Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, that's not the priority in our court system today.
• ><00:20:58.000> that's<00:20:58.320> not<00:20:58.559> the<00:20:58.799> priority
• Uh that's not the priority in our jail.
• Uh that's not the priority in our in<00:21:00.000> our<00:21:00.240> court<00:21:00.480

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 122, which would allow certain defendants who are caretakers of dependent children to ask a sentencing court to consider parenting classes and family counseling as part of an alternative sentence, alongside existing options like probation and treatment programs. Representative Nick Wilson, the House sponsor, said the bill was aimed at helping families affected by the opioid crisis, especially in Appalachia, and described it as a way to support parents who want to get clean and rebuild family stability. He emphasized that the bill would apply only on a defendant’s motion, would not be automatic, and would exclude violent offenders, domestic violence-related cases, child-victim cases, and cases where probation or similar relief is otherwise prohibited. Committee members raised concerns that the bill could create a two-tiered system of justice or add unnecessary procedure because judges already consider family circumstances through presentence investigations and sentencing discretion. One senator said he would support the bill but worried it privileged defendants with children over those without. Another member argued the bill was unnecessary because judges and prosecutors already have these options available and because it could add another hearing to an already overloaded court system. Supporters responded that the family unit should be given greater weight and that the bill would simply make that consideration more explicit. Judge Julie Ward, joined by Judge Jeremy Maddox, testified against the bill as written. She said judges already receive presentence reports, hear offender statements, and consider caregiving responsibilities, and that family court already addresses children’s needs when custody issues arise. Her main objections were that parenting services are not available in all communities, may cost money, and that the bill would require evidentiary hearings and potentially create equal protection problems by giving preferential treatment to caretakers. She urged the sponsors to work on revised language instead of passing the bill in its current form. Senator Wheeler said he would vote for the bill and noted that a floor amendment would be offered to address access to confidential juvenile “J cases” in presentence reports, since probation and parole do not have that access. He said the amendment was intended to make sure sentencing judges have the information they need. The discussion ended without a final committee vote in the transcript, but the bill remained under consideration with possible amendment and further revision.

Transcript Highlights:

• judicial districts or how many districts we have, if the judges are all saying, "Okay, SAP is a priority
• , "Okay, SAP if the judges are all saying, "Okay, SAP is<00:33:11.679> a<00:33:11.840> priority
• we're<00:33:13.039> going<00:33:13.120> to<00:33:13.200> order is a priority
• , so we're going to order is a priority, so we're going to order SAP<00:33:13.840> in<00:33:14.080

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• few more tweaks on fiscal responsibility, on controls, on how we can look at roads, where their priorities
• northern part of the state or the southern part of the state, east or west, that within that, the priorities
• the guardrails as we address this, and what we want to do is to ensure that every year that the priorities
• And bridge replacement is a priority on this list, and bridges are not cheap.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those will be our priorities. Those are the bread and butter.
• Those will be our<01:04:30.319> priorities.
• 31.520> are<01:04:31.760> the<01:04:31.920> bread<01:04:32.319> and our priorities
• Those are the bread and our priorities.

Keywords: House streaming session for Wednesday, January 14, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened for the first day of session and first elected Delegate Luke Clippinger as Speaker Pro Tem. Members nominated and seconded him with remarks praising his leadership, work on Judiciary Committee issues, and ability to mentor colleagues. Nominations were then closed, the House voted by voice, and Clippinger was sworn in. The chamber then opened nominations for Speaker of the House. Multiple members spoke in support of Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk, highlighting her personal story, legal background, public service, and committee leadership. Speakers emphasized her work on major policy areas including education, police reform, racial and economic justice, reproductive freedom, and support for historically Black colleges and universities. One member from the minority party also seconded the nomination, saying she had been inclusive and respectful in committee work and legislative process. After nominations were closed, the House voted by voice and elected Peña-Melnyk Speaker of the House of Delegates. She was sworn in and thanked members for their support, reflecting on the diversity in the chamber and the significance of the moment. In her remarks, she also praised outgoing Speaker Adrienne Jones and recognized family members, dignitaries, and colleagues in attendance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Obviously, his team takes priority, but when it's not being used, we can come and play with it, which
• Obviously, his team takes priority, but when it's not being used, we can come and play with it, which
• Obviously, his team takes priority, but when it's not being used, we can come and play with it, which
• Obviously, his team takes priority, but when it's not being used, we can come and play with it, which

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Legislative Commission on Cybersecurity met remotely on January 8, 2026, approved the minutes from October 27, 2025 by voice vote, and confirmed a quorum was present. The main presentation came from the Minnesota National Guard’s cyber coordination cell, with Lieutenant Colonel Brian Morgan describing the unit’s mission to prepare Guard cyber forces for state or federal cyber support, including domestic emergencies like the St. Paul ransomware incident and broader federal activations. Morgan outlined three main lines of effort: optimizing cyber force training for likely threats, building relationships with state, federal, academic, and local partners, and equipping deployable incident-response tools. He said the coordination cell is not itself the incident response team, but serves as the planning and coordination office for military cyber response, maintaining equipment at Cedar Street Armory that can provide out-of-band connectivity and be deployed quickly. He also described partnerships with Minnesota IT Services, CISA, the FBI, Metro State University, and international/state partners such as Norway and Croatia, along with participation in major exercises and conferences. The presentation emphasized the St. Paul response as a model for coordination, noting the Guard’s role in mission coordination, operational support, public affairs support, and lessons learned. Morgan said the Guard has conducted more than 200 engagements with partner institutions in 2024-2025 and uses outreach to educate counties and other entities on how to request Guard cyber support, comparing the process to requesting assistance for a fire or flood. In response to a question from Representative Bonner, he highlighted the long-standing relationship with Metro State University and its practical role in training cyber personnel, including operational technology training and a credit-transfer pathway toward a master’s degree.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, and as I said a minute ago, maintaining affordability has been a priority not only for President
• 00:16:06.720> a maintaining affordability has been a maintaining affordability has been a priority
• > only<00:16:07.839> for<00:16:08.079> President<00:16:08.480> Thompson priority
• not only for President Thompson priority not only for President Thompson and<00:16:09.120> the

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its fifth and final Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education meeting, but did not initially have a quorum and approved the minutes later when enough members were present. The Council on Postsecondary Education, represented by President Aaron Thompson and Vice President Bill Payne, opened with condolences for the UPS crash victims and then presented higher education budget recommendations for the 2026-2028 biennium. Thompson emphasized the return on investment from state support for higher education, citing gains in retention, enrollment, persistence, graduation, reduced time to degree, lower student debt, and expanded dual credit participation, while noting that affordability and access remain priorities. Payne outlined CPE’s operating funds request, including $43.3 million in the first year and $86.6 million in the second year for inflation adjustments, plus $30 million and $45 million for performance funding. He said the inflation request would apply across the board to institutions to offset rising costs, and that the KSU land grant match would not need additional funding because the state has already met the matching requirement. He also explained that state support for educating students has not kept pace with inflation over time, creating pressure on institutional budgets and tuition, though tuition increases have been held to historic lows in recent years. A major portion of the discussion focused on the performance funding model and how it affects smaller institutions. CPE proposed two approaches to address institutions that have received little or no performance funding, especially Kentucky State University and Morehead State University. The first approach would create a $20 million minimum distribution pool, providing $1.95 million to each university and $4.4 million to KCTCS, with the goal of giving smaller and rural institutions a base level of support. The second approach would provide direct appropriations totaling a little over $5.6 million to Kentucky State, Morehead State, and five community colleges that have not been receiving performance funding. Members, especially Representative Tipton and Senator West, questioned how the model had treated small schools over time, and CPE officials explained that the original small school adjustment was not large enough to prevent KSU and Morehead from effectively being left out of the distribution. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• and is actively working with us on making thoughtful, strategic budget reductions aligned to our priorities
• These include standardized mapping and wayfinding at transit hubs, collaboration on transit priority
• compensation if individuals are forced to pay a fee over the portion that is being paid to victims in priority
• compensation if individuals are forced to pay a fee over the portion that is being paid to victims in priority

Summary: The committee heard several audit requests and related testimony. The first major item was an audit of Coachella Valley Unified School District’s contract and fiscal management. The author and supporters described long-standing fiscal mismanagement, large budget shortfalls, layoffs, contracting concerns, and questions about the district’s foundation and use of public funds. District representatives and the Riverside County Office of Education said the district is already under fiscal oversight, has a stabilization plan, and is working to reduce deficits and improve student outcomes. After extensive debate and public comment, the motion to approve the audit was put on call because the committee did not have the required votes from both houses at that moment. The committee then approved an audit of East Bay transit agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Senator Wahab argued the region’s many overlapping transit agencies create fragmentation, duplication, and inefficiency, especially amid a fiscal cliff and possible future tax increases. Transit agencies and labor representatives opposed the audit, saying the agencies already undergo multiple audits, serve distinct local needs, and are implementing regional coordination efforts. After testimony from agency leaders and public commenters, the committee voted to approve the audit. The next item was an audit of California Community Colleges’ unrestricted reserves. Senator Archuleta and supporting faculty representatives said reserves have grown substantially and may be diverting resources from student services, instruction, and workforce programs. They argued there is little oversight when reserves become too high. The Chancellor’s Office and Calbright College were invited to respond, and the audit objectives focused on reserve growth, reasons for high balances, oversight by the Chancellor’s Office, and effects on students and staff. The transcript cuts off during the Chancellor’s Office response, so the final committee action on this item is not shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, simply because the President of the United States and others have made this a priority for us to
• am so glad that we have finally gotten to the stage of the legislature where poor people are... priority
• just so glad we've gotten to the stage in the legislature where poor people will be coming up as a priority
• The second thing that was a big priority for me in the committee, as well as other members of the committee

Bills: SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB37, SB8, SB10, SB227, SB261, SB12, SB15, SJR27, SB552, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB25, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB300, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323

Keywords: sexual abuse, nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, public policy, victim rights, lottery, bingo, regulation, Texas Lottery Commission, Department of Licensing and Regulation, criminal offenses, state administration, audits, transfers, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation

Transcript Highlights:

• However, it shall start with the priority of those first ABC.
• However, it shall start with the<01:21:16.800> priority<01:21:17.120> of<01:21:17.360><
• <01:21:19.120> Um,<01:21:19.520> one the priority of those first ABC.
• Um, one the priority of those first ABC.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• speak with you today about our recent accomplishments, the challenges we are tackling, and the priorities
• Workforce development is a top priority of the board.
• One of the board's key priorities has been expanding outreach and education.
• Strengthening telehealth and online therapy regulations will remain a priority as we continue to monitor

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Somebody needs to be in the home, and that's a priority for you guys, but then the circumstances of having
• 09:09.440> a need to be in the home um and that's a need to be in the home um and that's a priority
• :10.360> guys<00:09:10.640> but<00:09:10.800> then<00:09:11.560> the priority
• for you guys but then the priority for you guys but then the circumstances<00:09:12.399> of<00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate committee hearing considered HB 472 HD1 on digital identification and HB 1097 HD1 on public housing evictions, followed by HB 1325 HD3 on housing redevelopment and tenant relocation rights. HB 472 would require digital IDs to be accepted under certain conditions and allow law enforcement to use them as proof of identity; the committee heard limited testimony, then adopted a recommendation to pass with amendments, including changing “shall” to “may” and adding effective and defective dates. HB 1097 would shorten the storage period for unclaimed personal effects after a public housing eviction; the Hawaii Public Housing Authority supported the bill, while some members raised concerns about the impact on displaced families. The committee moved the bill forward with discussion of the agency’s eviction process, waitlist size, and the need to free units sooner for other applicants. HB 1325 HD3 drew extensive testimony and discussion. The bill would require developers of certain HHFDC affordable housing projects to provide displaced tenants with a right of first refusal for a comparable unit or relocation assistance, along with information, tracking, and enforcement provisions. HHFDC supported the measure but suggested amendments to require both relocation assistance and a right of first refusal, without requiring the same rent as the prior unit. Legal aid, housing advocates, community organizations, and many tenants testified in strong support, emphasizing displacement during public housing redevelopment, inadequate communication, accessibility problems, and the need for enforceable rights to return. Several tenants described confusing notices, unsuitable replacement units, and hardship for elders, disabled residents, and children. The discussion also highlighted concerns about developer compliance and the need for state-level enforcement. No final vote on HB 1325 was shown in the transcript excerpt, but the hearing included substantial questioning of the housing authority and testimony from affected residents. The committee also discussed the broader redevelopment context, including large-scale public housing demolition and replacement plans, and the potential consequences for families if relocation and return rights are not clearly enforced.

Transcript Highlights:

• Understand there's priorities. Um, what are you going to cut in your office budget to um for this?
• Understand understand<00:05:02.880> there's<00:05:03.120> priorities.
• <00:05:04.320> um<00:05:04.400> what understand there's priorities. um what understand
• there's priorities. um what are<00:05:04.720> you<00:05:04.800> going<00:05:04.880>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint committees on Transportation and Culture and the Arts and Economic Development and Tourism heard three measures. HB 450, which would transfer the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts to the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, drew support from DBEDT, the State Foundation, the Hawaii Arts Alliance, DAGs, and individuals. Members asked about the bill’s purpose and the relationship between arts administration and international/cultural considerations. The committees voted to pass HB 450 with amendments, including a housekeeping change allowing specific legislative direction in narrow cases; the measure was adopted with unanimous or near-unanimous votes. HB 437, relating to out-of-state offices, received testimony in support from DBEDT and representatives of the Filipino Chamber of Commerce and another individual. The discussion focused on whether an overseas office in the Philippines was the best use of funds, given existing offices and trade relationships in places like Beijing and Taiwan. Members questioned the return on investment, fiscal priorities, and whether DBEDT had a broader strategic plan for selecting markets. The committees ultimately passed HB 437 with a Senate Draft 1 and technical amendments, with some members voting with reservations. HB 1391, relating to trade and creating a Hawaii-Ireland trade commission, also advanced after a lengthy discussion. DBEDT said it offered comments rather than a firm recommendation and explained that the bill appeared intended to build economic ties with Europe through Ireland, but members questioned why a commission was needed, how it would be structured, and whether similar efforts should focus on other countries. DBEDT said it would provide reports on sister-state relationships and office performance, and noted that trade initiatives would likely require private-sector participation. The committees passed HB 1391 with amendments and reservations from some members.

Transcript Highlights:

• on and some updates to our restraint statute, and we really. think that that should be a critical priority
• HB 2 includes several of the legislative priorities adopted by our Board of Trustees, a copy of which
• HB 2, yet we I wonder if it tries to cover too many areas, thus reducing its impact on essential priority
• that start effectively at year three and work through year 10, and then it's 10 plus. of our other priorities

Bills: HB2, HB2

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• It has been our top legislative priority since 2019.
• Senate File 832 is a key legislative priority for our organization because it will serve to expand access
• midwifery access is a proven, cost-effective strategy to improve maternal health outcomes. legislative priority
• for our legislative priority for our organization<00:16:09.440> because<00:16:09.680> it

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That project may not rise to the priority level, and the prioritization is set out in the legislation
• Are there any other priorities?
• Fifth, it gives priority to students from underrepresented groups in graduate education.
• And the bill reads, "priority shall" be given to New Mexico students who are New Mexico residents with

Transcript Highlights:

• While safe and effective disposal of wind and solar infrastructure remains a top priority for industry
• I think that is reflective of the priorities of our state, wanting to make sure that we are not being
• I think that is reflective of the priorities of our state, wanting to make sure that we are not being
• I think that is reflective of the priorities of our state, wanting to make sure that we are not being

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We were notified at the end of March that we're a priority listed offer, and we had to submit at the
• that<00:49:14.319> uh<00:49:14.599> we're<00:49:14.960> a<00:49:15.440> priority
• <00:49:16.440> uh<00:49:16.599> listed March that uh we're a priority uh listed March
• that uh we're a priority uh listed offer<00:49:18.079> and<00:49:18.200> we<00:49:18.359

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees considered a large number of Senate bills, with many measures advanced either unamended or with technical or substantive amendments. Early action included SB 88 and SB 11 SD1, both passed unamended, and SB 562 SD1 and SB 642 SD1, which were passed with amendments reflecting agency testimony. SB 1133 SD1 was amended to remove duplicative county requirements and clarify tax credit carry-forward eligibility, while SB 1569 SD1 on sports wagering was deferred. Later, SB 933 on nonprofit/federal funding support drew strong testimony from nonprofit and health advocates emphasizing the risk of federal funding freezes and the importance of protecting services such as early learning, domestic violence support, housing, and workforce supports; the committee recommended amendments to define eligible organizations, require reporting, and include the Judiciary. SB 934 and SB 935 were also amended, with SB 934 tying mass transit funding to Honolulu project milestones and SB 935 revising retirement-system language to change “fewer than five years” to “five or more years.” The committees then took up additional measures with targeted amendments. SB 1033 was amended to clarify that the bill applies to legal entities, not individuals, though members noted concerns about closely held family corporations and asked that the issue be reflected in the committee report. SB 1166, SB 1249, and SB 1256 were advanced with amendments or committee-report notes reflecting concerns from the Attorney General, Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council, and Hawaii Farmers Union United, respectively. SB 1432 and SB 137, both relating to electric utilities, were amended to require retention of covered employees after mergers or acquisitions and to direct the PUC to consider whether proposed transactions further state policy goals. SB 157 on antitrust was narrowed to focus on coordinator conduct in rental housing markets, SB 252 on invasive species received a defective effective date, and SB 336 on defense of state employers and employees passed unamended. SB 536 on the Hawaii Community Development Authority was deferred to a later hearing, and SB 1064 on medical cannabis was heavily amended to authorize cultivator licenses with limits on canopy size, license counts, physician fees, and a special-fund appropriation for enforcement. In the Ways and Means portion, the committee passed several bills unamended, including SB 19, SB 124, SB 264, SB 345, SB 422, and SB 741 and SB 747 later in the agenda. SB 361 was amended to remove references to the attorney general and delete an appropriation section, SB 438 was amended to redefine buffer zones and landfill-unit language, and SB 441 and SB 494 were amended to blank appropriations and, in SB 494, assign charter-school audit responsibility to the state auditor. SB 659 was substantially amended to promote local procurement, including county-level geographic preferences and higher thresholds for locally sourced purchases, and SB 732 was amended to adjust film tax credit provisions, including the streaming-platform definition and sunset-related language. SB 819 was amended to replace references to “educators” with “teachers.” Throughout, most measures were adopted without recorded opposition, though several members noted reservations on particular bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Their priority is the aggregate cap.
• 00:24:02.120> their consider it insufficient but their consider it insufficient but their priority
• 03.200> aggregate<00:24:04.039> cap<00:24:05.039> okay<00:24:05.279> but priority
• is the aggregate cap okay but priority is the aggregate cap okay but how<00:24:05.480> do<00:

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint committees heard testimony on HB 982 HD1, a wildfire-related measure aimed at creating a wildfire recovery fund and a financing structure to address future catastrophic wildfire liability. The Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Division of Consumer Advocacy, and the Public Utilities Commission submitted comments and were available for questions. Supporters included IBW Local 1260, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, Clearway Energy Group, Hawaiian Electric, Par Hawaii, and others, while Charter Communications and the Hawaii Association for Justice opposed or raised concerns. Life of the Land supported the bill but urged changes to the definition of a catastrophic wildfire and noted concerns about prudency review language. IBW Local 1260 asked to restore language from the original draft, and Charter warned the bill could impair existing contract and indemnity rights unless amended. A major focus of the hearing was Hawaiian Electric’s position on the HD1 version. Hawaiian Electric strongly supported the original bill but objected to the HD1 requirement for an additional $500 million shareholder contribution, arguing it was not feasible and could delay or prevent the fund from operating. The company said the bill would help protect customers and improve credit ratings by creating a dedicated revenue stream and a bankruptcy-remote financing structure, which it said would lower borrowing costs over time. Members questioned how the $1 billion securitization amount was chosen, whether credit rating agencies had indicated it was sufficient, and how the bill would work in bankruptcy; Hawaiian Electric said the amount was a balance among interests, not based on a specific agency directive, and that it would follow up on bankruptcy questions. Opponents and skeptics raised concerns about liability caps, the new claims process, and unclear language on damages above the fund’s limits. The Hawaii Association for Justice argued the bill limits victims’ remedies and gives too much authority to the new entity without clear guardrails. Committee members also pressed Hawaiian Electric on comparisons to California, the feasibility of the shareholder contribution, and whether alternative capital-raising or divestiture options had been considered. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the hearing provided; testimony and questioning continued with follow-up information requested from Hawaiian Electric and others.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's to set our priorities. It's to understand that steadfastly we can go forward together.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's not to say that this is not a priority to them now, but we're just relying on their previous resolutions