavit to match the house version. Members, any comments? I'd like to ask for the vote.

Voting on sb 2053. S b two h d one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's?

Chair, recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to sd 3102 s d two h d one relating to port pilotage. Chair's recommendation is to give it an effective date of 07/01/2026. Members, any comments? Vice chair with the vote.

Voting on SB 3102, SD two HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Are your recommendations adopted?

Okay.

Moving on to SB 2,400 s d one h d one relating to transportation. Chair's recommendation is to pass this one as is. Members, any comments?

Chair, I support this bill that'll be voting with reservations. I look forward to riding the sea glider. However, when vice chair asked about how the public can comment moving forward, if it is operational, what the process would be like, and we heard Anyway, it just feels like it that that question wasn't answered. I had additional thoughts and concerns and purpose reasons on my reservations.

Members, any other comments? Good question for the vote.

Voting on SB 2,400 SD one HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting reservations from rep Yamamoto. Any other reservations? Any no's?

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

K. Moving on to sb 2835 s t one h t one relating to liquor. Alright. Chair's recommendation on page three, lines four through seven, there is an incomplete sentence there. So we're just gonna complete the sentence by adding in pursuit pursuant to commission rule, may be approved by the administrator on page three, lines 19 through 20, adding language to note that the exceptions to this prohibition to note the exceptions to this prohibition under the subsection, page four, line 17.

We're gonna add language indicating that the whole paragraph applies only to counties with populations between 100,200. Yeah. It's very specific. Anyway, members, any comments? Yep.

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2835 SD one HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Recommendation at all.

K. Moving on to sp 3248 s d two h d one relating to label requirements. Our favorite bill. We're going to be per discussion in committee. We're gonna be adding a subsection seven to page six, requiring that the key root use for the produced, the can be 51% or needs to be 51% currently, move up to 75% by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035.

Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3248 SD two HD one. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Chair recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. We're adjourned.