Beth Fukumoto: Hawaii needs to deal with exploding technology this session

State legislatures across the country are responding to two major technological disruptions.

Energy demands from data centers are increasing, and the way artificial intelligence makes decisions is also changing. Some states have regulations in place to protect ratepayers, consumers, and civil rights. Some companies are competing for growth and hoping that risks will be eliminated later.

Hawaii is not exempt from either. We need to decide who pays for our infrastructure, how to maintain system reliability, and what protections people should have when technology makes important decisions. Federal policy does not provide clear guidance, so states must take the lead. But so far, Hawaii’s efforts have been slow.

Let’s start with the data center.

States across the country are realizing that data centers are no longer just a niche economic issue. According to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, data centers currently use about 4.4% of the nation’s electricity, and their growth is a major concern for energy policymakers.

Some states have responded with clear regulations. In Texas, for example, facilities using more than 75 megawatts of electricity are considered “heavy-loaded” and must participate in a demand management program that includes installing shutoff devices to maintain grid reliability. Maryland and Oregon have chosen a different approach, requiring utilities to set separate rate schedules so that the cost of data center infrastructure is passed on to residential customers. California, Georgia and New Jersey are also considering similar protections for ratepayers.

Hawaii faces similar pressures but has not received similar policy support. Data center growth here is not just a possibility, it’s a reality. The AlohaNAP facility on Oahu is in the first phase of expansion, adding 1.5 megawatts of capacity and will become a multi-building campus. The University of Hawaii has approved a lease to Google to build a cable landing station at the University of West Oahu that will connect Hawaii to Japan, Australia, and the mainland through a transpacific fiber system.

Some lawmakers are supporting this growth with bills like Senate Bill 338, which reinstates the technology infrastructure renovation tax credit and specifically aims to include data servers. The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the House, awaiting a hearing in the Finance Committee.

Hawaii’s energy system is also under strain. Hawaiian Electric Co. is seeking the first major rate increase in five years to improve infrastructure and prevent wildfires. Oahu residents already pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country. Adding large, energy-intensive facilities creates the same problems that other states face. Who will pay for the upgrades, how will the system remain reliable, and how will residents be protected from rising costs due to industrial demand?

While Hawaii’s technological growth requires support from Congress, we should not ignore the resource challenges created by data centers elsewhere. While lawmakers look for ways to improve connectivity, they should follow other states and ensure that growth in data infrastructure does not outpace energy responsibilities.

Artificial intelligence poses similar challenges, but with even less room for error. States regulate AI because federal standards are incomplete or controversial. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that every state will consider AI legislation in 2025, and 38 states have passed approximately 100 bills. Many of these laws target deepfakes, impersonation, and the use of AI in work and government. Others address bias, transparency, and privacy, particularly when automated systems impact people’s rights and access to services.

Some states are moving beyond narrow prohibitions to broader governance frameworks. For example, California and Texas have enacted laws requiring disclosure of the use of AI, risk mitigation practices, and monitoring of systems designed to influence resulting decisions. These efforts reflect the recognition that AI is already embedded in employment, education, healthcare, and law enforcement, whether regulators are ready or not.

Hawaii’s record is more mixed. In 2025, the state led the nation in the number of AI innovation and development bills filed, but most of them failed to pass. In a report on Hawaii’s AI regulation, Civil Beat’s Chad Blair described the 2025 Legislature’s disjointed approach, saying there was no broad plan for managing or using AI across state agencies or the private sector.

Lawmakers acknowledged the problem. MP Andrew Garrett told Blair: “At the moment Hawaii doesn’t have a coherent strategy for how to approach artificial intelligence. That’s something we need to be honest about.”

The 2026 session is an opportunity to change direction. Garrett’s bill to create the Hawaii Artificial Intelligence Council stalled in the House finances debate last year, but this session includes a new push to create guardrails for how AI is developed and deployed. One proposal is to create an Artificial Intelligence Safety and Regulatory Office within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to oversee the deployment of AI technology and prevent the use of unproven systems. Other measures should increase transparency and consumer protection for AI systems used in everyday interactions, including risk management requirements, impact assessments of high-risk uses, and reporting requirements when problems occur.

Other bills address high-stakes, real-world risks. One step is to limit the spread of deepfakes and digital imitations of realism, which are AI-generated images, audio, and videos that can mislead, impersonate, or cause harm. Another proposal aims to protect young people by recognizing the potential impact on children’s mental health and development and establishing clear safeguards for AI companions and conversational systems that interact with minors.

The third bill focuses on healthcare and would require meaningful disclosure and human oversight whenever patients interact with AI systems or algorithms to influence medical decisions, ensuring that automation does not operate invisibly or without accountability.

These proposals show that Congress is beginning to treat artificial intelligence not just as a novelty or a set of isolated risks, but as a system that requires rules, accountability, and public trust. Whether this leads to a real framework will depend on how far these measures go and whether they are seen as part of a larger plan rather than just a temporary fix.

The link between data centers and artificial intelligence is not hype or ideology, but responsibility. These systems silently shape our daily lives, from how information moves to how decisions are made, often without anyone noticing. Federal policy doesn’t give clear answers on how to manage them, so states must decide whether to step in and set limits.

As with budgets and social programs, these choices are not just technical. They demonstrate our values, priorities, and willingness to plan ahead. Hawaii does not need to act any faster than any other state. But if we want reliable infrastructure, fair systems, and public trust in the technologies that shape our daily lives, we shouldn’t wait until something breaks.