 energy and everything else is complex on Hawaii Island. Okay, we have today Senator Laura Acasio. She's from District 1 in Hilo in the Hawaii State Senate. This is ThinkTech, and we're talking about the cutting edge. And today we're going to have the cutting edge on a number of issues. But the first thing I want to clarify that this is not AOC. She's not in Congress. She's in the Hawaii State Senate, and she is not running for president. Am I got that right so far, Laura? So far, so good, Jay. Thank you for having me. Let's not foreclose the possibility at a later time, though, if you don't mind. Great. So you got to be a senator because David E. A. decided you were the right person for Hawaii Island. Why did he think you were the right person? Okay, so it was definitely a process. Seven people put their names in for this position to fill Kai Cahele's vacancy as he went to Congress and was a wonderful opportunity. I have been part of the Democratic Party and working at the local level and also the state level with the state central committee for seven years at this point. And I felt like here's an opportunity to utilize my skills both as a collaborator, reaching different groups within our community, and an educator. So all of these tools and values and my knowledge of not only the system of government, but also in our community and also the community work that I've done and leadership roles that I've played, I think he really saw that and thought that it would be a refreshing and energizing addition to the state legislature, especially in the Senate. And now that you feel about it, did you feel a certain amount of trepidation? And if you did in the beginning, do you feel that more or less now? I would say it was a little bit like riding a tidal wave. Governor Egan and I discussed that in our interview as one of the things that I recognized that my learning curve would be huge, but that I was up for the task and it felt in some ways maybe like skipping law school and go straight to law making. And yet at the same time, I knew that I have the background, the education, the history to serve my community well and to do the late nights and all of the reading that it takes to really do the due diligence that it takes in reaching out. Also, I think one of the things is being connected to different groups and different folks in our community and statewide is really important because legislators are expected in some ways to know everything, but the reality is we don't, but we really need to like anything. You need to know where to find it. You need to know how to research it or who to call to get different perspectives. And I think one of the pieces that Governor Egan may have seen in that is that I genuinely love civic discourse. And even though I do come with my opinions and my personal background that brings me to my own conclusions, I think what he saw was I understand that we need to look at it from a broad range and when we're figuring out all the nuances of what makes a good law and in lawmaking, we have to be able to hear other perspectives. We have to be able to bridge those things and we have to be able to find, okay, well, so one perspective might be this is the solution and we agree on the problem, but maybe the solution is different. And so as a problem solver and as a teacher, I look at it in a comprehensive way where, okay, we have this issue, we agree on the issue. Where are the problematic pieces in the differing solutions? And in that way, we can come to compromise, we could see different perspectives and open our own minds. So I think that's a big component. Trepidation. At this point, I feel like I have the more I learn, the more there is to learn, and that excites me, because my true intention in being in this position is to bring a level of community-based civic leadership as opposed to a paid-to-play peer-based politics. And I think that our community is really hungry for that. We've been losing civic hope and civic faith and civic engagement for many, many years because of these kinds of things. And I do bring hope to that because I really think that the more that we see ourselves in our lawmakers, the more we want to get engaged. And the opposite is true. And I think the opposite has been happening, especially when you adding the pieces of some of our colleagues, unfortunately, being indicted this past year because of decisions that they've made. And it may not be the end of that, unfortunately. And I think we as a community are frankly, tired of that. And so here's an opportunity to jump into a place where that fresh energy is not entrenched in some of the old baggage. Granted, I really do believe that institutional knowledge in this environment is very also important. And it's important to have mentors, but I think the biggest piece to that is to have mentors that have ethics and an approach to civics that is truly egalitarian and really what democracy is built on, which is representation for the people, by the people. Yeah, in New York, where I'm admitted, there's a big courthouse down in Foley Square in Manhattan. And it's the Supreme Court in New York. In that case, it's sort of like the circuit court here, not the Supreme Court in the state, but like the circuit court. And there's a big inscription over the doorway as these courthouses always have some kind of inscription. And this inscription is really important. What it says is the firmest pillar of justice is public confidence. And when you have corruption revealed, we have prosecutions and investigations and FBI, U.S. attorneys, what have you, prosecutors, that affects public confidence. And it's our job, all of us, especially people in public office, but also the media to examine it from that point of view and to share the points on which people can have public confidence. So rebuilding public confidence is really job number one in protecting the democracy, don't you think? Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better. Absolutely. And I think that is the biggest reason that drives me to continue this work. There are many things I love about this job, the opportunities for incredible innovation and really guiding those principles that you speak of and living that. And I think part of that, again, is because I haven't been involved on a level where the money has been so such a driving force to maintaining this position. And so, you know, Governor Ige actually, I really owe him a huge mahogany in doing his due diligence in choosing because he really gave myself, but also our community an opportunity to have this as an example. And I'm not the only one that believes this. There are many colleagues that I work with that also uphold these values and have been doing it for many, many years. But I think what does happen is I've been, I've learned somewhat of a complacency when leadership has such a hold on how folks act within the Senate that sometimes there is a little bit of complacency. Folks don't want to be that one fringe person. But when you have a few other people there, you know, it kind of spreads out the focus. Oh, you bet. So, you know, I was going to ask you whether you consider yourself a reformer. And that's a hard question. It's a hard answer too. But I think I know the answer. What do you think the answer is? I think I'm just doing what most of our constituents would want me to do. So, I don't know if that's reform or not. I think that I'm coming to it with really believing that my due diligence is to read all the bills. And one of the first things, I've shared this on the HSPA interview recently. And unfortunately, one of the biggest rules of blooming that I learned in the first two weeks of being in the Senate is don't read the bills. And of course, for me, coming into it, that was incredibly shocking. Don't read the bills. That tells me right away, read every single word and read it carefully and critical thinking because that's my job. And that is the due diligence that my community would want. That's what I would want. And so, instead of just taking clues, you'll get invited to the right parties. You'll be a chair. You'll have an easy election. All of these kinds of things, if you just don't read the bills and take the clues and follow along. I wouldn't call myself a reformer. And I also wouldn't say that that's outrageous because, Jay, would you rob me to read the bills? Or would you want me to go along? No, we don't want surprises in the final copy. So there's always discussion about a few things in the ledge that are worth mentioning now. And there are systemic things. One, for example, is the chair of these committees, all the committees seem to have, the chair seems to have absolute power. Everybody goes along with the chair. And about as much as you can do to express yourself, is vote with reservation, which was an article recently. I forget where it was. Civil beings says, what does that mean? It's a reservation. Give me a break. How do you feel about the power of the chair in these committees? First of all, I love that article. It was exactly what I had been speaking with with my staff and some colleagues, all of the first session that I was in. Because, yes, with reservations is fundamentally flawed. And many states don't even have it. It really is a way to compromise and try to look one way or the other. And there was a really important bill before us within the first few weeks of me being in the Senate. And I had some colleagues coming in lobbying in my office, and they just really wanted me to vote yes with reservation. So when that article came out, it was quite funny because, yeah, no, it's either yes or no, fundamentally. If we get to a process where we can fix the bills before they get passed, and those reservations are authentically dealt with in the hearing process, again, civic discourse, appropriate testimony of an appropriate amount of time for it, not trying to rush through 3000 bills, that's one thing. Oh, my interest, my concern is there are some things in the legislature that do not give the public confidence. One of them is this thing about that article with reservations. I mean, it's very least somebody would say, will you please tell us what your reservations are? How about being explicit? I remember one time it was a confirmation of an appointee and a chair of the committee, I won't mention names, I asked them, why are you dishing this particular nominee says I just don't feel right about her. Why? You don't feel right? Well, have an aspirin, man. Maybe it's a stomach problem. Have you been eating correctly? Anyway, we need the transparency, don't you think? Yeah, so exactly what you said about the unilateral control of the chair, that is extremely problematic. And we could actually fix that within Senate rules already. So long as leadership, again, was open to a much more fair playing field. Here's another interesting piece, too, is that one of the practices that gets used on a regular basis that I see as problematic, again, coming in with fresh eyes and learning it from scratch is that so many bills get attached with a bad date or what they call an effective effective date. And that automatically sends it to conference committee as and the idea within legislation is or the legislature is that that will get whatever we don't agree with or whatever needs to be figured out will get figured out in conference committee. But you ask many people and that's conference committee is behind closed doors. The discussions are not public. They generally even happen between just the chairs, not even the members on the committee and or even leadership, not even the chairs, the chairs are just there to deliver the last minute decision making or it gets killed behind closed doors. So it's often seen as the place where good bills go to die. And so that again, that becomes very problematic because we have lots and lots of bills and then advocates afterward or even during the process are calling our office is asking what's happening and why. And everyone kind of goes, I don't know. But again, because that goes back to the sunshine law, which when the legislature passed the sunshine law, they exempted themselves. So there is no sunshine. And honestly, I wrote this in my question and answer in my simple article responses is that that feels like I'm doing a huge disservice to my community because here we are making decisions behind closed doors. And for good or for bad, I'm in those conversations. So I hear what is being said and you can see who perhaps is lobbying to kill or support a bill. And yet the public doesn't get to know that. And so back to your point about public trust. And if we're to rebuild that public trust, the way to do it is to be 100% transparent to create systems within the legislature rules that we can do without legislation that says, for example, there's some kind of fair exchange in terms of who becomes a chair rather than just being a chair for forever or, you know, for 15 years. Again, that unilateral control says that that person that senator's constituents are have more representation than a senator that doesn't have a chair ship because, you know, because of that power level. And we can also not use that defective defective date to the extent or we can put rules on it. Another way to do it that creates more transparency is to say that if so many legislators sign on to a bill that it automatically gets a at least a hearing. You know, so that's a little bit more building the public trust, at least allows the public to give feedback and to weigh in on an issue that otherwise maybe the chair is like, yeah, it gets introduced every year for 15 years, but never gets a hearing. Right. But if the community really wants to hear this bill, and it's a really important thing that needs to be addressed, you know, if you have enough senators that sign on, for example, it should automatically get a hearing. So there's some little things we can we can do. Oh, that sounds like great stuff. I hope that can happen. I mean, and you know, the whole thing about the conference committee is troubling. You know, Supreme Court made some, you know, profound statements and dealing with gut and replace and good for them. But it's not the end of the ballgame. Because what you describe about the, you know, the ineffective correct ineffective effective date, whatever it is, is another way to do gut and replace, isn't it? Because, you know, material parts of the bill are left for secret discussion. This isn't so good. So I'm happy to hear you say those things. But let me ask you this, Laura. Are you, how do you feel about speaking truth to power? Because that's a big issue nationally. And I forgive me, but I conflate national issues with local issues. I think we have to be observant about what's going on in the name that we have to learn from it. And we have to appreciate the same kind of steps to preserve the democracy. So how do you feel about speaking truth to power? I think it's incredibly important. It's incredibly powerful. Here's the thing. As a senator, you have power. So it's incredibly important to continue to speak truth. Let me ask you to take a minute and pitch yourself, why should they vote for you in this primary coming up? Okay. Again, it goes back to being energetic, fresh eyes. That speaking to wanting to change the civic discourse and the practices that we have that allow corruption to fester within our, within our legislature. And I do have the energy. I care about Hilo incredibly. And, you know, again, going back to the connections and the ability and my experience over the past 25 years here as a resident in Hawaii, 20 years here in Hilo, I am very well connected in this community and have been giving a lot and want to continue to be of service. So many folks have told me that there it is time for change and that, you know, some of the folks that I'm running against have been operating for many, many years and they've had, they've had time and they've had chances. And I think they also see the bigger picture of how this particular race has the potential to really restructure and reorganize Senate leadership. And for those people who follow Senate leadership and would like to see a reorganization, I think then they would also support that as well. Because immediately we have three chairs who have retired. So we'll have to replace those chairs. And then if I win, we'll need to have a new water and land chair because, you know, Senator Lorraine Inouye is the water and land chair. And then also we vote, coming up this session, we vote on who the president is and then who ultimately that all the chairships get decided as part of that reorganization process. And so here we have one of the old guard and an establishment Democrats who have been in there for a really long time and is known to be part of this this network of leadership within the Senate. And so here's an incredible opportunity to shift that. And not only me, but there's other races as well within the House that represent something very similar, but also other races within the Senate that may be deciding factors on that reorganization. So it's very exciting times because we have the opportunity to shift what we've been doing. And fundamentally, if we keep voting the same people in, we're going to have the same result. And so that's just basically goes down to, you know, the definition of insanity. And I also think that Albert Einstein brought it up in a very similar way. If you keep doing the same thing, you're going to get the same result. And so here's a wonderful opportunity to do something different. And I'm really excited about it. Yeah, I agree with you 1000%, Laura. So drilling down on some specific issues, if you don't mind. Number one is, and it, you know, your comments evoked a question in me. What do you think about term limits in a ledge? So term limits do have a really good potential. I've introduced a bill for term limits my first session out of the gate. And because I think it's an opportunity to flush the system of these grudges that you've had. I've seen, and this was in my civil beat questionnaire as well, I've seen far too many times in a short period of time in two sessions where bills get killed because of grudges or money doesn't get delivered to certain communities because of grudges. And this can even happen with people of the same that are representing the same community. And so there's that's a way to there's that's a way to flush that out. I've been recently exposed to different thoughts around how we can naturally do term limits rather than actually put a term limit, which is campaign finance reform, you know, because it will even out a lot of the playing field and put other rules in place that we've been discussing in the legislature, like making sure that legislators can't have fundraisers or even raise funds during the legislative session. Really just to address the appearance of impropriety and dishonesty. But also what it does is it allows others who are working on campaigns on the side to get a leg up a little bit and get out in the community. And that ultimately the work that we're doing as legislators should be speaking for itself. And so, you know, here's here's an opportunity to, you know, if we have a candidate who's an incumbent, who has already almost a million dollars in their campaign account, or in the case that I'm running against what they already had maybe 127,000, you know, that's a huge difference in terms of what kind of advertising and outreach and hiring potential for campaign consultants, for example, that they could do. And so, again, that would create maybe if we put caps on that or mandate public financing, put caps on how much they could roll over to the next session, I mean, next campaign or, you know, things like that, we could really address some of these term limits by really just, that will naturally help it turn over. Because another big piece of that is really engaging civics and teaching our community how to engage and why it's important. And really, again, if we build that trust back, people will engage. And so that's, and then it's our community that votes us in. And so that will, again, create a little bit more of a natural term limit, because you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing in your community, hopefully to get you out. Okay, all right. It sounds great to me. I mean, let me add, you know, that I love candidates who answer the questions I pose. I really do. Thank you for that. But let's talk about some specific issues, you know, you're in agriculture and environment. Senate agriculture and environment is really, really, really important in terms of sustainability, resilience in the case of extreme weather, what have you from climate change and all manner of risks and threats. What are we doing? Are we doing enough about agriculture? But Glenn Wakai got up in a movie we made recently, he said only 1% of the state budget is dedicated to, you know, incentivizing agriculture. And that's not enough. Do you agree? What can we do? I absolutely agree. We need to, we need to increase our procurement, state procurement of purchasing foods so that we can help support our local farmers. We need to create tax incentives. Some of the things that I have learned in my community that local farmers really need, especially smaller scale and ones that are hearing their production for food security and feeding local people, as opposed to for export, is that what's really important is the ability to put small farm dwellings on agriculture land, you know, to live on site and so that they're not necessarily having to pay a mortgage somewhere else and then go and operate and work. And then I think that also addresses a lot of, could address a lot of the theft issues that we have here in rural community, which is a real problem. And I think there are solutions that we need to look at beyond just continuing to over criminalize it, although it definitely needs to be addressed. And I know that there are frustrations for the people that are experiencing the theft and they just want it to end. So, but the farm dwellings could help with that. Another piece is that shared, the ability to have shared equipment is really important. I was just speaking with a farmer yesterday who, you know, could really use a chipper, but they don't need a chipper 24-7, so they really would like to be able to, you know, trade that around with folks and have some kind of maybe like a tool library, farmers tool library that they can use. Another piece is hubs or, you know, washing and storage kind of facilities, but including a certified kitchen, because it's so cumbersome and it's so expensive and costly to have certified kitchen, but if there's an ability to share it amongst the cooperative. And so we have something, we have the ULO Co-op here who is an incredible example of that, and we would just like to help continue to replicate that in various ways in our community, but I absolutely think we need to support it 100% and in all ways that we can. Turning to energy for a moment, there's so many questions. We could go on for hours and I know I would have a wonderful time with you on these issues, but energy, okay, we have a bunch of energy questions affecting Hawaii Island. You know, one of them of course is, you know, thermal down there in Puna, which is still after all these years somewhat controversial. I do not understand that myself. You know, another is, well, you know, energy in general, what are we going to do to make, A, make more renewables in the big islands and B, make it cheaper because the big islands too expensive. Can you speak about that? I know you're not on the energy committee, but I know you care. Yeah, yeah. So, and who knows what will happen after this election? Maybe I will be on the energy committee because we will have a different distribution of our chairs and our committees. But so geothermal, what I do know is that there is an ongoing discussion right now with folks in the state around increasing geothermal. And I've been at a lot of the meetings because I think it's important for me to be present and to continue to understand where they're coming from as other issues may or may not come up. But what my understanding is that the geothermal in Puna is because it's on the East Rib Zone, it's very volatile. It's at the hottest and most volatile point it could be at. And also therefore it has a lot of, it's very toxic, a lot of metals, a lot of gases and things. So then it has more repercussions potentially for the community surrounding. And in that whole process of how geothermal came to be in the first place, there was a lot of trauma for the community on many levels, partly how it was done and partly because I think at some point my understanding is that they were, there was a, they were guidelines and things that were set up and that at some point because of protests and because of constantly monitoring the process, folks were able to get those safety, some of those safety pieces in place and some of those guidelines. And so the conversation now still carries over some of that trauma. I know a lot of people hear geothermal and it's an automatic trigger rather than learning that, oh, there's other places that are potentially less volatile. It doesn't have that, doesn't carry that same thing or other. Again, sometimes because of this distrust over time, you know, it does create a trigger where nothing is, you know, oh, you're going to just ram it through. And if, if, if things are done in a proper way where there's all the stakeholders, there are right holders at the table and part of in, in part of the, all of the beginning discussions and multiple right holders, not just, you know, not just coming from one angle where folks can again really have this important civic discourse to see where we're going with our energy future. I know Hawaii Island has, at least, I believe it's about 45% reliance on geothermal at this point. And I think that's unique across the islands. And so we're in a different position, presumably then, you know, a place like Oahu, who has much more reliance on fossil fuels, even though we also relying on fossil fuels. Yeah, well, we're getting off cold on September 1st. So that's going to be a big day. We're going to have a show about that with Hawaiian Electric later this week. Let me, let me shift gears a little on energy, Laura. You know, Marco Mangelsdorf would want me to ask you about who hope new it because it's been so controversial has been bouncing around from court to court in agency to agency for years. And, you know, I sell I have never seen such a controversy on any particular project in my life. So, how do you feel about that? Should we be using biomaterial, you know, trees and all that to create energy in the big island? Well, basically, there's, like you said, there's a lot of controversy with that one. And I think my understanding is that right now it's been it's in the Supreme Court hands and that we're waiting for an initial judgment, whether it's to deny the appeal or to accept the the briefs based on the PUC proceedings, or potentially even open up new oral arguments on top of the PUC, the PUC brief. And so waiting to hear that is kind of in limbo, because as you said, it's going been going back and forth for many years. I don't really see it ending because my understanding is that who or no is backed by Franklin Templeton, which has very deep pockets and I'm not exactly sure they're larger picture motives, but we definitely have a lot of people in the community who are very concerned about the safety for their health, for our community and also for the environment. And a lot of that is based on and then also fundamentally, they're very concerned about a higher cost, because my understanding is that they're trying with the PUC is that they are asking for an exemption to a competitive bidding process, but that puts them up for 22 cents per kilowatt versus, you know, something like eight or nine cents with solar. And so that would be a burden for consumers to bear. And so that's problematic. On the flip side, we also have people in the community who are who speak to their jobs. I'm not exactly sure the number, but I want to say it's under 40. I could be wrong on that one, but that it's a big concern. And so if we can see avenues for other jobs that are just as lucrative for folks, that of course it makes 100% sense that they are concerned about putting food on the table and making sure that they can pay their bills. So as far as burning trees, we have, again, we have issues with potentially the MPDES permit because, and, you know, it's so close to the shoreline and they are having these 800 foot injection wells. There's questions around whether the studies are, whether there are baseline studies for that those injection wells. Also, the concern around the use of water statewide, we are very acutely focused on the preservation of our fresh water and our aquifers, as we see with Redhill in Oahu and the problems that it could potentially pose in terms of contamination. And so many have concerns to fold around the water. One is that it's over 21 million gallons per day being used to burn trees to power our things. And secondly, that the injection wells, the water being injected has chemicals and it's quite close to the aquifer or has potential to impact and poison the aquifer. And so that's a big concern. And I think what the community is not confident in is, A, that communication is honest, and B, that the studies, the proper studies have been done in order to reassure that, you know, these things are taken care of in protecting the health and safety. And that's only some of it. The fossil fuels that will go into cutting the trees, transporting the trees, creating new roads, we still have bridges that need to be fixed. All this past year, the school bus had to go around Saddle Road and the kids were arriving at school at 9 o'clock because our bridges can't handle over 12 tons. And so these are really fundamental infrastructure things that will need to be remedied and or discussed before we can go forward anyway. And that's kind of separate even from the initial, you know, discussions with the Supreme Court of whether this is carbon neutral and whether it makes any sense to be burning trees or burning anything for that matter to create, especially burning stored carbon, to be creating electricity. Referring back to the early part of our conversation, Laura, you know what one thing you mentioned, which troubles me is the notion that somebody on the mainland with a deep pocket can affect policy here in Hawaii, regardless of what anyone in Hawaii says, regardless of what the courts say or the commissions or the boards. And, you know, it's like there's been plenty of news in the paper around this election that's happening right now about PACs from the mainland that are throwing money, including hit piece money at candidates. And, you know, I think we all have a duty to resist that. Don't you? Absolutely. J.U. hit the nail right on the head. That's exactly it. And that comes back to our community autonomy and homeroom and things like that. And I feel like what I hear in my community and especially my constituents is that they want to make sure that they have a representative that is taking their best interest in mind and listening to their voices and not necessarily some, you know, grander scale thing. And again, not necessarily insinuating that there's anything that various or illegal or unethical happening in that scenario, but just making sure that their voices are heard and that health, safety. I've had a constituent from Pippa Kale. Well, she would be a constituent if I win. And Pippa Kale said that the first and foremost that she wants in her representative and her senator is that they absolutely stand up and protect health, safety and environment. And she's lived through, she's a born and raised on plantation in Pippa Kale. And she's seen it and she doesn't want to go back to it. She really believes that we need to be taking control of that. Amen. Amen to her and amen to you. We're really out of time, but I want to ask you, I would be remiss not to ask you about one, you know, huge question which has been, you know, which has been central in the public conversation around about the big island for years and years actually is probably going on 20 years already. And that's TMT. And the sad story is that it's still in flux. We don't have an answer. We don't have any construction going on. We have all of these various distractions, may I say, we have had 20 years of distraction. I'd like to know your position on TMT, Laura. Okay, I think it's actually very similar to the Hu Honua answer where we have folks that are invested in Hawaii that are from elsewhere and they have a specific agenda. And I know a lot of folks who also live here support that agenda. And again, we have things like they don't have an MPDES permit. They're now going through this EIS process again, public scoping, which I would have to say it's really important to note that the original EIS was signed by Catherine Kealoha, who is now in federal prison. And so whether or not that that doesn't necessarily invalidate or avoid the EIS, but it brings to question again, this public trust and who's doing what for who and why, et cetera. So the direct answer to your question is I'm very much not in support of building TMT at this time or any time, and that I am in support of a process that is very much legal and includes the voice of the community. All right. Laura Acasio, Senator Laura Acasio, who is running in the primary what next week? Saturday, okay. And hopefully in November for First District, whatever shape it may be in the Big Island. Thank you so much, Laura. I really appreciate the discussion and having you on the show, I hope we can do this again. Thank you so much, Jay, for the opportunity. I appreciated it as well. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.