PUC evidentiary hearing paused after complainant misses appearance in docket 2025-0329
June 30, 2026 | Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Executive , Hawaii
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Public Utilities Commission convened an evidentiary hearing on June 29, 2026 in docket 2025-0329 but paused formal proceedings after the complainant failed to appear.
John, chair of the Public Utilities Commission, opened the session and identified the docket as a formal complaint filed by Mr. Sosis against Hawaii Hawaiian Electric Company. James Abraham, appearing for Wine Electric and accompanied by the company's witness Mark Wong, noted the respondent was present while the record reflected that no representative for Mr. Sosis attended.
The chair told the panel the hearing had been set earlier for May 11, 2026, was continued for settlement talks, and then rescheduled on May 22, 2026 for the evidentiary hearing on June 29, 2026. Commission counsel said they had received emails from the complainant saying he could not attend because of the cost of inter‑island travel and, later, that he could not attend virtually during working hours and asked counsel to read a statement into the record.
"Given that the complainant is not present and this commission will not allow commission counsel to read a statement on behalf of the complainant," the chair said, the commission would give the respondent an opportunity to present an opening statement.
James Abraham moved to dismiss the complaint, stating, "Wine Electric would like to move to dismiss the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear for the hearing which deprives Wine Electric the opportunity to cross‑examine him on his allegations contained in the amended complaint pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute Section 91-10 subsection 3." The motion was made orally on the record; the commission asked that the motion be filed in writing.
A participant who identified himself as Hughes Ojier said he was a personal friend of Mr. Sosis and a former PUC and Maui Electric employee; he said Mr. Sosis had invited him to attend and asked him to read a statement but said he did not represent the complainant. The chair clarified on the record that Mr. Ojier was not representing Mr. Sosis and took a brief recess to deliberate.
When the hearing resumed, the commission directed that the complainant file a written motion within three days and that the respondent file a reply within five days after electronic service, citing the applicable administrative rule. The chair closed today's hearing and said further deliberations would be under advisement upon receipt of the written filings.
The proceeding did not include a formal vote; the motion to dismiss remains pending pending the written filings the commission ordered.
John, chair of the Public Utilities Commission, opened the session and identified the docket as a formal complaint filed by Mr. Sosis against Hawaii Hawaiian Electric Company. James Abraham, appearing for Wine Electric and accompanied by the company's witness Mark Wong, noted the respondent was present while the record reflected that no representative for Mr. Sosis attended.
The chair told the panel the hearing had been set earlier for May 11, 2026, was continued for settlement talks, and then rescheduled on May 22, 2026 for the evidentiary hearing on June 29, 2026. Commission counsel said they had received emails from the complainant saying he could not attend because of the cost of inter‑island travel and, later, that he could not attend virtually during working hours and asked counsel to read a statement into the record.
"Given that the complainant is not present and this commission will not allow commission counsel to read a statement on behalf of the complainant," the chair said, the commission would give the respondent an opportunity to present an opening statement.
James Abraham moved to dismiss the complaint, stating, "Wine Electric would like to move to dismiss the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear for the hearing which deprives Wine Electric the opportunity to cross‑examine him on his allegations contained in the amended complaint pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute Section 91-10 subsection 3." The motion was made orally on the record; the commission asked that the motion be filed in writing.
A participant who identified himself as Hughes Ojier said he was a personal friend of Mr. Sosis and a former PUC and Maui Electric employee; he said Mr. Sosis had invited him to attend and asked him to read a statement but said he did not represent the complainant. The chair clarified on the record that Mr. Ojier was not representing Mr. Sosis and took a brief recess to deliberate.
When the hearing resumed, the commission directed that the complainant file a written motion within three days and that the respondent file a reply within five days after electronic service, citing the applicable administrative rule. The chair closed today's hearing and said further deliberations would be under advisement upon receipt of the written filings.
The proceeding did not include a formal vote; the motion to dismiss remains pending pending the written filings the commission ordered.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
