House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the committee on consumer protection and e commerce. It is April 7 Tuesday, 04/07/2026, 2PM in Conference Room 329.

Here clear this is the 02:00 agenda, not the 02:00.

Yes. We are hearing resolutions. And just a quick reminder that there's a two minute time limit for testimony. We have a timer here, and when you see it flashing in rainbow light, I will politely ask you to wrap up your testimony. First up is, HCR 203 HD1 and HR 193 requesting the Public Utilities Commission to provide a written status update on the implementation of the Hawaii Electric Reliability Administrator.

First up for testimony is the Public Utilities Commission offering comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members me. Andrew Kavi here again for the public service mission. Just sign our written testimony offering comment on HCR 203 HC 1 H C HR 193 HC 1 available for any questions for me and we have. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around Zoom who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, moving on to HCR 204, HR 194, requesting the Public Utilities Commission to conduct a comprehensive analysis on the best paths to maximize cost reduction and minimize financial risk to Hawaii residents while meeting state goals. First up is DCCA division of consumer advocacy offering comments.

Vice chair chair members of the committee, we can now explore with with no privacy. We'll stand on our written testimony, but we're available for any questions.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission offering comments.

Ashley on on behalf of the commission. I was turned on our written testimony with supporting comments. We will have any questions.

Thank you. Hawaii State Energy Office with comments.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Energy Office stands on its, testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else, any person around Zoom would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Moving on to HCR202 HD1, HR192 HD1. Establishing the legislative task force on Hawaii's energy or future energy pathways to examine strategies to maximize cost savings, while minimizing risk for repairs over the next three decades and achieving the state's energy goals and producing affordable, reliable, resilient and decarbonize energy.

First up is DCCA division of consumer advocacy and support.

Chair of those two members, just brief summary. This task force aligns very nicely with a lot of our goals, statutory and by policy, and we would participate fully.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission in support.

I'll be seeing your comments in support and be able to questions. Thank you.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. On Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and Members of the Committee. My name is Sharee Freitas, public policy advocate with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We stand on our written testimony in support of this measure that will be a step in the right direction to examine strategies to maximize

cost savings. We also urge the cost savings. We also urge the task force to not only consider cost savings, but also equity and realistic pathways for energy generation developed on island based science that considers native Hawaiian community impacts and impacts to our public trust resources. We urge the committee to pass this resolution. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify, and I was kind of excited to see the rainbow lights, but I think I'm under the two minutes.

So I, I hope this more blabbing a little bit longer. I'll need more seconds. But thank you.

Nobody should be excited to see the microphone. I'm gonna take care of the mic.

Thank you. There anyone else in person around Zoom who would like to testify on these measures? Okay. Seeing none, we are moving on to HCR 125 HD one and HR 117 HD one. Requesting the Department of Transportation to coordinate with utility providers operating within state highway rights of way to develop a comprehensive statewide plan and schedule to address derelict or aging utility poles and lines along Farrington Highway and other high risk corridors.

First up is Department of Transportation with comments on Zoom. Just go. First go. Okay. Fine. Electric in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair, Grandinetti, and members of the committee. Nancy Bernal on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. Hawaiian Electric stands on our testimony supporting the resolution and available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaiian Telkom with comments.

Aloha chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I'm Janine Suki with Hawaiian Telkom. We stand on our comments. One thing I would like to just add is that we actually do most of what what this resolution entails already and so it may not be necessary because all of that that is already in action. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in person around Zoom who would like to testify on these measures?

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. I submitted testimony late, and I apologize. I have copies. I guess you didn't. Would you like a copy of my written testimony? Or I can give it to you after the hearing.

Go ahead. Submitted to the committee already? Okay.

But really quickly, my name is Rebecca Lieberman, and I'm here on behalf of Charter Spectrum. And we really appreciate the resolution's focus on public safety, infrastructure resiliency, and coordination among entities that operate facilities in and around state highways and rights of way. And while Charter is not a public utility, we share the goal of ensuring that communications infrastructure is properly maintained. But Charter does not believe that this resolution is necessary.

As noted in other testimonies and in ongoing industry discussions, the PUC is already actively addressing double poles and related infrastructure concerns through docket number 2024Dash121, and Charter has been participating collaboratively in that process with Hawaiian Electric and Hawaiian Telecom so that double poles are identified and removed in an organized and efficient manner.

In our view, the existing profit, process is the appropriate venue, and we're concerned that directing DOT to establish a parallel process would duplicate work already underway. So I'm available for questions. I'd be happy to talk to anyone, and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Rebecca. Thank you. Vice chair of your testimony.

Anyone else in person or on Zoom who'd like to testify on these measures? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on to our

Oh, yes. Sorry. Good question.

I have a question.

Sure. He goes.

Just moved through. Sorry. Oops. Sorry.

They go on it? You guys already made right? You guys already have a tracking mechanism for all of your calls? So you have the data already to share it. Has that data already been shared with POC?

Yes. In fact, it has. My name is Christian Whitney. I'm the director of coal infrastructure at Wine Electric, and I am very much involved in the conversations with the commission with Spectrum and with Wine Telecom. The prior resolution a couple years ago, and the docket that was involved with double polls, the outcome of that was that we have a web page through our ecosystem that shows whole removals by us and by Hawaiian Telcom, and it's updated on a quarterly basis.

It is only addressing double polls, however. I know there's much more going on. For sure.

So what's the timeline to to get rid of all the double polls at least?

That is a little bit of a loaded question. We systematically remove them. There's an amount that we commit to each year to remove in that year. But because Hawaiian Electric is always replacing poles, double poles are always new. And so there's not, like, this date where they will all be removed forever.

So it is on, like, a it's a lag system of putting them up, getting everyone to transfer off of hours, off of the old amount to the new, and then pulling the old poll. So there is a set group of double polls that were identified at a period of time as four or five years ago. That set of polls is being whittled down to zero. But, again, there's a new set that is being made every year that we have to also tackle.

But that reporting is will be for all.

So each the website shows Hawaiian Electric removals and Hawaiian Telkom removals by quarter.

QC, do you guys mind commenting on this? Are you ready?

I I can't comment on this if you want me to. Okay.

I just wanna know if you're if QC is satisfied with the rate that one metric in each year.

K. So I'll I'll preface this really quickly. You know, we weren't you didn't submit testimony on this measure for a variety of reasons. If you you know, I can't really characterize any and I apologize. This is gonna be difficult for me.

I can't really characterize right now exactly the progress that they have made on the whole polls. You know, the websites, I think, speaks for itself. I think beta loading the website will show trends. But we did more recently issue some of the question requests, and we may issue additional information requests as we see the need. And I really can't go into the future aspects of the double poll docket at this time.

But you have an agreement in place with them for regarding the double polls and pull

Yes. We we definitely

had an agreement in place for the double polls, from '28 the 2018 period.

And they're not in violation of the agreement. They're they're abiding by their end.

Yeah. So in in in that respects, the agreement made in twenty eighteen twenty into talking number twenty eighteen zero zero seven five, the only thing in there was that they agreed to have all the all the double holes as of that date or as of that application, you know, removed by 2028. So it's a ten year period. We're very close to 2028, mind you. We understand, you know, the urgency on this.

So so there is that agreement, and they made additional additional application to us in the double polls docket, you know, 2024 dash 0121, saying that they have additional changes they're making to the processes to more have more streamlined way to address both the previous double poles from the 2018 agreement and any of the new double poles that have transparency stuff.

Okay. Thank you.

I have one more question. Actually, two. Is Department of Transportation involved in that work at all? And if not, do you see a benefit of them playing a coordinating role in

Yeah. So answer before I answer?

K. Sure. But but can we ask Hawaiian Electric to answer before you hear that?

Yes. DOT is involved, because of the streetlight that is attached to that pole. And so we coordinate monthly and sometimes every two weeks on a variety of issues, and the double poles that are related to double pulls that have streetlight issues are brought into that mix. And so they are involved on multiple different levels. Okay.

And then one more quick question. Aside from the double pulls, are there other utilities, polls, and lines that would be useful to include in that conversation? Assuming that the language of this best resolution is broad to capture those.

I apologize. I need to I would need to read the language of resolution.

I can't just

I think I know what you're asking. So there are certain double poles that get removed that are the responsibility of Hawaiian Electric to remove and certain poles that are the responsibility Harabedian telecom to remove. And we each kinda have our marching orders to remove identified poles. And so we work together and separate to get those out of the system. And then, like I said, the county and the state get involved with both because there could be lights on all of those poles.

No problem. Sure.

But those are the three primary actors, the government and Holyoke.

Thank you.

Members, any other questions? And apologies for flying past all of the other measures without asking for questions.

I was wondering why we were going so quickly. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Final measures, HCR137 and HR129, requesting health maintenance organizations in the state to adhere to and be held accountable for issuing timely reimbursements of health care claims pursuant to the state's clean claims statute.

We only have one individual signed up to testify, Esther U. Smith on Zoom. Okay. Anyone else in person or on Zoom would like to testify on these measures? In case.

Selena, you're presenting questions.

There's no one to ask questions. Okay.

Recess. Good afternoon. Reconvening the Committee on Commerce, consumer protection and commerce on Tuesday, April 7 for the 2PM agenda decision making. For first step for HCR203 HD1 and HR193 HD1 in tandem. The recommendation is to pass these res without as is.

Any discussion? K. Seeing none, transfer the vote. K.

For HDR203 HD1 and HR173 HD1, Vice Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. [Roll call]

Yes. I'm sure your recommendation is adopted.

Sure. Excuse me. I'm just making sure you said one's 193HD1 for the rest of

This is HCR203 HD1 and HR193 HD1.

Thank you. Okay. Moving on to HCR 204 and HR 194 in tandem. The recommendation is to move this one forward with one amendment to remove the eighth whereas clause. Any discussion? Seeing none. Chair for the vote.

Thank you.

Vice chair's recommendation is to pass out HCR 204 and HR 194 with amendments noting the previously excused committee members. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? Okay. My straight recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to HCR 202 HC 1 and HR 192 h d one. The recommendation is to add a representative of the committee on cons consumer protection and commerce. Any discussion? Seeing none, chair.

The vice chair's recommendation is to pass out HCR 202 h t one and HR 192 h t one with amendments. Any members voting none of the previously discussed members. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no? K.

Vice chair of your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Moving on to HDR one two five HD one and HR 117 h d one recommendation is to move this at this. Any discussion? Seeing none, chair chair.

Oh, I got it.

Vice chair.

Yeah. We just heard that for five. Okay. Vice chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 125 h d one and h R117HD1 as is none of the previous SKUs members. Any members voting with reservations?

Any members voting no. Wait. With reservations? Reservations for rev comm. Any other rep with reservations?

Any members voting no? K. Let's try your recommendations adopted.

Okay. Voting I mean, moving on to HCR HCR 137, HR 129. We're going to move this forward, but amend the be it resolved cause to requesting the DCCA Insurance Division to prioritize investigation and enforcement of complaints under the Clean Claims Statute. Any discussion? Okay.

Seeing none, chair for the vote.

Yeah. Vice chair's recommendation is to pass HCR 137 and HR 129 with amendments. No need to previously excuse members. Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no.

The rest of your recommendation is adopted. And we're

Good afternoon. We are convening the two zero five agenda. Sorry. We're convening the consumer company and consumer production and commerce with two zero five agenda. It is Tuesday, 04/07/2026 in Conference Room 329. Okay. Okay. Another quick reminder that we have a two minute time on testimony. The timer will flash rainbow colors, and I will ask you to politely wrap up your testimony.

First up is SB 2960 SC 1 relating to property insurance. Establishes a minimum time frame of thirty six months following loss due to declared disaster or emergency for the policyholder to submit documentation to recover full replacement cost value of covered dwelling or structure. Allows extensions for good cause, establishes a minimum time frame of twelve months from completion of covered dwelling or structure for the policyholder to submit documentation to recover full replacement cost value of covered personal property.

First up, DCCA Insurance Division with comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Matt Sigemura on behalf of the Insurance Division. You have our written comments, and the division does support the intent of the measure insofar as we wanna ensure that insureds can benefit from all of the benefits that they're entitled to under their insurance policy.

However, the insurance division does have major concerns that as drafted, the bill actually has language that would essentially force insurance companies to cover the replacement cost value of a house beyond the policy limits that the insured and the insured have contractually agreed to. The concern with that is that should that be statutorily mandated, insurance companies will more than likely evaluate whether they wanna continue to participate in the market as they will now be forced to cover beyond what insurance agreed to.

For those insurers that do decide to stay, I think it would be fair to say that you will likely see a a large increase in both policy limits, and then that would also be reflected in premium payments by insurance. So as currently drafted, we do have major concerns, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hawaii Insurers Council in opposition.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'm Mike Winfreyetti, current chair of Hawaii Insurers Council. We also oppose the measure, for primarily for the same reason as expressed by the insurance division. Without policy limits, we can't set pricing. We're a very small market, and about if you look at homeowners insurance, 65% of premium is written by the five largest company.

Companies, 86% of the premium by the 10 largest companies. If we lose one large company, We have prop. There's not enough capacity to write everything else. Additionally, after we submitted our testimony, we noted that the language on page five, lines eight through 10 can be construed to void all policy conditions relative to this coverage. Basically, it says something to the effect of, you know, insurers shall pay this replacement cost regardless of anything else.

So that's beyond policy limits. It also seems to void policy conditions. And finally, we note that rather unfortunately, disaster declarations are declared very often these days. I think this week makes the third in the last probably month or so. So that means this bill would be triggered every time one of those disaster declarations, is put into place.

And I think that's probably more frequent than even the authors of this bill sort of anticipated. I think they were thinking about things like hurricanes and wildfires rather than rain events. Thank you, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you. United policyholders in support.

Aloha, chair Sky okay. Aloha, chair Mario Oche and vice chair Grandinetti. I'm Sherry Peterson, and I am an equal justice fellow and United Policyholders roadmap to recovery liaison on Maui. And in that capacity, I work directly with wildfire survivors as they navigate their insurance recovery process, and I'm here in strong support of SB 2960. In fact, I worked with Senator McKelvey in drafting this, and we modeled this after very, very carefully and closely with the bills in Colorado, Oregon, and California.

This bill addresses a very real problem in homeowners insurance because policyholders can lose their replacement cost benefits they paid for simply because they run out of time before they're able to rebuild and replace what they lost. It's important to understand that most insurance policies pay in two steps. First, they pay the actual cash value or ACV, which is the depreciated value of your home or your property, and the rest called replacement cost value or RCV is withheld until the homeowner rebuilds, replaces, or documents the cost.

The insurance companies know what replacement cost is, and they include it as a term or in the definition of your policy. And in fact, some polities policies, you have to pay extra for the replacement cost value.

So I respectfully disagree with their arguments. And anyway, at the Lahaina community meeting on on April 1, Maui County reported that only a 171 homes have been rebuilt with families back home. 305 are under construction, 728 permits have been issued, and 353 permits are still in process. Their homeowners have already run up against a two year deadline with one of the insurance companies. Some of them have received extensions, but those extensions are gonna run out before the three year time period does.

The these. So Maui gave us a rude awakening, and we've recently had Kona Storm One, Kona Storm two, and we have another one right hanging out over the mountains here. So SB 2960 does not expand coverage or increase policy limits. It simply gives policyholders a realistic opportunity to correct to collect the full benefits they paid for when they bought their policies.

Without this bill, insureds will lose substantial benefits simply because an arbitrary timeline put on by the insurance contract are due to inter or internal policies.

Amy, it's been two minutes if you can wrap up.

So I'm wrapping up. So Aye, respectfully urge you to pass two nine six zero, and I'm here for questions. For considering this bill.

Thank you. Sherry Peterson, individual in support on Zoom.

It's me right here. I'm sorry. I didn't know if I was getting my Sorry

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

For Sherry? Yes. You cited that this is following model legislation from other states? Yes. So when they enacted these this legislation, did we did those residents of those states experience skyrocketing insurance premiums beyond what other states that don't have the same legislation?

No. Because risk is my understanding of the insurance industry is that it's all based on risk for a particular ear area. Not I mean, what they're insuring does have some some effect. It's really kind of complicated. But the insurance companies did not pull out of Colorado.

They did not pull out of Oregon, and there was not a huge boost in that we are aware of in the cost of insurance in those areas. California has its own problems, but it has many more wildfires than other places.

So in these states that have passed this, though, and, you know, it it seems like we're all on sort of the same page here. You're not advocating that someone with, let's say, a million dollar policy is entitled to more than a million dollars. Right? Absolutely not. So you support language making sure that the policy that people are recovering within the policy limits. Is that fair?

Yes.

It's just the time period which with which they can recover is what you'd like to extend.

Correct. I'd like for them to be able to collect all the benefits that they pay premiums for.

Yeah. Thank you.

K. Thank you.

That's can I ask a follow-up question? So I think you mentioned when you purchase replacement value cost, is that different than a dollar amount that you're expecting to be? Do you know what I mean? Replacement cost versus dollar amount?

In my experience in the policies that I have seen, the insurance company gives you you have your limit for your a or your building your dwelling. And then some policies do not include replacement cost value, and some policies make you pay more for it, and some policies is just part of the policy.

But when there is replacement cost value, people should be able insured should be able to collect the full amount of the benefits that they've paid for, and they shouldn't be constrained to an artificial timeline that does not conform to what we experience in disasters.

So artificial timeline but also an artificial cap. Is it an artificial cap in terms of dollar value?

That's a discussion for another day and another bill. Okay. Got it. Because what we also saw was a lot of under insurance. But an insurance company is not required to pay, and we're not asking them to pay more than what is covered with the policy holder already purchased in their policy Thank you.

According to the terms of their policy.

Thank you. And the

final questions? Seeing none, moving on to SB 2,347 SD one relating to the residential landlord tenant code. Requires the Office of Consumer Protection to periodically publish an accessible multilingual notice of tenant rights. First up is DCCA Office of Consumer Protection offering comments.

Hi good afternoon, The Office of Money offering comments since I've suggested that the amendments. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you. Office of Hawaiian affairs in support on Zoom.

Aloha, chairs, vice chairs, and members of the committee. Mitchell with the office of Hawaiian affairs. The office of Hawaiian affairs stands on its written testimony in support of SB 2,347 SD one for tenant rights. We just want to note that, you know, native Hawaiians along with local and immigrant communities face an equitable impacts in Hawaii's rental housing system with barriers to justice, including like limited access to language challenges.

And because the landlord tenant laws largely operate as a self help system, access to clear culturally responsive information is critical.

So OHA supports the bill and its efforts to create a clear, multilingual and accessible tenant rate notice. However, we are concerned with the current version that it not require the landlords to provide directly the notice at the lease signing. So without the clear delivery mechanism, the most in need may not receive it. So tenant rights information not must only be created, but delivered to tenants to prevent disputes and displacement. And we really see this as a preventative measure measure.

So all supports the bill, but we recommend that the committee consider restoring some of its original language. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Hawaii real Hawaii Association of Realtors in support. Not present. Okay. Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in support on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Arjuna Heim on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed. We largely stand on our written testimony. I would just like to echo the request of OHA and return the original language of the bill that would require landlords to provide a tenant with a copy of the most recent notice of tenants rights in their preferred language, of course. Thank you very much for your continued work and leadership on this measure.

Thank you. Maui roots reborn in support on Zoom.

Not present. Not present.

Christine Andrews, individual in support on Zoom.

Aloha, chair, vice chairs, members of the committee. Christine Andrews from Maui. I also want to reiterate, the comment I'll stand on my written testimony and reiterate the comments from OHA and Hawaii Appleseed that it would be nice to restore the language where the tenant actually receives the information in their preferred language from the landlord.

Here on Maui, we had a number of our displaced wildfire survivors, and so making sure that folks, for whom English is not their language proficiently get the information they need in their language to understand their tenant rights is an important value here. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around Zoom who'd like to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, any questions? K.

Seeing none. Moving on to SB 2,272 SD one HD one relating to home health licensing. Authorizes the Department of Health to accept accreditation from an accreditation organization or a certification organization approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as demonstration that a licensed home health agency is in compliance with all licensing inspections required by the state, specifies conditions under which a home health agency may be exempt, and requires information obtained in reports of survey and accreditation or certification letters to be public information.

First step is Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support In person. Not present.

State health planning and development agency and support. Not present. Department of health and support. Health care association of Hawaii in support.

Thank you, chair. We'll stand in support, and we'll note that we are requesting an event for an effective date and time. Thank you.

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

I have a question. Since you're the only one here. K. Thank you. I was just wondering, what is currently the I know it's brought it, but if you can summarize what is currently the current accreditation, and how is it different? Does the Medicare, Medicaid service, accreditation, do they have staff here to do a site visit? Is that even needed?

Yeah. So I think, what's important to note is that what happens right now for our home health agencies is they actually go through two totally different survey processes. So they go through the survey on the federal side where they use an accrediting organization. These are organizations that have embedded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. Right?

They themselves have to meet certain standards. They send out surveyors. Right? These accrediting organizations do. There's a lot of contact, I would say, between the home health agency and that accrediting organization, and it can be a very collaborative sort of process.

So it's actually probably more hands on even than the state based licensing surveys where you do have more stretched resources, I would say, at the state. And so they're kind of trying to make sure they get through all the surveys. But there's less of that time, I think, to ask questions, kind of build upon any findings, any areas that might need improvement.

So our feeling is that a lot of times, these federal accrediting organizations are better suited possibly to do a lot of these surveys just because, you know, they're really in the business of providing these surveys that just have more time and capability and expertise to do so. Agree.

Which is not I I wanna be clear. We're not knocking what the the state does, but I I think, you know, we have to face a reality of of limited resources on the state level.

Yeah. I wish the Department of Health and their testimony shared with us how much how how much money we would save by just doing this. But so there in your view, there's we're not getting lesser quality care service provided.

And and I think, you know, one of the things, and I won't speak for Department of Health, but, even if there wasn't a cost saving, if you could free up time for the current surveyors to inspect more of our, state only licensed facilities like community care foster homes, that could also be helpful for the larger system.

Thank you. Any other questions. Seeing then moving on to sb 3,137 SD one HD one relating to the Department of Health Authority to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics. Removes duplicative food related statutory material and aligns all food related provisions under Chapter three twenty eight Hours. Ensures adequate statutory authority for permits, fees, inspections, and enforcement, and makes conforming amendments.

First up, Department of Health and Support.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, member of the committee. Background on Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division. We have programs in my division. Obviously, we submitted testimony in support. This is our bill available for any kind of questions.

It's really just to kinda align those programs so that we can work more efficiently moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around you who would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, members, any questions? Okay. Moving on to SB 3,132 SD one HD one relating to syndromic surveillance.

Requires hospitals with emergency departments that are licensed in the state to submit syndromic surveillance data to the Department of Health and authorizes the Department of Health to establish a state syndromic surveillance

system.

First off, Department of Health and Support.

Afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Sarah Campbell with the disease outbreak control division for the Department of Health. We are standing by our testimony in support of this measure. It basically assures that we still can provide continuity for following tracking emergency department and hospitalization data that allows us to share with the public what's going on with trends with diseases like flu, respiratory syncytial virus, nineteen among others. So I am here for questions and we stand on our written testimony and support.

Thank you.

State health planning and development agency and support. Not present. Healthcare Association of Hawaii in support.

We'll stand up our testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around Zoom who'd like to testify on this measure?

We've, we've submitted testimony in support by Pacific Health.

Yep. We'd be happy. Thank you.

Anyone else who'd like to testify? Members, any questions? Moving on to SB 2271 SD one HD one relating to hospital licensing. Permits hospitals to demonstrate compliance with all licensing inspections required by the state through accreditation or certification by any accreditation or certification organization approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Department of Health and Support

on Zoom.

State Health Planning and Development Agency in support. Health Care Association of Hawaii in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hawaii Pacific Health?

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

Seeing none, members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on to SB 2804 SB 1 h d one related to commerce. Prohibits acquiring and holding stocks and other interests if the acquisition and holding lessens access to health care or increases insurance rates.

First up, DCCA Insurance Division offering comments.

Acting chair, vice chair, member of the committee. My name is Justin Choo for the interest division. We stand on our written testimony. Writing office. Thank you.

HHP Public Policy Committee. Oh, Hawaii Association of Health Plans in opposition. K. I'm not present. HMSA in opposition.

Good afternoon, vice chair Brandon Nene, chair Mateoshe, representative model, representative Martin, following on behalf of HMSA. HMSA appreciates and shares the legislature's commitment to maintaining a health care system where consumers benefit from choice, access, and innovation. However, we are standing in opposition to this measure today. There are broad examples to the health care system and industries where this type of regulation could prove to be have unintentional consequences or even prove to be challenging to quantify and confusing.

For example, a hospital system buys a struggling clinic and must reorganize or reduce staff to keep it open.

Under this measure, that bill or that could be viewed as a lessening to access to health care even if the change ultimately improves access or is excuse me, ultimately improves quality and preserves services. Hawaii's existing antitrust laws are already robust and give regulators flexibility to consider all factors in deciding when conduct is anti competitive. For these reasons, we oppose this measure, and I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. White Pacific Health offering comments.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, Mike Robinson, White Pacific Health. But we'll stand on our written testimony. We offered some proposed amendments. Our biggest concern are is about the various regulatory agencies that are already in place of regulation of what's proposed under this bill. Our concern is the confusion that could occur when you have one agency giving a thumbs up and another raising concern around the same criteria, which is access to health care, namely between, SHIPTA, which from a provider perspective is the main regulatory body and then was proposed in this bill. So we just offered some amendments if if this bill's gonna be hers. Thanks.

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

Right. Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, JC Mike Yalanick on behalf of the Queen's Health System. I will stand largely on our written testimony and support the measure and appreciate the complimentary nature of this measure in relation to federal anti trust talk. Anything that we can do to provide additional oversight to for the state, for consumers, other business when there's a merge a health care merger of this nature, we think is advisable, and and we support that. Thanks very much.

Any other testifiers on SB 2804 HD one? Seeing none, members, any questions?

Shucks. I had a question for AGs, but they're not here. So no. Okay. Okay.

Moving on to SB 2175 SD2 HD1 relating to disposable electronic smoking devices beginning 01/01/2027 prohibits the sale, offer for sale or distribution for sale of any disposable electronic smoking devices in the state. First up, Department of Health in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Matayoshi, Vice chair Grandinetti, members of the committee. I'm Lola Irvin representing the Department of Health. And the Department of Health supports SB 2175 SD2 HD1 and appreciates you hearing it. And as we've discussed many times, it's a current and a future that is healthy for Waikiki and, this bill recognizes how disposal disposable e-cigarettes harm the environment as well as the health of our children.

And on 03/30/2026 there was a report that came out, and I we've included, the link to the study that showed that e-cigarettes also increase the risk for oral and lung cancers.

And that was a big question if e-cigarette use alone can cause cancer. And so, the authors of the study, realized that this really needs to be brought to the board, and so they only looked at research from 2017 over, and so we've included that so you can see that as well. SB 2175 SD2 HD1 has become more important since HB 2121 was deferred this morning by CPC. And so, we do appreciate that you supported SB 2175 SD2 HD1. Thank you.

Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council in support on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice chair, members. This is me, my name is Jeremiah, and I'm a high school senior speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council. I apologize for any background noise because we just got out of school. Hawaii is facing a serious vaping epidemic driven by cheap and highly addictive disposable e-cigarettes, many of which are illegal yet still widely available to my peers. These products also harm our environment made of plastic, toxic chemicals, and lithium ion batteries.

They cannot be properly recycled and often end up in our landfills, beaches and our oceans, which we have seen firsthand.

It also poses serious safety risks. At HPOWER, specifically Honolulu's waste facility, there were a 158 fires in 2024, including 4 of them 44 of them caused by lithium ion batteries. Disposable vapes and ignite when damaged, putting workers at risk, and even forcing the facility to shut down. You, like me, have also experienced dangerous incidents, including a person in our council having a device catch fire within their hands and causing burns.

Disposable e-cigarettes threaten our health, environment, and our safety, and we kindly urge you to pass this bill. Honor for the opportunity for me to testify. Thank you.

Thank you for being here on a school day. Next up, Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition on Zoom.

Thank you. Aloha, Chair, Vice chair, and committee members. My name is Dave Erdman. I'm the Interim President and CEO of Retail Merchants of Hawaii. We respectively ask that this bill would be deferred.

The bill is framed around waste management and lithium battery disposal, but the policy is full, is a full product ban.

If the intent is environmental and battery safety, a broader recycling and take back approach would be more effective. Also, Hawaii already has age 21 restrictions and enforcement should be evaluated first. Deferral would allow alignment between the bill's title, intent and the solution. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition of this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Aloha and Aood afternoon, Chair, Vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Kevin Ramirez. I'm the Program manager for the Coalition for Tobacco for Hawaii Program of the Hawaii Institute. First and foremost, thank you for hearing this measure, and for providing an opportunity to testify. I'm here to testify in strong support of this measure.

Our coalition is pleased to see this bill being heard in the house. The house version of this bill, HB 2121 had passed the house and was moving in the Senate until this morning when it was deferred. However, despite HB 2121 being deferred, we have seen that the house and Senate are aligned in support of this bill and we'd like nothing more than to see it passed today with an effective date. So thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mahalo.

Thank you. University of Hawaii student health advisory council in support on Zoom.

Aloha. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 2175. The University of Hawaii Student Health Advisory Council has played a pivotal role in the development and implementation of health policies in tobacco education on the system campuses. We remain deeply committed to the mission of reducing the use of all tobacco products, including electronic smoking devices, especially amongst adolescents and young adults. As a result, we are in strong support of a ban on the sale of all disposable electronic smoking devices.

Disposable e-cigarettes create a dual crisis of severe environmental pollution and public health risk. These single use devices, which are often used by youth and young adults, contain lithium ion batteries, toxic heavy metals, and high levels of nicotine. Disposable electronic cigarettes are not recyclable and contain hazardous components, which leach into Hawaii's ecosystems and contribute to plastic pollution, landflamers, and toxic chemicals in our waterways and the ocean. According to the

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, at least five disposable electronic cigarettes are thrown away every second in The United States, amounting to 150,000,000 devices per year. The local and global impact of the world's increasing waste stream is clearly unsustainable and detrimental to the environmental integrity and public health of the state of Hawaii.

The Student Health Advisory Council urges you to support this measure, which will protect the health of our people, environment, and the future of Hawaii. We recognize your committee's commitment to well-being and ask you to help create a safer Hawaii for all. Mahalo for the from the Student Health Advisory Council.

Thank you. Dawn Wiseman, individual in support on Zoom.

Aloha. Can you hear me okay?

We can.

Aloha, Vice chair Grandinetti, Chair Matayoshi, and members of the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce. You have my written testimony, which I hope you'll read, which covers the health and ecological impacts that this bill would help to correct. But I also wanna touch on the economic impact that tobacco related illnesses annually account for $600,000,000 in health care costs to our state and its taxpayers. And that's all of us, not just tobacco users.

We all see increased, health care costs because of the the damages caused by tobacco use. It also causes tobacco use also causes over a $1,000,000,000 a year in lost productivity to Hawaii, so it's affecting our businesses as well. And in relation to that, we collect only about $75,000,000 a year in tobacco taxes. So we're by far subsidizing the tobacco industry and the damages it causes in relation to what we're bringing in from tobacco sales. So it's economically sensible for the state to pursue policies to reduce tobacco consumption, especially among young people who haven't yet become addicted.

And so I stand in strong support of this bill for the reasons I've stated. Mahalo.

Thank you. Anyone else in person around Zoom would like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, noting an additional 31 individuals who submitted testimony in support and one in opposition. Members, any questions?

I have questions.

Department of Health. If we have this abolition of the sale or purchase, I guess of these devices, would Amazon can you purchase it on Amazon or will they not ship it to Hawaii because of the lithium ion battery? How does that work?

Thank you, representative. That's an excellent question. And currently, the US Postal Service does not allow shipment of e-cigarettes, but other services have been shipping them to Hawaii. And so that is online sales would not be permitted, these products to Hawaii if SB 2175 were to pass. It would be restricted.

And people could not put them into their luggage. Right? Suitcases, you because you're not supposed to have batteries in your suitcase.

Right. Batteries are a hazard. Yes. Yeah. They're not allowed for check-in luggage or or carry on luggage.

And so is it our theory is that if we abolish them completely for everyone than kids because the main concern, I think, on some for some, it's the the accessibility of these ecigarettes that children are that minors are getting access to. Even though the laws is 21, they're still getting access. So is that is this bill basically addressing the accessibility issue?

Representative, I hear several, questions, excellent questions and I know that chair Matayoshi has been somebody that's provided listening ear to our youth who had concerns. I think most recently with this bill in HB 2121, the youth also became concerned about the environment and what it means for what is happening to the and their sense of responsibility as well. So one, these bills are actually, asked why the youth because of the, what's happening to the environment.

The other from a public health perspective and we have our environmental health colleagues here too. Is that we're also we've also been talking about what it does for the health of our youth.

So it would be a restriction on the sale, not so much an opposition but a restriction on the sale of the disposable products. And it would, yes, then keep them out of the marketing environment as well as the environment of when people throw them away, especially incorrectly. And currently, there's not a good disposal mechanism. So thank you for the excellent questions. Thank you, chair. Yes, chair.

Go ahead. Do do you want your part? Alright, Marten.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So I you mentioned that HB 2121 died today in judiciary in the Senate. I'm so surprised to hear that. Do you know why?

They had said that they were concerned about the title and also knew that on SB 2175 was moving today, and so that's why they did for that. So, we are disappointed and so we do hope that, SB 2175 will move forward. And, of course, the Department of Health strongly supports it.

Thank you very much.

So if there's a blank for the amount of the fine still in the bill, and I believe it's always in blank. But does Department of Health have any suggestion on how much the fine should be? I believe it's on page three, line 19.

Yeah. So we can get that to you. We were going to make it consistent with the fines that already exist in 328J. And so, Chair, I can get that to you. I'll just look it up real very quickly. Thank you for that question so much.

Please give it to me soon before we before we DM today.

Okay. I will go and look at that and provide it. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, moving on to thank you. SB 2487 SD1 HD1 relating to the Public Utilities Commission. Requires the Public Utilities Commission to establish performance based incentives, including revenue adjustment mechanisms, cost control mechanisms and reward and penalty mechanisms on or before 01/01/2027.

Clarifies that the PUC is authorized to adopt alternative rate making procedures to establish electric utility rates and performance based incentives. Requires the PUC to apply a presumption in favor of this of considering historical cost trends and external indices that reflect incentives to control costs if the commission resets an electric utilities allowed revenues based on consideration of the utilities costs. First up, DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Clusters, chair, members. Mickey Knox again. I just want to highlight one part of our testimony, give a little bit more context. In our second to last paragraph, we note that there's currently a major part of the rebasing that is being litigated has been litigated for about a year now. There's actually a major decision from QC that is pending. It's been fully briefed by all the parties. In fact, several of the organizations are represented here in this room right now.

And it is largely based on the current language of HRX Section 269-16.1, and that this bill would potentially complicate that. I will offer that if a bill like this could be useful, it might be more appropriately timed in a few years after the current rebasing, which has been significantly less than is resolved by the PUC under the current statute, but before the next possible rebasing. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Hi. Good afternoon. Daniel Park for the Public Utilities Commission. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments and I'm looking for any questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Ulupono Initiative in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice chair, Michael Colon. I'm the Director of Energy here at Ulupono Initiative. Thank you very much for hearing this bill. Just wanted to reiterate what's the important and what's at stake here. The legislature had indicated a very strong desire for the utility to operate differently, and that was the development of the performance based rate making law that was passed a couple years ago.

We are now in a state where we have collectively the docket parties have worked together to design that structure, came up with incentive mechanisms, and proceeded under this rubric. However, when it came to how the utility raises its rates, the group, when they first designed it, kinda kicked it down kicked the can a little bit down the road. It was intentional, just that there was a lot to design.

Within the last year, year and a half, we are now in that process of trying to design this new rate increase, what used to be called a rate case. Now we're calling a rebasing.

And the overarching guidance that we and others have been arguing for is that the legislature was not unclear in mandate that there needed to be a break of the direct link between utilities revenues and their investments. And what we had seen recently was a step backwards.

The commission had approved a traditional cost of service rate case by kind of threading the needle between the two laws that are in place by stating that it's still performance based rate making because there are performance instead of mechanisms, but not addressing the underlying guidance to break that directly for utilities achievement of revenues as it relates to its investments.

So this law is designed to shore up and provide guidance back to the regulators that they can, in fact, and then, in fact, should view the guidance from the legislature as directing them to align their performance completely with the statute and with the law and give them cover and make it clear that's what the guidance is, is that they're supposed to adopt and embrace PVR completely. The notion of complication, I think, that raised, I think it's a little bit unfounded.

The key is that the commission still has yet to make a determination on that. Again, it's a proposal. It's a joint proposal between Ulupono and Hawaiian Electric. There may be other aspects that the commission decides to change or address as a result. So I don't think that it's premature at this point to pass this resolution forward, this bill forward.

It's it's actually very timely to give cover and additional guidance to the regulators to fulfill that mandate that we've seen as far as PVL is concerned. Mahalo.

Thank you. Earth Justice in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice chair, members of the committee. Isaac Moriwake, Earth Justice, standing on our written testimony in support of this measure. Also available for any questions. I did wanna address the comment by the consumer advocate that they brought up at this podium as well. This idea that this bill would complicate the pending proposal, not not at all.

And in fact, it would facilitate and enable that proposal. It's completely complimentary. And that's the point of this bill. Basically, trying to give the the public utilities commission the discretion and the ability to entertain this alternative proposal that is not a traditional cost of service rate case Ulupono Field, yeah, that concern of complications unfounded.

I would actually respectfully go a bit further and say it's a bit misleading because it's the consumer advocate that's been insisting all along and even against this proposal that's on the table saying, no. You can't consider that public utilities commission. We have to go to a traditional cost of service rate case. So actually tying the the commissions hand in that way.

And so, really, if the consumer advocate work to get its way, we would have no bill clarifying the original intent of our 2018 Ratepayer Protection act, and we'll be stuck with the law that the consumer advocate says must compel us to go to a traditional cost of service rate case that's more efficient, more costly, more time consuming, more resource intensive.

I'm available to answer any questions including, you know, this last minute point that was raised. But really, this bill is simple. It's straightforward. It really seeks to clarify the law that already exists. It should be very noncontroversial. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Hawaiian Electric offering comments.

Good afternoon Chair Matayoshi, Vice Chair Grandinetti, and members of the committee. Nancy Bernal, on behalf of Hawaiian Electric. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Available for questions.

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

Consumer advocate.

Little surprised that the consumer advocates gets this bill. I mean, I know you're not officially completely opposed to it, but why would the consumer advocate be pushing for traditional rate case instead? I mean, it seems like you're involved in this process, and I've heard that in this process, you've been more pushing for a rate case. I I'm just kinda confused on why the consumer advocate is taking this is taking this position.

Well, you would need to dig into the details of what's being called the alternative proposal. One of the biggest or most objectionable buckets about the alternative proposal is that it would significantly reduce the discovery during the process and the ability to look at all aspects of the operations and the actions of the utility. For for one example on that last point, the utility has argued that they don't want to look at the cost of capital and the debt to equity ratio.

And because they don't wanna change that, that therefore, it should be off limits for anyone to look at. They might be able to actually sustain higher levels of cheaper debt and more expensive equity at the moment, or they might be able to sustain cost of capital for rate banking purposes that is lower than the ROE that was approved years and years ago.

They also don't wanna look at, class cost of service allocation, which is the amount of the requirement that gets allocated to residential, industrial, government, and so on and so forth. That that's been almost ten years or more since the last time that was looked at. The base rates were developed in cost of service rate cases. They're just many years old, and then they've been increased through the formula for the first multi rate plan for inflation and other factors.

And a lot of they're called the interim recovery mechanisms, like the exceptional project recovery mechanism and the REIT for renewable projects.

And they've been sort of, like, not really off book but they're on top of the base rates. So the current process has a lot of abstraction and obfuscation of the actual operations and the actual costs that are increasing rates. We've seen it. We've seen the result. We just don't have the view that we need to into why, into what mechanics are.

That is the biggest benefit, which does have cost. It does have time and effort, and it could lead to different possible resulting rates. But it is a full view. It's opening up the hood and taking apart the engine. And it's been more than the five year multi rear rate plan because they were taking a rate case.

See, 2017 for MECO, 18 for HECO, and no. It's for HELCO. And for HECO, it was 2019, but it's actually going back to the 2016 rate case. So it has been ten years since we've had a full view of HECO's operations and actions. We talked about the costs, but the cost is reflecting how they're actually acting and what builds them up.

The process you're going through now is a collaborative process, though. Right? I mean, it it's not It's it has the other PUC. I'm wondering why so you're saying that HECO is refusing to produce certain forms of information. Is that I mean, not that they're necessarily obligated to, but you've requested it, and they have declined to provide it. Is that fair?

There was a break from the on record into an off record working group, and a lot of ideas were being shared around, incomplete ideas, iterative ideas. There was some informal discovery going on in there, but it was nowhere like a complete picture. And there was nowhere in the amount of time and process like you get in a in-

But this is not a traditional rate case. Right? I mean, this is a

It's rebasing in PBR.

Yeah. So, I mean your complaint is that it's different, but it is necessarily different. Right? Is that?

I don't know if it's necessarily different. It is different, but it is the alternative proposal is being tailored in ways that utility likes, Luvano seems like. Other parties like different degrees. We don't like. I don't wanna speak for, like, the land or county of Hawaii.

They also briefed on this issue. I think they had some issues with the alternative proposal.

I guess that's why-

What's on the table would increase.

So you you're saying that you don't get enough information for a rate case. Fair. But if we're not doing the the whole point is to not do a rate case and to do PVR, then the information that you're gonna request is not gonna be the same. I'm not sure how

Sure. Respectfully, I don't necessarily think that act five as written supports the very first clause in your statement. If you look at the actual language enacted in 269-16.1, especially 269-16.1 A, the sentence in question says, establishing performance instead of penalty mechanisms, the link between investments and revenues, to break the direct link between investments and revenues.

Nowhere in there does it say there should never be a rate case or look at the actions operations that produce actual rates or actual cut actual cost.

Nowhere in the language that say that cost of service rate making such as cost, payer principles, and rate design and cost service allocation should ever get looked at. It doesn't say that in the language that was enacted.

Doesn't that what does that like to get this still, though, to clarify?

Yes. Because there are other parties who want that, and they want to they wanna clarify. They want to tie the BUCs ends to their vision of PPR, not to what was actually enacted in act five in 2018.

Are you at the table for these, discussions?

Our, my office was both for the act of the deliberations on act five and on the implementation for D&O 37507. And at that time, we were actually very supportive of the direction that first MRP was going. From what we hoped coming after year on year rate cases during the triennial cycle decoupling, we were hopeful. But after seeing the results from the first MRP, we we see rates going up but the causes are unclear. They're obfuscated. They're abstracted. We don't have that scrutiny as to why.

I do. Okay. Did you ask me did you wanna sit okay. Can can you respond to that? Do you have do you believe you have sufficient data?

So I think what's a little bit misleading about what the consumer advocate is saying is that he's correlating his concern about a joint proposal with this bill. It's two separate things. Right? Joint proposal is between is just between Ulupono and Hawaiian Electric. There were ample opportunity for all the parties to participate in that process.

But again, at the end of the day, it's still just a proposal. The commission has to now review it and make a decision on it. That's where the scrutiny would come in. So his concern about due process and being able to look and open up and challenge all those things is unfounded because they will be able to have that opportunity in this process. When he talks about truncated process, it's just a proposal.

The commission has the exact they currently have the authority and will always have the authority to design an evaluation process the way they see fit, and so and we fully expect that.

As far as, you know, when we started going down this alternative proposal path, it was open to anyone who is in the docket to participate, and rather than raise these concerns that, Mickey has identified here, the consumer advocates office decided to sit out and just say that they wanted to have a cost of service rate case. So if they're concerned about having an opportunity on the design of the proposal, that was one opportunity.

Now that it's in front of the commission for their review, here's another opportunity to scrutinize, to evaluate, to make inquiries as to what the basis for the proposal is, and it's on Hawaiian Electric to support their position because it's their request for an increase.

But for the PBRs for the PBR portion of it, do you feel like you are getting sufficient information in order to make those evaluations?

So again, I think, Ulupono is not in the position of we're not the regulator. Right? So we're just we are a party to the docket. But what also is kinda interesting is what consumer advocate is raising is that the whole notion of being able to build up all those costs where he's talking about, you know lots of different regulatory Jargon is that, you know, a full cost of service, you build the car from the ground up. Right?

You look at every department's line items, all their costs, every pencil, every staff, everybody's salaries, you build it all up, and then you build a budget from there. What this streamline per approach was trying to do is just take change in business conditions, and it came down to a few different cost categories, and that's it. That's interesting that the consumer advocate would be looking to actually maybe increase cost because he's saying not all costs are being reflected here. So I I guess it's just confusing. I I think more than anything, it's change management.

They're being asked to do something different, and I think there's a bit of trust and challenge with that. But we have to have faith and confidence that the commission can design a process that's fair and provides the required scrutiny for the proposal. But again, at the end of the day, it's just a proposal.

You know, the commission could reject it wholesale, but we would say the underlying premise still needs to be maintained that we're not gonna, because they reject a proposal, go back to cost of service rate case. We need to go and do something different, and that's what the bill is about.

Okay. PUC, in when you get the proposal, are you able to exercise discovery rights to get the information to verify the this proposal is legitimate. I mean, you know? Okay.

And we do have a proposal currently before us right now. We are reviewing it. To the extent that we had questions about it, we can issue what we refer to as information requests, which are basically discovery requests.

And then for the PBR or PPR section that's gonna come later, same thing?

Yeah. So you're referring to basics of the PBR docket, then where we're gonna be looking not just at well, when we're gonna be looking at the framework as a whole, so like modifications to existing mechanisms, etcetera, then, yes, we would also have that same ability there as opposed to just the rebasing of rates, which is the issue relevant to the culture.

At that point, the discovery that you request and receive are the other parties entitled to that as well, like, consumer advocate?

Generally, yes. The only exception might be if some of the information is being requested is confidential in nature and that availability would then be subject to any sort of protective orders or confidentiality agreements that the parties have submitted.

So do you believe that this bill would interfere with the process currently going on?

Potentially, yes. Because there is a portion of the bill that refers to the presumption that the commission needs to utilize, looking at just historical cost and external indices. That presumption remains in place while we are reviewing the alternative proposal. It would and I think Mr. Knox alluded to this earlier. It would affect how the commission would need to evaluate that alternative proposal.

You guys would be alright there. Right? I mean, you can this isn't gonna stop. This product is just requiring you to look at different way. Is that

Yes. Yes. But as we've noted in our testimony, the it's not our review of current proposal that's potentially problematic. It's the potential for confusion with the existing administrative rules that prescribed the use of a board test year. And I believe you can sort of make a distinction between those administrative rules versus the presumption that would be created by this bill.

But HRS is gonna override HAR anywhere. Right?

Sorry?

HRS is gonna override your administrative rules anyway. They're right if he contract.

Well, I would for an attorney, does there do, like, waiting on that? I don't really know the answer to that. But to the extent that's true, then I suppose yes. But then if we had to engage in rulemaking to clear that up, like, to remove that from the administrative rules to just make it very clear that on that initial conflict doesn't exist, something bad itself is a laborious task. And

Okay. Thank you. Daniel Park, is there any other questions?

Just Ulupono , do you wanna sorry. Your face disappeared from us right as I said that.

I'm here.

Okay. Do you wanna just explain the the part of the bill that talks about the presumption in favor of historical cost and, I guess, respond or what your thoughts are are on how that would affect the ongoing process?

Sure. And I think this is another one that's really trying to be aimed at consumer protection, so it's a little bit interesting how this is playing out. But so when utility goes in front to raise their rates, there's two ways that they under a normal cost of service approach, there's two ways they kinda build up their car from the ground up. One is they do a forward looking test here, which is they project everything's based on forecasts and projections.

On next year, we're gonna spend this much money, and therefore, that's how much we need to raise our rates.

So they call come up with a revenue requirement that is the basis for the rate increase. And in that, you know, there's not casting any aspersion on Hawaiian Electric. This is kinda normal human behavior. You have a tendency to pad what you know, we're gonna be working on a lot of things because that's gonna be the basis for your budget going forward.

Most of the country in the electric utilities, I would say probably 85 to 90% of the rest of the electric utility industry is a historical test year wherein when they come before to justify their expenditures, they have to look at the previous year's expenses and then build based off of that.

Now, obviously there is still a potential to have, but you're Kinda bound within the structure of your existing budget because you weren't able to Kinda shoot for the moon. You had to do projects within your existing budget, so it there's less of that concern. So there's a built in kinda cost control built into that.

What they're getting kinda wrapped around the axle about is that if we do a true kind of change in business conditions, PBR, which is kind of the basis for the proposal that Hawaiian Electric to their credit, they did a full embrace of PBR with this proposal. You don't need to do historical kind of, build the car from the ground up because all you're doing is kinda focusing on, in this case, like change in business conditions.

So there's a few things that are have gone up from the last time they did a rate increase, and that's the basis the sole basis for their increases. But it's not, you know, building the car from the ground up using a historical with all those different components. So what they're worried about is that if they and I think when, you know, the bill started, I don't think anyone anticipated Hawaiian Electric being able to do a full embrace of PBR.

So this proposal in front of them actually does, and so I think there's the concern is that historical test requirement may kind of add a little bit of administrative challenge in implementing going forward if they really are gonna embrace full scale PBR. But also as they mentioned too, cracking open HAR rulemaking, I don't think the UC has done it in many years, and it's a lot of work.

So I think there's a little bit of resistance to that as well.

Yeah. I think you guys would be okay. Definitely, we do. Any other, questions, members? Okay.

Let's take a recess.

Let's take a recess.

Alright. Reconvening the 205 agenda for decision making. First up, we've got SB 2960 SD-1 relating to property insurance. Chair's recommendation is to adopt State Farm's proposed amendments for the twenty four month period plus two six month extensions for good cause similar to that that that they have in California and Colorado.

Also, the notice about replacement cost benefits will be set to thirty days after the claim has been made for that testimony. Per the insurance counsel's "recommendation two" on page five lines 8 through 10; we'll be deleting that sentence to make sure that the full replacement value is not does not exceed the amount of the policy and redefining the date. Members, any comments?

Excuse me, Chair. So just to clarify, we heard a testifier say that in addition to a dollar value, that people were paying extra to a full replacement value. But with this, with your amendment-

They're gonna be, so if you have a million dollar policy, the insurance companies will be liable for that million dollars and not more. There's certain language in here that it seems to imply that the full replacement value for the full replacement value was 2,000,000. They'd be liable for 2,000,000 even though the policy is for one. So we wanna clarify that. But it seems like all the sides agree that the policy limit should be policy limit.

So we're adding clarifying language for that. I do also wanna comment that we I discussed this with the bills introduced to you, and he's fine with these amendments too. Members, any other comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2960 SD-1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Representative Chun?

[Roll Call]

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

And thank you, members. Moving on to SB 2347 SD-1 relating to the residential land or tenant code. Chair's recommendation is to change the language of this into the house position, which was reflected in HP 1776 HD-2. Members, any comments?

Thank you for the vote.

Voting on SB 2347 SD-1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to SB 2272 SD1 HD1, relating to home health licensing. Chair's recommendation on page two, subsection two, starting on line 18, is to clarify, with this language, that the updated accreditation or certification reports must also be given to the Department of Health. Members, any comments? Advise Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2272 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB3137 SD1 HD1, relating to the Department of Health's authority to regulate food, drugs, and cosmetics. We did run this by AG, who determined that there is no title issue here. I do want to adopt DOH's proposed amendments, to clarify what subsections are being amended, and to allow funds collected to be immediately deposited into the Food Safety and Environmental Health special fund. The sanitation, this bill currently eliminates the sanitation environmental health special fund.

We want to also add language to roll any remaining funds in that special fund, date of repeal, into this new special fund that's being established, and defect the date. I also want to, DOH, if you're listening. So there's a reference to CFR 180 and 185. 185 actually got rolled into 180. I didn't want to touch it here, but you may want to, in a subsequent year, clean that up, both here and in other places. It might be other places, so I didn't want to touch it.

Shouldn't affect the bill, but something to clean up later. Members, any comments? Okay. Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB3137 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Now moving on to SB 3132, SD 1 HD 1 relating to syndromic surveillance. We have some technical amendments needed for clarity and consistency and style and we'll be expecting the date. Members, any comments? The vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3132 SD 1 HD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no's? Recommendation adopted.

K. With regard to SB 2271 SD1 HD1 relating to hospital licensing, on page two, line seven lines 15 to 17, we'll be adding clarifying language that the updated accreditation or certification reports must be given to DOH very similar to two two seven two. Members, any comments? K. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2271 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservation? Reservations.

Reservations from Rep Iwamoto. Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to SB2804 SD1 HD1, relating to commerce. This committee considered whether this bill, to, which adds language for increased insurance rates, would be appropriate for this section and whether it conflicts with the insurance commissioner's powers and duties, but we determined that, the, even, although the insurance commissioner is responsible for setting insurance rates, per the, whatever the situation is at hand, the attorney general should consider those insurance rates, along with other aspects, when determining antitrust matters.

So it's this committee's opinion, I guess, that the AGs should be free to consider insurance rates and create increased insurance rates by determining whether antitrust is happening. So we'll be keeping that language in. The Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is.

I also want to I wish the AG was here. So AG's office. Please give me a call. I think we do need to talk. AG is is responsible for enforcing this measure, so I'm a little disappointed that they didn't show up to this hearing. Or testify.

Members, any comments? Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2804 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any reservations? Any no's? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

And moving on to s p two one seven five s t two h t one relating to disposable electronics looking devices. On chair's recommendation is to for the blank fine amount for page three, line 19, to insert the amount of $1,000 per day. Members, any comments?

Would the chair consider an effective date? Just a normal, but real date.

Because I wasn't handed the amount and I couldn't clear it by everyone, all the parties involved, we we can't expect the date at this time. Thank you.

I did sorry. Chair, did you say a thousand dollars per day, or did you mean a thousand dollars per 1 through 20?

Per violation per day. Okay. But the blank is per day. There's some support about that. Yep.

The blank will be a thousand dollars.

But yep. I appreciate the work that you did on this. I will be voting with reservations on this primarily because I am afraid that if we ban this, it will push these stores to sell more harmful things like create them because we're eliminating a huge stock of what we have. But I do recognize how much of an environmental effects that this has and effect that it has on its our children. So I'll be voting with the rest of my actions.

Still a yes.

Thank you. I look forward to Ben and Kratom too. Any other comments?

Yes on that too.

Okay. I'll start for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB 2175 SD 2 HD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments, noting reservations from representative Tam. Are there any other reservations? Reservations rep.

Any no's?

Oh. Reservation.

From representative Kong. And any noes? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Alright. Moving on to last item on the agenda. SB 2487 SD 1 HD 1 relating to the Public Utilities Commission. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. Members, any comments?

Vice chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2487, SD 1, HD 1, chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Any reservations? Any notes? No. No from Representative Kong.

K. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, members. We're adjourned.

Thank you, chair.