HB 255-PLUMBING/ELECTRIC CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS  3:25:28 PM CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 255, "An Act relating to individuals and employees who must have certificates of fitness to perform certain plumbing and electrical work; and relating to civil penalties and violations for not having required certificates of fitness." 3:26:00 PM KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 255 on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor. She read from the sponsor statement, which read as follows: House Bill 255 will change enforcement policies for individuals performing electrical or plumbing work without a valid certificate of fitness. Current enforcement techniques are ineffective, and the revisions proposed in this legislation will give the Department of Labor a substantive way of enforcing certificate of fitness requirements. A certificate of fitness is issued by the Mechanical Inspection section of the Division of Labor Safety & Standards in the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and is essentially an occupational license for performing electrical or plumbing work. Alaska statute prohibits individuals from performing these types of work without a valid certificate of fitness. The current enforcement for operating without a valid certificate of fitness is ineffective. AS 18.62.080 states that it is a misdemeanor to perform work requiring a certificate of fitness without having one. However, enforcement requires filing a written complaint through the Department of Law and taking the matter to the superior court, and often these offenses are too minor to merit the interest of the District Attorney's office. The department's other enforcement option is to issue a civil order to cease and desist, which carries no punitive sanction, and so provides little motivation for the offender to remedy the situation. Therefore, offenders often go unpunished. House Bill 255 will change the penalty from a misdemeanor to a violation, which will allow the department to issue citations and civil penalties to individuals and to employers using employees who are operating without a valid certificate. New sections of statute added by this legislation give the department authority to issue citations, outline the procedures for issuing citations, and set the amount of and the procedure for administering civil penalties. The penalty is set at $125 for an individual and $250 for an employer for a first offense, and $250 for an individual and $500 for an employer for subsequent offenses. 3:27:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 255 as prime sponsor. He said he thought the overview covered the intent of HB 255. 3:28:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether Representative Tuck held an electrical certificate of fitness or whether it was something with which he was familiar. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied he did not currently hold a certificate of fitness. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited bill language from page 1, line 13 of the proposed bill, which reads as follows: (c) An employee of an electric utility that does not have within its service area a portion of a municipality that has a population of more than 2,500 is not required to have a certificate of fitness REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how the exemption still protected the people involved. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that the exemption was in existing statute and would not change under HB 255. He added that utilities tended to have different standards and training programs to fit their safety concerns. 3:29:21 PM CHAIR KITO added that in the engineering profession the state does not require engineers to be licensed if they are working only on industrial projects within the confines of the organization and not engaging with the public. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that maintenance work was also not covered in the proposed bill. 3:30:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether Representative Tuck had ever held a certificate of fitness. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked what benefit the certificate gave. He stated he had concerns about increasing penalties and the amount of training and paperwork required to get the card. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered he had served an 8,000-hour apprenticeship program with an additional 1,400 hours of classroom time. He explained the training had ensured he performed his work correctly to make sure the public was safe. He underlined that the penalty was currently a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $2,500, and HB 255 would be lowering it to $125 for the first fine. 3:33:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that a certificate of fitness was already required in statute and it did not appear that HB 255 was demonstrably changing that. 3:33:53 PM DEBORAH KELLY, Director, Labor Standards and Safety Division, Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), added that the proposed legislation was an enforcement tools bill. She stated that the graduated enforcement tool proposed in the bill had worked well with contractor licensing and that she felt it would work well with certificates of fitness. 3:34:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that the structure set out in the proposed bill was no different from someone needing a commercial driver's license (CDL) license or a techniques of alcohol management (TAM) card for the food and beverage service sector. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that driving an 80,000-pound truck is not the same as running a simple sewer line. He said he thought the proposed bill goes a little far. He did not see how the certificate had served Representative Tuck over and above his training. He stated he would rather have a strict penalty, and he said he was fond of a policy giving the department the power to write citations. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied that the purpose of the certificate of fitness was not to benefit the worker but the public. 3:37:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the 8,000 hours and 1,400 hours of classroom training are a requirement for the certificate of fitness. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that it depends on the trade, and the only requirement for the state of Alaska was 8,000 hours of classroom and on-the-job training. He deferred to the department. MS. KELLY added that there are several different classifications for plumbers. She gave the example of the simplest license which had a requirement of 1,000 hours of work, to give an idea of the range of requirements. 3:39:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the licenses expire and whether they are maintained through continuing education. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered in the affirmative. He stated the requirement was continuing education of 16 hours for a two-year renewal. 3:40:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for confirmation of the inclusion of work on private property in the proposed bill. MS. KELLY answered in the affirmative. 3:40:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether homeowners would be subject to the requirements as the bill says "person", not employer. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the certificate of fitness is for construction workers and a private citizen is exempt. 3:41:33 PM CHAIR KITO clarified that a homeowner who does work would still have to comply with municipal requirements for inspections. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained that he meant exempt from the certificate of fitness requirements. CHAIR KITO clarified that the debate was not whether the certificate of fitness should exist, but the department's ability to enforce. He asked the department for confirmation. MS. KELLY answered in the affirmative. She reiterated that the proposed bill was merely an enforcement tool and would not change jurisdiction, applicability, or responsibility for maintaining a certificate of fitness. 3:42:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether both the employee and employer are liable. CHAIR KITO asked whether he was referring to a construction company. He clarified that the individual doing the work would be required to have a certificate of fitness. 3:43:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered it would be the same thing if an employer asked an employee who did not have a CDL to drive a semi-truck across town. He added that was why the penalty on the employer was greater than that on the individual. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the same would apply to an apprentice. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered if a person is not in a registered apprentice program, then they are probably a laborer. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked the difference between a license and a certificate of fitness. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that the terms are used interchangeably, and the certificate of fitness is a license. 3:46:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether there would be any demand on the department in terms of the expense of enforcement. MS. KELLY stated there would likely be a small amount of administrative work, especially if there is an appeals process, but the division anticipated it would be minimal. 3:46:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL gave the example of a crew working on a house. He asked whether someone could do the work and a person with the certificate of fitness could "sign off on it." REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the material handling of pipe did not require a license, but performing installations did, particularly on new construction. 3:47:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked about the chain of events for inspections and whether inspectors administer misdemeanors. MS. KELLY gave a general overview of the inspections. She said inspectors already carry out inspections for their primary job duty and while on site they carry out certificate of fitness checks and give out cease and desist orders. She said the proposed bill would allow them to issue administrative fines. She deferred to the mechanical inspection chief. 3:50:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or DLWD had oversight on installations. 3:51:13 PM WILLIAM HARLAN, Chief, Mechanical Inspection Section, Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), answered he was not sure he understood to which type of installations he referred. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP replied that he was asking about DEC oversight on septic system installations. MR. HARLAN answered in the affirmative. He added that DEC permits for installing a septic system cover that work; however, DLWD licensure would also cover it, and the department would defer to DEC permits. 3:52:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to section 3 and asked why the language included "person" rather than "employer". MS. KELLY deferred to the Legislative Legal for clarification. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered Legislative Legal was trying to make that language standard throughout all statutes. 3:53:49 PM CHAIR KITO opened public testimony on HB 255. 3:53:56 PM BRANDON MCGUIRE, UA Local 367 Plumbers Union, testified in support of HB 255. He said he felt the proposed bill would strengthen enforcement. He gave the example of electricians and plumbers working in private homes. He maintained that often those performing the work did not have a current license. He stated it is his job to speak with non-union, unrepresented workers, and he finds that often they are not licensed, and the vast majority do not have a certificate of fitness. He underlined that incorrect installation was an important health and safety issue. He stated the current problem is that there are "no teeth behind enforcement." 3:57:23 PM BRENT HOVDEN, Licensed Electrician, testified in support of HB 255. He indicated he is a licensed commercial electrician and a member of IBEW Local 1547. He stated the ability to enforce certification requirements was the only way to make sure work is done safely. 3:58:24 PM JASON ROE, Plumber, spoke in support of HB 255. He indicated he is a non-union plumber in Fairbanks, Alaska, and that he thinks "in this particular instance the union guys are right." He stated it was important to license the trades as there were severe risks such as amoebic dysentery and gas explosions at stake. He stated he was frequently frustrated by poor workmanship and had complained about illegal workmanship to the Department of Law (DOL). He said he felt DOL did not currently have the enforcement tools to do something about the issue, and the proposed bill was necessary. 4:00:59 PM KYLE KAISER, IBEW Local 1547, testified in support of HB 255. He stated it is very common to find unlicensed people doing electrical work. He gave the example of finding a work offer on Craigslist which did not involve proper licensing. He maintained the immediate fine of $125 would be a huge deterrent for the individual working illegally for $200 or $300 a night. He added it was a huge liability to have someone who is not trained, and it is important to make sure the people doing the job are qualified. He said he felt the proposed bill would help enforcement and keep people safe. 4:03:49 PM RYAN ANDREW, IBEW Local 1547, testified in support of HB 255. He stated the issue of licensing was a public safety issue. He added that license requirements ensure the people doing plumbing and electrical work are properly trained. 4:05:27 PM PAUL GROSSI, Alaska State Pipe Trades, testified in support of HB 255. He stated the proposed bill would not change the requirements for certificates of fitness, "only change the current law from a criminal to a civil offense, which makes it easier for the DLWD to enforce." 4:06:24 PM DEBORAH BROLLINI testified in support of HB 255. She stated she hoped the enforcement effort in the proposed legislation would be passed and funded. CHAIR KITO announced that public testimony would remain open on HB 255. [HB 255 was held over.]