SB1665 would create a new part in Chapter 269 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to restrict foreign ownership or control of utilities and companies tied to Hawaii’s critical infrastructure. The bill defines critical infrastructure to include freshwater treatment and delivery systems, the electrical grid, and telecommunications networks, along with related supporting infrastructure. It then bars public or private electric utilities, water utilities, and telecommunications carriers serving the state or its residents from being owned or controlled by non-U.S. citizens or by entities that are not owned or controlled by U.S. citizens, not directly controlled by the U.S. government, or not headquartered in the United States.
The bill also establishes a reporting requirement. Covered utilities and carriers would have to file annual reports disclosing foreign ownership or control at or above specified thresholds, including 4 percent ownership, the lowest ownership level that permits a board seat, or the ownership level held by a sitting board member. The measure would take effect upon approval and would operate as a direct limitation on ownership structure rather than merely a disclosure regime.
Impact
If enacted, SB1665 would add a new foreign-ownership restriction to Hawaii’s utility regulation framework in Chapter 269 and would override conflicting provisions to the extent of the new rule. It would affect both public and private electric utilities, water utilities, and telecommunications carriers serving Hawaii, potentially requiring divestment, restructuring, or compliance review for entities with foreign ownership or control. The bill would also impose ongoing annual disclosure obligations on those industries, increasing regulatory oversight of ownership and governance.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a national security and sovereignty protection bill, suggesting a precautionary and security-focused rationale. The absence of recorded discussion means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony, amendments, or vote counts.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the breadth of the foreign-ownership ban. The bill would prohibit ownership or control not only by foreign citizens and foreign-controlled entities, but also by entities not headquartered in the United States, which could affect multinational companies and investment structures even when they have substantial U.S. operations. Another likely issue is the low ownership threshold used to define control, including 4 percent ownership and board-seat thresholds, which may be seen as expansive and potentially disruptive to existing utility ownership arrangements. Supporters would likely emphasize infrastructure security and resilience, while critics may raise concerns about investment restrictions, market effects, and the practical enforceability of the ban.