House Labor & Commerce, 5/8/26, 3:15pm

I call the House Labor and Commerce Committee to order. Members present are Representatives Carick, Colombe, Fields and Hall. It's 3:20. We have quorum. Please silence your cell phone.

Thank you, Andrew Magnuson, Renzo Moises, for tech and teleconferencing support. We have two bills on the agenda, and after that, Governor's appointees. Senate Bill 35, and then by Senator Bjorkman, and House Bill 162 by Representative Dibert. First up is Senate Bill 35. Thank you, Senator Bjorkman and Sylvia Bieber, for being here.

And maybe We could begin just with a description from Senator Bjorkman and his staff about how insurance coverage works during what time periods for both the TNCs and the DNCs under the CS that we adopted at the previous hearing. And Representative Sadler is here at 320 as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair Fields. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman, and I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. Thank you again for hearing Senate Bill 35 today.

Members may have in their packets— members do not have in their packets, but we will distribute to members, and I will verbally relay information for you as well right now. The question was asked by Chair Fields, if I could explain please how insurance coverages work for both transportation network companies, meaning Uber and Lyft, and delivery network companies like DoorDash, Instacart, Uber Eats, Grubhub, Walmart Spark, and many more, when insurance applies to those companies under the new Committee substitute that you have before you. When the courier is logged off of the digital network— courier, every time I say courier, I'll be referring to a delivery network company— when that courier is logged off, their personal auto insurance applies to their car.

When the courier is logged on to the delivery network app but not providing delivery services. That means that they, you know, they're on the app. The delivery company is not required to provide coverage while the courier is logged on. However, the courier must ensure personal auto policy applies when the courier is logged on to the DNC app, likely through an endorsement. Okay, when the courier is providing delivery services, the delivery network company must maintain primary automobile insurance.

This is found in Section 8 and Section 6 of the bill. The primary auto insurance, um, that is required is a million-dollar liability coverage.

Uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage is not required for delivery network company drivers. Delivery services— that definition includes— so this is when that insurance mandate applies, where they have the liability coverage of $1 million, and I'm sorry, I skipped over one item. Also the $1 million in occupational and accident insurance when providing delivery delivery services. The delivery services apply when there's a pickup and a driver is going to pick up an item, when the delivery of the item to a location selected by a customer is within 50 miles of the pickup location, um, by walking or using a motor vehicle, bike, or scooter, public transportation, or other means. The selection, collection, or purchase of delivery items by a delivery network company courier, as well as other services incident to delivery.

Beginning when a courier accepts an offer, continuing while the courier delivers the requested item to the selected location, and ending when the courier returns to the location where the courier accepted the offer, arrives at the residence, or begins a personal task unrelated to delivery. And My apologies, um, Mr. Chair. Can we have a brief at ease? Yep.

Back on the record, Labor and Commerce. And, um, thank you for resuming the summary, Senator Bjorkman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the liberty. Um, sorry, we had a little bit of confusion about which version of delivery services we were discussing.

So, um, to recontextualize, we're talking about delivery network companies and couriers who are delivering things via and directed by a delivery network app. So delivery services, this is when those insurance limits apply to those couriers. To review the insurance limits that we talked about are $1 million in liability. Uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage is not required. And the definition for what delivery services mean, when that insurance applies, is the pickup of an item from a location in the state and the delivery of that item to a location selected by the customer within 50 miles of the pickup location by walking or using a motor vehicle, bike, scooter, public transportation, or other means of transportation.

And so that means that while they're on their way to get the stuff, then the selection, collection, or purchase of items by the courier— so they're shopping for picking up the things— and other services incident to delivery anything else they might have to do in execution of getting the stuff. Bring— and beginning when a courier accepts an offer, so they see a job pop up and they say, yes, I want that job. Continuing while the courier transports the requested item to the selected location. And ending— and this is the part that's different that we changed from last version to this— ending when the courier completes the delivery or the delivery is canceled Delivery services does not include assistance with residential moving services. An offer means the opportunity to perform delivery services for compensation that a delivery network company presents to a courier through a digital network.

So that's for delivery network companies. What questions do you have, Representative Klum? So many questions. I threw the chair. I just want to make sure I heard you right.

So in the CS, you feel like the bill defines that the, um, DNCs are covering the couriers when they log on, they pick up an order, or they accept an order, they go and get the stuff, they deliver it, and anything in between— maybe you have to stop and get gas or whatever— they're still covered. Once it's delivered, then it goes back to their personal insurance. The definition now reads, it is starting on page 13, line 17, ending when the courier completes the delivery or the delivery is canceled. Okay.

So, yes. Page 13, line what? Page 13, line 17. Livery services. Sorry.

Page 13 of the CNA memo. Also— Go ahead. There is additional language available, Rep. Colombe, to further define this in Section 10 of the bill on page 6.

So in that language starts page 6, line 26 through 29. Yeah. So for a delivery network company, covers the courier while the courier is providing delivery services, the definition we just discussed, or is available to receive an offer immediately following the completion of delivery services but is not providing delivery services. So in effect, what that means is that the delivery network company's insurance would cover that courier after they complete a delivery and their application is still on and they are available then to receive a new delivery and take a, take a job. Or they shut their app off and then go about their regular course of business.

So could I ask a question? Of course, go ahead. Why don't you just go ahead, represent them as long as you would like. Okay, so what if— so I— that's the section I was kind of confused about. So what if I do a delivery but my app is still open and I'm going about my day?

Who's covering? How does the delivery network know whether I'm in transit or if it— I guess if they don't accept an offer to deliver, does it just automatically shut the insurance off then? I mean, I guess my concern is if you leave the app open but you're not actively delivering anything, what's happening there?

As per the definition, the DNC, the delivery network company's insurance, would cover as long as that app is open and that courier is available to receive jobs. And so the issue is, and we've, we've tried to solve the coverage gap that is caused here a number of different ways, What's happening is the Property and Casualty Insurance Trade Group and kind of their national standard is that when a courier is driving around and they have their app open, that they essentially are working and using their car for commercial purposes. At that point in time, then people's personal insurance, they don't cover the driver. And we've had this, this happen. I know I've had constituents who have run into situations just like this, and others have too, where people get in significant accidents, they wreck their car, they get hurt, and there's no insurance because their personal lines car insurance disaffected their policy.

They nullified the policy because they're doing this delivery for a DNC. They're on their way to get the stuff.

And then they don't have a payer because there's no insurance. So we're trying to fill that gap. In a previous version of the bill, we had written it so that the personalized insurer would have to fill that gap, but we were informed that that definitely is not the national standard and how things are usually done, that insurance is provided by delivery network companies when those people are driving around, they're able to receive rides, and then that responsibility for insurance in many other states falls on the delivery network company.

So I thought that— so I thought when I had insurance, no matter what car I was in, I was covered. So you're saying because the app is open, it's a commercial— it's being used for a commercial purpose? That is the interpretation. Of many insurance companies, and Division of Insurance Director Heather Carpenter could provide you with more details on that, I'm certain. That would be great, if you don't mind having Heather come up and—.

Yes, thank you for being here, Ms. Carpenter.

For the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Through the Chair, Representative Calom, Sections 1 and 2 specifically talk about how personal insurance interacts with a TNC and a DNC. And it does allow a personal lines insurance, especially if you start on the top of page 2, to exclude any and all coverage afforded under the policy issued to an owner or operator of a personal vehicle for any loss or injury that occurs while a driver is logged onto the digital network of a transportation network company. So that's current law now. And what this bill contemplates is also adding, while a driver provides a prearranged ride, current law, or while a courier provides delivery services.

Now, when you look at the definition of delivery services, it starts with— and the senator read it to you— when the driver accepts that ride or the delivery. Picks up, is en route to pick up the delivery, takes it to the person, and that's how it's defined. And then of course Sections 11 and 12 add that coverage immediately following the delivery. So based on this, a personal lines insurance could cover that period when the app is open before they pick up a delivery. Now I would say you, if An individual who is a DNC driver would absolutely want to make sure their coverage does not exclude that.

Likely through an endorsement, they'd want to make sure that policy is specific. But our statutes don't say they can— that the insurer can preclude that time. It doesn't say they can't. So it's silent on that part. [Speaker:PARTICIPANT] Right.

So when I had couriers, we just had an endorsement. That's why I'm confused. That this—. It felt like it was something new. But if the language stands in those sections, couldn't a DNC just keep their app open all the time and say they're covered while they drive around?

Through the chair to Representative Calom, um, it would depend on their individual policy. And if— as long as their individual policy doesn't exclude the coverage while they have the app open and have not accepted a delivery, then their personal lines could absolutely cover their risk. Yeah, I guess my question is, why wouldn't they just lean on the, on the DNC to cover their car? If, if they're per— why would— what incentive do they have to cover their own car if they know if they just keep the app open, the DNC would cover it? Through the chair, Representative Colom, um, you are right, the Section 11 and 12 It does say immediately following.

It doesn't necessarily specify how long that is. I don't think the intent is for that app to stay on forever. Immediately following usually means immediately following, but it is definitely open to interpretation how long that is. Yeah. Representative Kalem, I might just jump in here.

So, this change actually came at the request of one of the DNC companies because they thought there was the most clarity just tracking when the app was open. And that they thought that was easier to administer than us trying to judge when a delivery run starts and ends. How do we define that? When they return home, they might not be going home. So this is written this way based on a workability suggestion from stakeholders.

So that's interesting because I, I mean, I That language to me, I'm just going off of human nature. What are we incentivizing? If I were them, I'd probably just keep my app open and let the DNC cover my cost. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Representative Kalem, I think the DNC companies are very aware that the language that they suggested would potentially allow for that.

Yeah. And so, I guess, why isn't— Um, when they log in and they accept an order and they close the order out, why isn't that sufficient to say we cover you when you get it and when you delivered it? Even if you could say, okay, I cut off, but 10 minutes later I picked up another one. Seems like that's more easy to follow than this. I'm speculating a little bit here, but I think the availability to do a delivery is something that they're considering.

I mean, we've tried to listen to a bunch of different stakeholders who have different apps that all work in different ways, and it's different across the DNCs and the TNCs. So I think we just tried to listen as much as possible, recognizing that the different companies do operate differently. I did have one more question. Go ahead. So on all this cover— coverage, Ms. Carpenter, is there a difference between the coverage with a TNC and RNC?

It's— is— are they aligned in the same way in the bill? For the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Through the Chair, Representative Kloom, the main difference is the TNCs cannot waive the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. So how this reads currently, the insurer would have to offer it to the DNCs. But like other drivers, they can waive it.

But I would say they will still have that occupational accident insurance coverage. So the driver will not be, you know, without some sort of insurance for if they do get in an accident. And as you read the bill, is the TNCs— is if their app is open, the TNC coverage is there like the RNCs? Through the chair, Representative Kallom, For a TNC, as soon as the driver logs onto the app, and this was Section 6 and 7, that changed, that was version T.A., but they have the liability limits like the state minimum, so the $50,000, $100,000, $25,000, and they cannot waive the UM/UIM coverage. That's just when they're logged on before they accept a ride.

[Speaker] But once they deliver the person, then they're not covered? Through the chair, Representative Klom, once they are engaged in a prearranged ride, they have those higher limits, the million dollars, the $500,000 UM/UIM, and the million-dollar occupational accident insurance. Once they deliver that person, it goes back to that first phase where they have the state minimums while they're waiting to start another ride. Is that their personal insurance statement? Through the chair, Representative Klom, it's the TNC is covering that.

Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you for the latitude. Absolutely. Any other questions for the bill sponsor?

Go ahead, Representative. So thank you. Through the co-chair, I'm still, I'm still confused on a couple of points. So, uh, are drivers required to have some kind of underlying insurance coverage on a personal level to be a TNC or DNC driver in the first place?

Through the chair to Representative Carrick, and I will let Division Director Carpenter back me up. Yes, any driver on the road driving a car is required to carry insurance in the state of Alaska. Okay, and those, those requirements exist also at the level of the TNC and DNC as well as being statutory requirements, or does it vary by company? Through the chair to Representative Carrick, thank you for the question. The requirements are as Division Director Carpenter just described.

The variance is as was just discussed. So a person has personal auto insurance to be on the road legally, period. Everyone is required to carry that insurance. Those insurance minimums that were, were just discussed, um, they are in place and but provided by the transportation network company when someone in a TNC has their app open and when they are available to accept a ride. That coverage is different for a DNC if they simply have their app open for a DNC now and they have not accepted a ride.

So they— their coverage only applies for the DNC from the company if they have accepted a ride and have it— are now engaged in delivery services until that ride ends, as we just discussed.

TNCs, so Uber, Lyft, they provide coverage when they accept a ride, they're on the way to get the person at the higher limits, then they drop the person off, and then as Division Director Carpenter just mentioned, then those limits drop back down.

Just a quick follow-up, if I may. So that I guess I'm having a hard time with the TNCs and DNCs having a different structure. And I recognize that there's probably a lot of people out there who have both DoorDash and Uber, for example, and they're doing both. And it sounds a little bit like You receive the benefits of that additional coverage as a DNC just by having your app open, but could you be engaged in other commerce act— like, could you be doing an Uber ride, have your DNC app open, and then be obtaining kind of simultaneous coverage? And maybe that's not a bad thing.

I'm just trying to understand, you know, like, what, what actually will take place here. And I think, Representative Carrick, let me attempt to answer that first. If we're trying to put in here some protections for passengers, and part of that drives the distinction between TNCs and DNCs, where DNC is the only passenger is the burrito. But go ahead, Representative Bjorkman, or Senator Bjorkman. Through the chair to Representative Carrick.

Going to try to remember your question clearly. You asked why there was a difference in when coverage starts between a transportation network company and a delivery network company. Is that correct? Yeah, I guess I feel like the landscape provided in this legislation is confusing. And I'm just trying to get— I recognize that there's been stakeholder engagement and we've got recommended language based on those discussions, but maybe it's not a question.

I just think that the coverage landscape that we're potentially creating here is confusing.

And I don't know if it makes sense to have a different type of insurance coverage for TNCs and DNCs. Or not different type of coverage, but a different place where that coverage is active. I just don't know if that makes sense. Through the Chair to Representative Carrick, the policy call here is whether or not we choose to allow delivery network company drivers to begin coverage later when their drivers are, are in what's known as period 1. So their app is open and they're available to receive a ride or a prearranged ride or a job, right?

The, the policy call here is we could mandate the DNC to cover the driver during period 1. However, then you exacerbate the problem that Representative Colombe was just speaking about, about a driver that is driving and they have not yet accepted a job, but you are— you're just driving around, you haven't accepted a job. The space here is to allow for some variance between the difference between a delivery network company and a transportation network company. Maybe Division Director Carpenter can discuss further.

For the record, Heather Carpenter, Director of the Division of Insurance. Just to kind of recap some of the industry feedback that they gave in the other body, I'm not sure if they stressed it as much in this committee, but the business models are different between a DNC and a TNC is what the stakeholders testified. [Speaker] So my understanding is the TNCs, when you have the app on, you're required to start— pick up a passenger, accept a job after a certain amount of time or the app will log you out. The DNCs— now I'm going to put an asterisk on this because I don't want to speak for some of them like Uber that do both. But they will allow more— you to be more passive.

For you to keep that app on, not accept a delivery. So that was why the DNC specifically asked for the difference in coverage just based on the business model. And I defer to you all to make that policy call if that's the right call or not. I guess that's— that is the follow-up then. So what happens if you are on Uber and you take an Uber Eats job or vice versa?

Like, It's two different things, but we do have at least one example of a company, and I'm sure there's many others, they're doing both types of activity. So if there was an accident, then I'm not sure, are you a T&C at that time or a D&C at that time? And it just feels a little confusing when it's not the same standard.

So I get where, I get what each one is the insurance coverage is. I'm just not sure that not having synchronicity across them makes sense in the— they're different types of commerce, and at the same time they're providing a very, very similar service. And I don't know, I— it's more of a comment.

Okay, Representative Sadler had a question. Thank you. Well, not a question, it's an observation. I've in trying to parse these out, and the more language we use to define them, the more confusing it gets. I've been trying to put together just a line of, here are the potential milestones in a transaction.

You're driving around with the app open, no rides. You've got the app open, you accept a ride, you deliver, you drop off. The app's still— you know, just to put that thing graphically might make it a lot easier to understand than just talking more and more and more about it. And I'm wondering if there is any such graphic. Graphic to describe these, because if you don't understand where the different nuances happen and what coverage happens when, the exemptions or the requirements just don't make much sense.

Is there any such graphic thing?

Timeline or—. [Speaker:MR. BOLL] Through the Chair to Representative Sadler, I have a couple of documents here that we can definitely share with the committee that talk about that talk about the coverages that apply to a delivery network company under Version S and a transportation network company, and we can get those to the committee. The tension that we're fighting here is, okay, you have one company that is a TNC and a DNC, and they have big market share. You have other DNCs that all they do is delivery network company stuff, okay? They would like to be treated differently than another company that is a TNC and a DNC.

The version of the bill before you creates some space to recognize that delivery network companies, when they are in the delivery available period, they have a different value to what, what it is that they're doing. And so you could reduce costs for DNCs by not having as high of insurance mandates on them when they're in this delivery available period if they're a DNC. If you wanted to simplify what we're trying to do and make the insurance the same for DNCs and TNCs, that is a choice that we can make. However, the opportunity cost of that choice then is you are putting more insurance mandates and essentially more cost onto delivery network companies when you do that. And so that's kind of the basic framing around why we've tried to create space here for certain delivery network companies.

Also As we, as we're thinking about what our state has done with our, our policy on delivery network companies, the state did not adopt a Delivery Network Company Act after we adopted a Transportation Network Company Act, which is why we're kind of in this place in the first place. So what would have made the most practical sense is after— in 2017 or 2018, when the legislature adopted a Transportation Network Company Act, it would have made more sense to very quickly adopt after that a Delivery Network Company Act that covered those delivery network companies. We have not done that, which is why we have a lot of the questions that we're discussing right now. So The purpose of this bill essentially is to settle the question of, are delivery network company drivers employees or are they independent contractors? And how should those folks be covered by insurance while they are providing delivery services?

So we're— the bill is a little bit dense and hard to parse because it's trying to essentially put in place a Delivery Network Company Act while also clarifying some things for transportation network companies. Can I jump in there? Yes. So, it— there's a very logical nexus between defining an employee as an independent contractor and requiring insurance coverage. Because they're foregoing workers' comp.

So if they're foregoing workers' comp and they're getting injured and they're not covered by anything, then they're passing those costs on to everyone else and driving up everyone else's insurance costs. So we're essentially creating an alternate structure to ensure that there's some coverage for these workers who we're calling independent contractors. So we— in my view, it would be irresponsible to call them independent contractors without making sure that they have some insurance coverage, because then we're— because if we do that, then we're socializing the risk and passing costs on to the entire insured population. So if we're going to call them independent contractors, then we must cover them with insurance to contain those costs and not spread it across the rest of society. And that's the reason we have to tackle them together.

Representative Klemm. Yeah, a couple things. So I see— I know why the coverage is different. I don't want the coverage to be the same. My issue is kind of what I think Rep. Carrick was saying is when is that coverage active?

It feels like it's two different things. I don't think delivering burritos needs a UIM and a UM. You don't have people, you have stuff and like I don't want that. But it was my understanding that wasn't really required for TNCs until this bill too, right? That's introducing a new coverage.

So it is making the disparity because it's introducing more. But I thought that you had said, and maybe this is not in the CS, but I thought the DNC were covered by the $1 million occupational coverage. Isn't that like workers' comp? Isn't that what we're trying to protect? Go ahead, Representative.

Through the chair to Representative Klobuchar. Yes, that would be a similar product. Okay, so I understand why that's there. If they're independent contractors, we have the occupational coverage. I guess, I mean, I kind of understand the background around the $1 million UI underinsured driver.

In the CS, I think you reduced that, and I was just curious, when that was introduced, you were trying to follow NCOIL standards. NCOIL came and gave us the standards. Did the CS adopt all those standards? Is that why it's 500 now and not a million? Through the chair to Representative Colon, under the ENCOIL model, the ENCOIL model speaks to following, following the state personal vehicle standard for UM/UIM.

The, the part of the ENCOIL model I was referring to was the liability coverage of $1 million. The NCOIL model follows the state standard for UM/UIM, which is waivable. Right. And is not required. However, as we discussed in the last meeting, the necessary need and purpose for that coverage when people are riding in a vehicle They may not have a vehicle.

If that coverage is waivable, then that creates an additional, additional liability. So, um, the Encoil model, um, does not separate requirements for when insurance coverage would apply in period 1. So it would say that under Period 1, when someone has app on and open, that the DNC would be required to provide insurance. In this CS, the CS deviates from the encoil model to provide some space for DNCs to be treated differently than TNCS to reduce cost to the delivery network company. Okay.

All right, uh, Representative Nelson joined at 3:56. Maybe this would be a good time if members don't have super pressing questions to go on to the next bill. Um, okay, so the amendment deadline for Senate Bill 35, should we do Monday or Tuesday? Do people have a preference?

Okay, Tuesday, 5 PM amendment deadline for Senate Bill 35. Thank you, Senator Bjorkman. Next up, House Bill 162, Digital Product Repair, by Representative Dybert. Thank you, Representative Dybert and Sarah Snowberger, for being here. Oh, okay.

Brief it is.

Uh, back on the record, we're actually going to do governor's appointees. So first up, um, Rebecca Barnes, Board of Pharmacy. Ms. Barnes, can you hear us? Please introduce yourself to the committee. Thank you.

Balmes, I apologize.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chairs, members of the committee, and thank you for your time. My name is Rebecca Balmes, and I'm up for the Board of Pharmacy. I am a lifelong Alaskan, born and raised in Anchorage. I earned my Doctor of Pharmacy degree from the University of Colorado. Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences in Denver.

Throughout my schooling, I worked as a technician and interned with Kroger, serving patients in the community setting. Following graduation in 2018, my husband, who is also a pharmacist, and I returned to Alaska. Shortly thereafter, I had an opportunity to become a home infusion pharmacist with Greatland Infusion Pharmacy. A home infusion pharmacy specializing in IV chemotherapy, hydration, antibiotics, and specialty medications. Unfortunately, in 2020 COVID led to the closure of Greatland Infusion Pharmacy, and following that closure I was recruited to serve as the pharmacist in charge to help open a new pharmacy, Infuse Alaska, with the goal of filling the gap in Anchorage created by the closure of the two largest infusion pharmacies in the state, Greatland and Geneva Woods.

Over the past 6 years, I've had the opportunity to grow my knowledge of infusion pharmacy while also learning the complexities of owning, opening, and operating a small business in a pharmacy landscape dominated by large corporations. I'm interested in serving on the board because I want to help ensure safe, accessible, and high-quality care for all Alaskans. My training at the University of Colorado emphasized practicing at the top of my license, improving public health, and caring for the whole patient. This approach views pharmacists not only as dispensing professionals but as clinicians and integral members of the healthcare team. Because pharmacists are one of the most accessible healthcare providers, they are often underutilized for their clinical expertise.

I want to be a part of expanding patient access to timely care, especially in rural and underserved communities in Alaska, as well as bring my experience with small business and pharmacy compounding to my fellow members of the board. I look forward to advocating for the profession of pharmacy and working to keep Alaskans safe and healthy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Miss Thomas. I also want to recognize that Representative Nelson had joined us at 4:30— or sorry, 3:30.

Questions for Ms. Balms. Go ahead, Representative Colon. Yes, Ms. Balms, thank you for being willing to serve on the board. I assume you know that there is a— there's a pretty substantial pharmacy legislation in play this year in the legislature. Just didn't know if you're aware of it, and if you are, what were your thoughts on that?

Yes, through the chair, I am aware of it. I think it's really exciting that Alaska Arizona is coming out with these. Some of the other states in the lower 48 have passed similar bills. And I think it's an exciting time to be on the board and I look forward to seeing where those bills will go. Do you have any specific thoughts like on the expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists?

Is it any specific ideas on how you feel about it? Maybe you haven't read it, I don't know. Um, yeah, I do think it's exciting. I am in support of expanding the scope of practice. I think pharmacy has evolved a lot in the past 15 years, and, you know, the training is much more involved now than it was 20 years ago, and pharmacists have a lot of knowledge that they could be bringing to the table to help relieve some of the strain on other healthcare professions.

Thank you. Okay, Representative Carrick and then Sadler. Go ahead, Representative Carrick. Hey, um, I just wanted to say hi to Rebecca. Her and I went to high school together.

That was it. And, uh, thank you for all of your work. I thought that was you, Ashley.

Okay, um, Representative Sadler. Thank you. Boy, how do you beat that? Uh, Miss Balmes, um, just kind of, um, there's a lot of work that goes into becoming pharmacist, a lot of training, a lot of experience, a lot of internships and so forth. Just curious, what, what made you decide to go into pharmacy as opposed to advanced nurse practitioner, MD, or DO?

Or just, is there some characteristic of a pharmacist or the pharmacy career that drew you more than other careers in medicine?

Yes, I had some family friends growing up that were pharmacists, and they introduced me to the profession, and I thought it was really cool that we can be healing people with, you know, current-day potions and medications. I've always loved the compounding side of things, so I really like that aspect. Okay, great. Um, Miss Balmes, thank you for being here. Let's go on to the next, uh, nominee, which is Colin Maynard with the Border Marine Pilots.

Mr. Maynard, thank you for being here, and please proceed with your testimony.

[Speaker:COLIN MAYNARD] Hi, my name is—. To the chair and to the committee, my name is Colin Maynard. I'm a retired structural engineer. I've lived in Alaska since '61 except for when I was in college and immediately thereafter. I've served on the ALS board for 8 years between '12 and '20 and then again from '24 to now, and I'm on the Seismic Hazard Safety Commission.

I'm the chair of that at this point. I was asked by the chair of the Marine Pilots that they had an opening for the public member and he thought I would be good in that spot. So I applied and I was amazed that the governor would appoint me to a third different group. So I'm here to answer any questions you might have. It is great to see you again, Mr. Maynard, and thank you for being willing to volunteer so much of your time.

Are there any questions for Mr. Maynard? I know you very well, so I just appreciate seeing you and look forward to voting for you. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Mr. Maynard, did you and the chairman go to high school together? Uh, no, I think I'm a little older than he is.

Um, okay, uh, I don't see any questions. Mr. Maynard, I really appreciate you taking the time.

Okay, um, at this time let's go to House Bill 162, Representative Diepert and— oh, Eddies.

Uh, back on the record, House Bill 162. We do have one more governor's nominee who wasn't on the line yet. We'll go back to them, Angel Holbrook, if they call in. In the meantime, let's do House Bill 162. Thank you, Representative Dibert and Sarah Snowberger, for being here, and please proceed with the bill introduction.

And I see that there are people online for public testimony. Oh my goodness, a million of them. So we will get to you after we do the bill introduction.

Um, thank you. Good afternoon, Co-Chair Fields and Hall and members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. My name is Representative Dibert. I represent downtown Fairbanks or House District 31. Thank you for taking the time today to hear House Bill 162.

House Bill 162 addresses the digital right to repair. The Digital Right to Repair Act seeks to give Alaskans ability to repair their, their own things. Their own products. Today, many manufacturers restrict access to parts, they restrict access to tools, to software, and repair information, leaving consumers with few options beyond the manufacturer or an unauthorized repair provider. So because of this, this creates unique challenges here in Alaska.

Where authorized repair providers are often unavailable outside the city of Anchorage. Many Alaskans are foc— are forced to mail products out of state, pay repair costs that exceed the value of the item, or throw products away entirely. So House Bill 162 reflects Alaska's long tradition of independence. Across our state, people rely on products like cell phones, snow blowers, dishwashers, computers, and other digital appliances in their everyday lives. This bill helps ensure that Alaskans can continue using and repairing the products they've already purchased rather than being forced into costly replacements.

The bill also The bill also supports Alaska businesses by helping independent repair providers compete in the marketplace and keeping more repair dollars here in the state. And by extending the life of products, it helps reduce unnecessary waste and electronic pollution, which is especially important in rural communities where disposal options are limited. The CS adopted today conforms the bill to the latest version of its Senate companion and narrows the scope to products purchased for personal use, family, or household, household use. While the scope has been refined, the core purpose of the bill remains the same: improving the repair landscape in Alaska while protecting consumers and and supporting independent repair businesses. And with that, I will turn the mic over to my legislative aide, Sarah Snowberger, to read the summary of the sectional analysis, if it pleases the committee.

Sure. All right. Good afternoon, House Labor and Commerce. Actually, you know what, Ms. Snowberger? Yeah.

Maybe we should skip the section given the amount of public testimony. Absolutely. Let's go first. So we have two invited testifiers. First up in invited testimony is Deani Chapman.

Ms. Chapman, go ahead, please.

Great. Thank you to the Chair, Fields Hall, and the Committee. For the record, my name is Dioni Chapman, and I'm the State Director of Alaska Environment. We are a statewide environmental advocacy organization that represents members in Alaska. We work on issues relating to clean air, water, and open space.

And we're in strong support of House Bill 162, and we think that this CS that matches what's on the Senate floor is a good version for the committee to pass as is. Being able to fix our electronics, be they cell phone or dishwashers, is beneficial across the across the board. From an environmental perspective, it reduces electronic waste, which is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world. It's full of toxic material. In Alaska, our landfills are filling up, and in rural Alaska, our landfills are unlined, making the local communities and wildlife particularly exposed to the hazardous material in our broken electronics.

Consumer electronics are a huge part of the e-waste, so this will make a difference there. It's absurd to treat valuable electronics like they're disposable and only last a couple of years when they don't— when that doesn't have to be the case. This version of the bill also addresses parts pairing, which is incredibly helpful. We ran a Fix-It Clinic a couple weeks ago in Anchorage, and one lady brought in two broken coffee makers. She was able to combine different components from each to create one functional machine.

And when parts pairing restrictions are present, this kind of repair isn't possible. And especially in rural areas, this kind of Frankensteining is one of the best ways to get things up and running quickly. There's a long tradition in the US of using the junkyard to keep stuff functioning, and parts pairing restrictions is in direct opposition to that savviness. This bill will also save Alaskans money. Uh, one study estimates an average of $382 per year per family in Alaska, uh, for those consumer electronics if they're able to fix them.

And then in Alaska especially, we just can't rely solely on manufacturer repair for consumer repair because it's fairly inaccessible. Accessible for a lot of residents for a lot of products. We did a survey about a year ago, and I double-checked some of these numbers just recently to make sure they hadn't changed. More than a third of Alaskans, including all residents of Fairbanks and Juneau and rural Alaska, live more than 100 miles from an authorized repair provider for Apple products. 100% Of Alaskans live more than 500 miles from an authorized Maytag service provider.

The closest option in the US is a major airport airport is Seattle. And 100% of Alaskans also live more than 500 miles from an authorized service provider for Lenovo computers. The closest option in the US with a major airport is in Seattle. And this kind of stat follows for a lot of different electronic products. Bottom line, we've got to be able to fix that in-state.

This kind of legislation is incredibly popular across the political spectrum. Both the Biden and the Trump administrations are supportive, and it's rare to find individuals who don't like the idea of having more options for repair, and Alaskans especially want the self-sufficiency and responsibility for their private property. HB 162 will allow us to make our local communities more resilient by using our local businesses and talent to keep our cert devices running instead of needing the global supply chain to constantly bring us new stuff. I strongly encourage you to pass this bill without amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Chapman. Next up, an invited testimony is Nathan Proctor with the Public Interest Research Group. Go ahead, Mr. Proctor.

Hi, I'm sorry, I was here to answer questions. I do not have testimony provided. So let me just quickly say thank you to the chair and the committee. I strongly support right to repair. I've been working on right to repair for many years.

The version that you are looking at now to match Senate Bill 111 is very consistent with the versions passed in other states and, um, you know, is something that manufacturers have come to expect. Um, and with that, I will conclude my testimony. Okay, um, thank you. In terms of— I'm gonna now open public testimony. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify?

I don't see anyone. I'm gonna go online and I'm gonna go to Alaskans first, followed by non-Alaskans. So first up in public testimony is Michael Rice. Mr. Rice, please proceed with your testimony.

Chair and members of the committee, my name is Michael Rice with the Roman numeral 2 for the board. And for the record, I own Yeti Game Repairs here in Anchorage, Alaska, and I am the head technician of Video Game Depot. Uh, from a repair standpoint, most failures we see are board-level issues, power failures, HDMI damage, storage corruption, etc. One of the main reasons why we are in extreme support of House Bill 162 is because this kind of stuff is not limited by technical ability in 100%. It is usually access to things like schematics, diagnostic tools, parts, and pairing systems.

A lot of the times these can be fixable And we consistently see a major cost gap in the repair market that helps push this in favor with Alaskans. Things that could easily be restored and historically have been restored were able to come back with this kind of House Bill. So for that, we strongly recommend keeping it as it stands. A lot of opposition will try to wiggle things in there about how it may harm things. These things are not as uncommon as it's believed.

Anything in the wrong hands could be used inappropriately, and with these in the correct hands, many independent repair companies will push value towards consumer rights and the ability to give consumers their options more than anything. So with that, we really do appreciate this opportunity to testify with you guys, and we hope to see House Bill 162 voted in favor with all of our legislation moving forward. Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir, for being here. Next up in public testimony is Kelly Droop.

Please proceed with your testimony, Kelly Droop.

Yes, good afternoon, Co-Chairs Fields, Co-Chair Hall, and committee members. For the record, my name is Nellie Droop. I'm a lifelong Alaskan and the Alaska Regional Manager for Pape Kenworth Alaska, serving customers from Dutch Harbor to Prudhoe Bay. We also operate Ditch Witch West and Material Handling dealerships, supporting a wide range of industries across the state. HB 162 has some significant unintended consequences for customer service and safety particularly for utility, construction, agriculture, warehousing, and aerial equipment.

As dealers, we're held to high manufacturer standards for parts availability, training, and customer support, including warranty. And equipment today is highly advanced, requiring specialized digital and technical expertise to maintain safely and effectively. This is exactly what customers rely on us to provide. At Pape, we invest heavily in Alaska and carry millions of dollars of parts inventory and training our employees to support both remote and local customers. We troubleshoot over the phone, we fly experts out to train and repair, we research parts, provide access to technical training in order to keep everyone's fleets running.

HB 162 would require manufacturers to offer wholesale pricing to independent repair providers and customers who do not share these same obligations. That is unprecedented and would create a serious financial strain on dealer networks that are obligated to provide warranty, support, and know-how, and local parts on hand with their investment. And this damage would in turn impact our availability of these essential items for our customers. There's a huge misconception that manufacturers like John Deere and Bitch Witch restrict access to parts and repair information. In our experience, it's simply not true.

You can Google it. Our goal is to keep equipment running and customers productive regardless of how they choose to service their equipment. And as a customer for 35 years personally prior to joining the dealership, I always chose my dealers based on the great customer service and support. HB 152 should exclude off-road vehicles and equipment. Please help ensure Alaska dealerships can continue supporting the industries that depend on us.

Thank you. Okay, um, thank you. I believe that concludes public testimony from Alaskans. Everyone else testifying, I will time your testimony to 1 minute. So, Zach Connolly, please proceed.

Hello, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Zach Connolly. I'm from Quebec, Canada, and I'm representing an independent repair shop around here called Minifix. I'm speaking in approval of this House Bill 162 as it is written. I primarily repair consumer electronics like consoles and laptops.

As time has gone on, everything is becoming harder and harder to repair because companies do not provide us with schematics, data sheets, or access to chips that we need to complete our repairs. More and more of my customers are forced to throw away their devices, creating unnecessary waste. In the best cases, we're forced to source broken circuit boards of the same type and pray that the chips that are on those boards are actually there and work. Oftentimes they're not because they are common failure points. This wastes time, increases costs for consumers, and contributes to unnecessary electronic waste that could otherwise be avoided.

House Bill 162 would help restore fairness to repair by giving consumers and independent businesses access to the information and components needed. Mr. Connolly, thank you for your testimony. Next up is Stephen Ryan. Please proceed, Mr. Ryan.

Hello, Chair. Hello, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Stephen Ryan. I'm in support of SB 162. I run a company here in Washington State, Ryan Labs.

Washington State is a right-to-repair state. We already have a law. Exemptions are the problem, not the solution. Anti-repair is systematic. Example: Hotco, one of the most widely used soldering iron brands among hobbyists and professional technicians.

They've twisted the statutory definition of industrial and exemption language to withhold schematics. Violations reported to the Attorney General go unanswered. Manufacturers know there's no consequence for non-compliance, leaving repair shops and consumers with no legal remedy. Some companies have even threatened legal action to silence those who expose disclose their practices or attempts to pursue small claims relief. Hawker was one of them, threatening countersuits.

Game console manufacturers do the same, citing privacy— piracy as justification for exemptions. But a schematic or replacement part does not enable piracy. It just threatens their new device sales. I can provide the committee with documented examples of multiple companies using these same tactics to deny repair and using the flaws of the existing law. Mr. Ryan, please, please do that.

And that concludes your public testimony. Next up is David Reiner. Go ahead, Mr. Reiner.

Hello, members of the committee. My name is David Reiner. I own and operate Computer Buddha Repair and Video Games here in Carmichael, California. And as the previous technicians and owners of other stores and hobbyists have said, I definitely approve 100%. I'm behind Bill HB 162 as it's written.

I know that we've been repairing video games, consoles, computers, laptops. I used to do cell phones and tablets until all the right-to-repair stuff made it practically impossible to repair those devices based on paired— you know, even your screen, your microphone is paired. You can't change your mic, you can't change your screen out, or your charging port even, or your battery because It doesn't match the original one, which is really unfair to the consumer. And same thing with the video game consoles nowadays. They're doing the same exact thing where everything is paired.

So if it breaks, you can't replace it because you don't have access to the software that allows you to say, hey, this is a new part, accept it. So once again, full support of HB 162 as it is written. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity, and thank you for Thank you, Mr. Rayner. Next up is Quentin Siuro.

Go ahead, Quentin Siuro.

Yes, hello, my name is Quentin. I called in before. I own a small business called Keys Touch Service, and I repair a lot of game consoles, laptops, and stuff like that. As a repairing device, we don't have a schedule. Schematics like we used to have back in washers, dryers, refrigerators, stoves.

I talked about it. Help parents. These game consoles are going up in crazy price, $1,000. Get them repaired. And does a regular household have that money to spend on a new game console when it just basically fails on them?

We don't have access to the schematics to be able to know the voltage levels on this chip or that chip, what chip it is. So we would like to have this bill passed to help Alaska people save money too. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Thank you, Mr. Siro. Next up in public testimony is Aiten Atakeshiyeva.

Thank you for being here. Please proceed. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Uh, hello everybody, my name is Aiten Atakeshiyeva.

Thank you so much for pronouncing my name correctly. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I am from Orlando, Florida, and I just want to voice my support for HB 162. I just want to say quickly, I make about $30,000 a year. I pay $18,000 of that to rent. I don't have extra money to be able to go and repair my devices with Apple, unfortunately.

And there are third-party repair shops that would allow me to repair my devices for cheaper, but unfortunately, Apple and many other manufacturers, they make it harder for third-party repair shops to do that. And, um, I just wanted to voice my support and also thank you guys so much, uh, for just taking the time out and listening to me and everybody else. And I hope you guys have a wonderful day and weekend. Thank you for your testimony. Next up is Andrew O'Connor.

Go ahead, Mr. O'Connor.

Thank you, members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, my name is Andrew O'Connor. I'm testifying on behalf Entertainment Software Association in opposition to House Bill 162. ESA represents the U.S. video game industry. I've submitted a letter and additional materials to the committee, so I will just quickly ask that you either not advance this bill or that the bill be substantially amended to align with the laws of the past in other states, those states being California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Washington.

They all closely align and they all exempt video game consoles. Uh, please, uh, um, materials I've submitted, uh, feel free and I can answer any questions. So thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Next up on public testimony is John Prendergast.

Go ahead, Mr. Prendergast.

Oh yes, thank you, committee. Um, I'm John Prendergast. I am regulatory counsel for the alarm industry. The monitoring association and related AICC. The proposed changes to HB 162 would strip away all exemptions to the right to repair disclosure requirements except medical devices and motor vehicles.

Those are important exemptions that should certainly be maintained because a flawed repair to a heart monitor or car can put the life of the user at risk. But there's even more compelling reasons to include an exemption for an electronic security and life safety system and related advice, uh, devices. Um, these devices detect fires, home invasion, carbon monoxide poisoning, flooding, monitor health conditions. Um, unlike medical devices, the risk from a failed repair affects not just the customer but several others. Family members, adjoining townhouses, condominium residents, etc.

Mr. Pendergast, thank you for your testimony. Next up in public testimony is Russell Buchta.

Hi, I just want to make sure you guys can hear me. Proceed.

My name is Russell, representing myself as RV Generators and Rusty Rust Repair. I'm located in California, but House Bill 161 162 is so important across the U.S., I felt compelled to testify. I'm going to keep this short, as I know there are a million of us on the phone waiting for their time to testify in support of the bill. I'm a repair technician, and I want to say that I support both HB 162 as well as SB 111 because consumers and independent repair shops such as myself should have fair access to parts, tools, and repair information for the products that people have already owned. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Butu. Next up is Sam Romano. Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Sam Romano. Good afternoon. Um, I represent the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and I really appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this bill. While we do understand the intent to expand repair operations for consumers, we do respectfully ask the committee to oppose this bill due to significant safety and compliance concerns. We are concerned that the bill's broad language could inadvertently undermine important safety, emissions, and compliance standards that are essential to safe marine vessel operation.

This legislation would provide unauthorized access to software, specialized tools, and mechanical, electrical, safety, and emissions features integral to marine engines and electronics. Unrestricted access could compromise crucial safety features like radar, GPS, and engine management systems. We don't oppose consumers' right to make repairs. Many members provide parts and train customers for simple repairs. However, we do oppose providing access to proprietary code due to safety, emissions compliance, and reliability concerns.

Providing this access to untrained individuals would negatively affect compliance standards with federal safety, security, safety, security, and emission standards. Next up is Holly Borgman. Go ahead, Ms. Borgman. Hi, I'm Holly Borgman, Vice President of Government Affairs for ADT. Making manuals, codes, tools, etc., accessible to the general public could allow bad actors to misuse the information to reprogram, deactivate, or override alarm systems that families and small businesses use to protect themselves.

And because an alarm company sign is such a powerful deterrent against crime, many alarm customers advertise the presence of an alarm system in their front yards and windows, allowing properly trained criminals to better target their search for systems to exploit. This is a particular concern in Alaska when so many of the state's residents are away from their homes for long periods of time due to work and travel. They rely on their security systems to protect their families, homes, and businesses when they cannot be there to protect them themselves. For this reason, we urge you to restore the security exemptions in House Bill 162. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Borgman. Next up is Rose Feliciano. Go ahead, Miss Feliciano.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rose Feliciano. I'm here on behalf of TechNet. TechNet understands and appreciates the goals behind the right to repair legislation. Consumers should have reasonable options when it comes to repairing their devices.

And we especially want to recognize the challenges many Alaskans face with geography and limited access to repair services. We appreciate the attempt to narrow the focus of the bill. However, we still have significant concerns. We believe that the bill lacks several consumer protection guardrails. Commonly included in other repair frameworks.

For example, there's no disclosure requirements regarding whether replacement parts are original, aftermarket, or refurbished. The bill also does not address technical qualifications, repair transparency, cybersecurity protections, or safeguards for consumers' personal data regarding— during the repair process. For these concerns, we would recommend committee not move HB 162 forward, TechNet would welcome the opportunity to work with you on a full proposal. Ms. Feliciano, thank you for your testimony. Next up is Katie Riley.

Katie Riley, please proceed.

Thank you. My name is Katie Riley, and I represent the Consumer Technology Association. We go by the acronym CTA. CTA is the trade association representing the U.S. Consumer Technology Industry, and our membership includes manufacturers of the devices subject to the provisions of the legislation. I want to start by saying that we've reviewed the proposed amendments to HB 1622, which do address some of our concerns, but not all of them.

I want to be clear, we aren't opposed to right to repair. We're just requesting reasonable accommodations for industry in line with existing laws in other states. A few concerns we still have. One, we'd like to keep clear enforcement language around Attorney General enforcement in line with the laws on the books in 9 other states. And another key change is, um, the applicability date, ensuring that it's applicable to products that were first sold or leased as of January 1, 2027.

Um, I think with direct engagement with industry, we can help continue to refine the legislation. Um, we look forward to continuing to work on amendments but request the bill not move forward in its current state. There's still more work to be done, and we look forward to partnering. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Ms. Riley, please email your suggestions, and thank you for your testimony.

Next up is Taylor Crittle. Yes, question: how many folks are lined up for public testimony? We have 4 more. 4 More. Yes, sir.

You bet. Go ahead, Taylor Crittle.

Yeah, good afternoon, members. My name is Taylor Crittle. I'm with the Electronic Security Association representing electronic security and life safety companies. Including those serving in Alaska. We appreciate the broader goal behind right-to-repair legislation and expanding consumer access to repair options.

However, we do remain concerned, uh, without the exemption language for security and life safety systems, HB 162 creates a significant public safety and cybersecurity concern. These systems are fundamentally different from traditional consumer products. We're not talking about coffee makers, or dishwashers. Talking about fire alarms, intrusion systems, access control, video surveillance, and medical device alerts that people rely on every day to protect lives and property. And these systems are installed and serviced by trained professionals because reliability during emergencies is critical.

As drafted, the bill requires manufacturers to provide sensitive system-level information, software tools, and access to credentials in a way that increases security risks and potential misuse by bad actors. We respectfully ask—. Thank you, Mr. Krittle, for your testimony. Next up is Jake Bronger.

Hello, my name is Jake Bronger, and I serve as the Director of Government Affairs of Home Services at NRG Energy and our affiliate Vivint Smart Home. Vivint Smart Home provides security and life safety systems for over 12,000 Alaskan families. In this bill, manufacturers would be required to provide documentation such as passwords and reset codes, tools, and access to related security features. That documentation can be used to disable your security systems, bypass protections, and expose vulnerab— vulnerabilities. We're simply asking for a targeted exemption to ensure that we don't unintentionally put puts public safety at risk, and an exemption for security and life safety systems would mirror what every other state has done to date on this issue.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is James Hoggett.

Thank you to the chair and committee for hearing my testimony. For the record, my name is James Hoggett. I'm an independent laptop repair technician based in the UK, and I would like to show my full support support for House Bill 162. I believe that this bill is bold and it shows Alaska is really leading the way by not trying to weaken the bill with many exemptions, such as games consoles. This bill would definitely set a precedent for other states to follow and potentially could have global wake-up calls to manufacturers on repairability of devices.

I really want to see power given to repair shops. So that we can get the schematics, the board views, the replacement components, and the firmware files that we desperately need so ultimately we can offer customers a reasonably priced repair and a local warranty. And yeah, thank you for the time listening to my testimony. Thank you, Mr. Hoggett. Final testifier is Kellyanne Schmitz.

Go ahead, Kellyanne Schmitz.

Hey, hey, thank you, the members of the committees. My name is Kilian and I want to testify and support Bill162. I'm an independent repair shop. I repair computers, smartphones, Wi-Fi, everything that is electronic actually. Yeah, thing is I grew up in the planned obsolescence era and yeah, things are built to fail.

They are not built to last. It's quantity over quality. Profit over planet, waste dressed up as innovation, devices without character, built for profit, not reliability. Capitalism. The knife always cuts on two sides, and that metaphor is true.

Both can be used for the good and the bad. And then it's— what I'm talking about is all the security risks and whatever people are afraid of when they release schematics, firmware, documentation, and whatever to repair the hardware or the software, because both can go bad. Obviously, you can have, you know, a software failure or an hardware failure, and in both cases you need access to, to resolve these issues. But yeah, we don't have any access, which results in a massive pollution of, um, resource of the planet. That, that's right.

We wasted money. Mr. Schmitz, thank you for your testimony. That concludes public testimony on this bill. Are there questions for the bill sponsor?

All right, can we, uh, do we have a section? I don't even really know. Yeah, let's go through the section at this time. Thank you, Ms. Snowberger.

Oh, we gotta adopt the CS. Yes, we do have a CS. Tell you what, maybe, maybe that would be the logical way to do this, is we will adopt the CS, discuss it, and that'll be a way to talk about it. Okay, Representative Hall, do you have a motion? Mr. Co-chair, move to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 162, work draft 3 -LS0809/L as our working document.

I will object for purposes of discussion and turn to Sarah Snowberger and Representative Dibert for a description of what is in the CS. Absolutely. Thank you, Chair Fields and members of the committee. Um, an explanation of the CS. The, the biggest changes that we've made in the CS that before the committee is, um, version L of HB 162 narrows the scope, um, to just consumer electronics.

This includes smartphones, computers, TVs, kitchen appliances, vacuum cleaners, Wi-Fi routers, electric toothbrushes, and other similar products. This version addresses products with the greatest demands for independent and owner repair, and it would bring Alaska in line with a lot of consumer rights to repair laws in many other states. Yes. On this point, I believe I did hear someplace in the testimony information about this. Is that in consumer electronics as opposed to commercial?

Consumer electronics excludes what then?

Through the chair, absolutely, Representative Sadler, you're correct. It would no longer apply to any dealerships that we talked about in similar versions. It's always eliminated motor vehicles, but this would also eliminate snow machines, four-wheelers, anything that you would buy from more of a dealership. What this version does is anything that you buy directly from a store, like if you can bring it, buy it on Amazon and bring it into your home to use it as and it's electric, um, this would only help the consumers who buy those products to repair it within their homes, or the small businesses that do product repairs within Alaska. So it would cut out the manufacturer— only being able to go to a manufacturer, but small businesses within Alaska that do product repair.

Yes. So when you say, Ms. Snowberger, dealership, is that on page 4, authorized service provider? Is that what you mean by dealer? How do you define a dealer?

Well, sorry. Through the Chair to Representative Sadler, the major change in this bill you will find in version L. It will be on page Page 5, in the definition section, starting on page 5, line 8, and if you go down to line 12, it says a new definition of digital product. So digital product, it means a product that is sold at retail for personal, family, or household use.

Okay, so that can't be for a dealer. So that is your definition of what a dealer is, is something that— I'm sorry, this is targeted at retail for personal use, but you used the word dealership. That is why I am just probing that. Well, maybe at this time you could address, does the CS include security systems since we heard a lot of public testimony about that? Yes, correct.

Through the Chair, that was something that we heard in public testimony, but that was before the adoption of the CS. So as far as security systems, again, If this is something you can buy at a store, like a Ring doorbell that you use for personal use for your household, you can, but it would never apply to such as like the security system of this building or the HVAC system of this building. If I might ask a follow-up, I'm curious of the other states that have passed bills like this, how many of them do cover home security systems versus do not, just thinking about You know, if you're sharing data about one house's security system, you might be sharing knowledge that could potentially risk security systems of other houses. So I would just appreciate some follow-up on that, not necessarily at this time if you don't know it offhand. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Fields. That's a really great question. I don't have it right in front of me. I know a lot of other states exclude security systems, and it was something the previous committee did worry about, but maybe we could ask Nathan Proctor, who's online, to clarify that, or if I can get back to the committee. Yeah, Nathan Proctor, if you have additional information at this time, please weigh in.

Yeah, thank you. I— there's a couple different ways states have handled security alarm systems. One is that They exempt alarm systems that are provided on a security contract. So there's kind of a range of things. And because this is for targeting products that are sold at a retail price, that would exclude most of the systems that are, you know, kind of more bespoke, like fire alarm systems in a large building.

I think that exemption covers most of the stuff that's typically exempted. You could specifically exempt more kinds of equipment, but I do think that the way— the approach that SB 111 and this new CS is taking is just to affirmatively say, listen, this is stuff that's available for retail sale. So this is stuff that you could get at a Best Buy or from Amazon, and typically that's stuff is, you know, not, you know, going to be nearly as sensitive in its, you know, deployment. Uh, Mr. Proctor, I think I would be interested in seeing language that would specifically exclude home security systems, just to see what that would look like. I'm happy to share, uh, some typical exemptions from other states with the committee.

Okay, thank you. Um, and thank you— well, actually, Representative Sadler has another question. Thank you. It still remains to have clarity in At this point, do I understand from the sponsor's staff that the bill no longer covers any digital equipment that is used for commercial purposes? Through the chair, Representative Sadler, that is correct.

Like Nathan Proctor said, if it's something to do with a contract, that is prohibited in this bill. Okay. And to that point, on page 2, line Page 5, line 18, it talks about contract between, between businesses, so B2B, or between business and government. What about between a business and an individual?

Which is, I guess, sales contract, which is retail, I guess. Okay. And then my second question is still, you mentioned dealerships, but I don't see any reference to dealerships. So I wonder what exactly you meant when you use the word dealership, unless you're just referring generally to vehicles, a Honda dealership, a Chevy dealership. Is that what you meant?

Yeah, through the chair to Representative Sadler, that's correct. Um, I was just trying to clarify that if it is bought from a dealership rather than a retail store, it is excluded from this bill as a right to repair. Thank you, Madam Chair— or Mr. Chairman. Okay, please proceed. Thank you.

Well, sorry, through the chair, Representative Fields, that's basically the gist of what is the changes, major changes from the last bill to this CS. We went over the digital product. So that's all unless the committee has further questions. Further questions?

Alright. Seeing none, we were waiting to see if an additional governor's appointee was going to jump online. They did not, so therefore I'm going to open public testimony. The governor's appointees we heard, Rebecca Balmes and Colin Maynard. Does anyone in the room wish to offer public testimony?

I don't see any. No one online wishes to offer public testimony. There's something— close public testimony, I believe. Briefities.

Um, I apologize, I am going— are there any other questions before we adopt the CS? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. So I'm just trying to get a sense between the previous version and the one that the committee worked— previous committee worked on, are we in this version LCS essentially walking back some or all of the provisions in committee, and I— and I— there's no value statement there. I'm just curious, like, how this compares to the committee's version. Yeah, through the chair to Representative Carrick, you are correct.

We're walking back on a lot of it, narrowing the focus and the scope of this bill. Um, one thing that we do— we did add back into this bill that was not in the previous version was parts pairing, and Because we are just talking about it from a consumer standpoint in their household, there was a lot of talk about we still want people to be able to repair their smartphones. For example, we talked a lot about the product of Apple. They only have one manufacturer repair shop in the state of Alaska, and that's in Anchorage. But however, there's a lot of mom-and-pop shops throughout the state that could do things like a screen repair.

But what the manufacturers do at Apple is you could have two screens side by side, but they're paired in— they have a serial number and parts. So you go and plug it into your iPhone, and unless it's done by the manufacturer, it will give you an error sign. So we do want the independent repair shops to be able to make these minor fixes to something we use every single day. And so we add back in the parts pairing. But again, this is not for large level.

It's only for what people use in their homes on a daily basis. And that is helpful when we define what a digital product is. Okay, thank you. Representative Plum. Oh yeah, so just a clarification.

So You had the original bill, went to Community and Regional Affairs, they made changes to it, and this CS walks back some of the changes, or are those changes in Community and Regional Affairs the same? Yeah, through the chair to Representative Kollum, great question. Yes, what we did was the Senate did a huge narrowing of the bill. So originally the scope was a little more outside of just your home home uses for what you would use digital products for. And it took it sort of above and beyond the scope to include a little outside of what the initial— what we wanted from this bill.

It went above and beyond. And so we're scoping it back down instead of saying like that anybody could use this even on a commercial level. That it narrowed it back down just for household uses. And I think, I hope that what it did was it helped, um, Alaska, the legislature feel a lot more comfortable by the narrowing of the scope of the bill, that it brought it back down to the household uses. We really wanted people in the state of Alaska to be able to go out and buy anything and repair it within their own home, whether it be a dishwasher, a microwave, a cell phone, things of that nature.

And we feel like we've done that in this version of the bill. Okay. So I think the confusion is— I thought my understanding was in Community and Regional Affairs it was narrowed, but you keep referring to the Senate. I guess there's a Senate version. So is this CS what came out of Community and Regional Affairs, or did Or is the CS what the Senate wants?

Yeah, through the chair to Representative Kahlum, this— we— this bill, the CS that is in front of you is what was adopted in Labor and Commerce on the Senate side. Okay. So it's not what came out of Community and Regional Affairs? That's correct. Okay.

Representative Kahlum, my take on it was Community and Regional Affairs tackled the bill in one way, and the narrowing of the bill tackled many of those concerns in maybe a structurally cleaner way, which is why we have this version before us. I think that's why I was confused, because I thought both of them narrowed it. They narrowed it in different ways. This is the Senate version. This is not—.

Yes. —What came out of the prior committee. Yeah. And I'm not sure. I don't—.

I just—. I don't know what the actual difference— And since the Senate vehicle is coming over, we thought this this one might make sense to review. Appears to be coming over. Okay, um, not seeing any further questions. The amendment deadline for this bill is 12 noon on Wednesday.

Um, we actually have online Angel Holbrook from the Board of Marine Pilots. Mr. Holbrook— or sorry, Angel Holbrook, please proceed with your testimony.

Oh shoot. I got a pause. We have not yet adopted CS. I'm going to remove my objection. Does anyone else wish to object to this CS?

Okay, not seeing any, that CS is adopted, and that concludes consideration on House Bill 162, for which the amendment deadline is Wednesday at noon. Final item, um, Angel Holbrook, Board of Marine Pilots. Thank you for being here, Angel Holbrook. Please proceed with your testimony.

Hello, good Good afternoon. Please introduce yourself to the committee.

My name is Angel Holbrook and I am honored to have been assigned to the Board of Marine Pilots. I am a vessel agent down in Ketchikan for North Pacific Maritime.

Great. Did you want to just share a tiny bit of information about what your background or being interested in or why you're interested in being on this board. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah, absolutely. So like many people in my demographic in Southeast Alaska, I came to Southeast Alaska with my father who was a logger, and eventually when logging slowed down, he transitioned to a commercial fisherman. So I've been involved in maritime since about middle school, and my passion has been with the ocean.

So having transitioned into different facets of maritime through the harbormasters and then now over to— I did some yacht agent work and now I'm with cargo vessels. I can just really see that I could— I feel like I could have some good knowledge base to contribute as the, um, the board moves through their processes over the next 4 years. Very good. Thank you, Miss Holbrook. Um, questions for Miss Holbrook?

All right, not seeing any. Ms. Holbrook, thank you for being here. I think that concludes— awesome— I think that concludes our work today. Not seeing any suggestions to add to the agenda, at 4:55 Labor and Commerce is adjourned.