Alaska Legislature: House Community & Regional Affairs, 4/21/26, 8am

Good morning. I call the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, April 21st, and the time is 8:04 AM. Members present are Representative Kai Holland, Representative Carolyn Hall, Representative Steve Sinclair, Representative Garrett Nelson, Co-Chair Rebecca Himschute, and myself, Co-Chair Caradonna Mears, we have a quorum to conduct business. As our first committee of the morning, I'll remind folks to silence their cell phones.

If you need to pass a note to committee members, please get the attention of my aide, Talia Ames. Thank you, Talia. And also thanks to Co-Chair Himschutz's committee aide, Thatcher Brower. Before we get started, I'd also like to show my appreciation to our recording secretary, Sophia Tenney, and helping us from the Juneau LAO is Chloe Miller. On today's agenda, we've got one bill.

We will be considering the 10 amendments received for House Bill 162, Digital Product Repair, sponsored by Representative Dibert, who has joined us in the audience. And we look to the will of the committee for this legislation. This is the bill's 6th hearing. Representative Dibert and staff, Ms. Emma Solchinski, please welcome to the— please Welcome to the committee. Please come up to the table and provide a quick introduction to the bill.

Good morning, co-chairs and members of the committee. And thank you again, once again, for hearing House Bill 162, which is Digital Project Repair.

For the record, Maxine Diebert. I represent Downtown Fairbanks or House District 31. I appreciate this time this morning and the thoughtful consideration this committee has given to this bill to make it the best bill that it can be. And I look forward to continuing that work today. Before we begin, I'd like to briefly refocus on what the bill does and why it matters for Alaskans.

At its core, House Bill 162 ensures that Alaskans and independent repair providers have access to the same documentation, parts, and tools that manufacturers already provide to their authorized service providers. So this bill is about access, fairness, and making sure our markets are working the way they should. [Speaker:JULIE] Alaskans are some of the most self-reliant people in the country. We take pride in maintaining our own homes, our equipment, and our property. But increasingly, repair options are limited, often primarily to manufacturer-authorized networks, which reduce competition, increase costs, and delays repairs.

House Bill 162 does not prohibit those authorized networks. It simply ensures that Alaskans have a choice. At a basic level, this is about ownership. When an Alaskan purchase— when an Alaskan purchases a product, they should have a fair opportunity to maintain and repair that product, whether they choose to do it themselves, go to a local businesses down the road, or use an authorized provider. In many states, limited repair access is an inconvenience.

In Alaska, it's a real barrier. Because of our geography, authorized repair providers are often hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Shipping products out for repair can be expensive. It could be time-consuming and sometimes not realistic. So people do what Alaskans have always done, They fix things themselves or rely on local repair shops.

Too often they're doing what— that without the manuals, without the tools, or the parts they need. This bill helps close that gap. It supports local repair businesses, gives consumers more options, and helps ensure that industries across Alaska, from fishing industries and resource development industries to small businesses can keep their equipment running without unnecessary delays. There are also broader practical impacts when repair is not accessible or affordable. Products are more likely to be replaced, replaced instead of repaired.

In Alaska, that means higher costs for families and businesses and more waste going into our landfills. That are already overburdened, overburdened in many communities. I also want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. We have taken those seriously and the bill reflects our work. House Bill 162 includes important guardrails.

It does not require manufacturers to disclose trade secrets. It does not override anti-theft or privacy protections. And it does not require manufacturers to provide parts they no longer produce. This bill is not about targeting manufacturers. It's about ensuring a fair and competitive marketplace.

When manufacturers choose to provide parts, tools, and documentation to authorized providers, House Bill 162 ensures that independent repair Providers and product owners can access those same resources on reasonable terms. Ultimately, this is practical. This is a practical Alaska-focused solution. It supports consumers, strengthens our small businesses, and reflects realities of living and working in our state. I appreciate the committee's continued engagement on this bill and respectfully ask that House Bill 162 be moved forward to its next committee of referral, referral, where we can continue refining it.

Thank you very much. Anabasi. Thank you, Representative Dibert. So we've got 10 amendments ahead of us. That were submitted by the amendment deadline and we'll take them up as they've been numbered in your amendment packet.

5 From Representative Nelson and 5 from Representative St. Clair. We'll start with Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I move Amendment 1. So numbered T.8.

I will—. T.8. Yes, ma'am. I will object for the purposes of discussion. Representative Nelson.

Yeah, so this will just clean up the language in the If this passes as is, when it talks about an agreement, just simply added or provision. So when there is a contract between an owner and the— whether it's the manufacturer of the digital product or whether it's a business that they bought it from, if there's a provision that is in violation of this statute, then the entire agreement would not be voided. It would just be the provision in that particular thing. So the entire— whether it's a warranty agreement or an ownership agreement or anything, if there's a provision that would be in violation, then that would be voided, but not the entire agreement. So just some clarifying language.

Thank you. And I'll look to the bill sponsor for a comment on the amendment. Thank you, Co-Chair Muir. I'm going to pass to my intern to address the amendment. Thank you, Chair.

For the record, this is Emma Slocinski, intern to Representative Dibert, and we are in support of this amendment and the clarifying language that it provides. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this amendment?

I will remove my objection. Is there any further objection?

Amendment number 1, also numbered T.8, passes without objection. Representative Nelson. I move amendment 2, or T.10. Object. Please explain.

Thank you, ma'am. This would just— to the exemptions that were already in the bill, this would exempt critical infrastructure as defined in Alaskan statute. And so I recognize that it might not be— there might, you know, there might not be an owner or anything like that, but I think it's prudent for us to exempt things as defined as critical infrastructure, um, as it has been defined in statute, just for security purposes.

Uh, look to the bill sponsor for a comment on the amendment. Thank you, Co-chair Mears. I'll let my intern address that. Um, we are in opposition to this amendment because critical infrastructure as defined under the statute is largely not covered by the bill, but manufacturers have used the language within it to justify exempting things like phones and computers and things used in government business. And leaving it up to the Attorney General to enforce this would mean a lengthy process that impairs repairs.

We are not in support of this amendment. Thank you. Is there further discussion on this amendment? Representative Sinclair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I support this amendment. Critical infrastructure is not just phones and computers and digital repair kind of makes reference to computers. Critical infrastructure can be anything from, you know, a server, a computer server, to a transformer pole, or the transformer that sits on the pole, or automated equipment. And it needs to be exempt because most people don't realize how easy it is to take regular software and extract personal information, critical information, etc., from a computer or a piece of equipment. So I would, I would like to see this exemption.

Thank you. Representative Holland. Great, thank you. Through the co-chair, I wonder if the maker of the amendment— I suspect you just grabbed the book that I was looking for— might just summarize what's in statute related to critical infrastructure. Representative Nelson.

Yes, ma'am. Through the co-chair, I apologize, I meant to show up with this, with this book in hand, but I left it in my office. So Critical infrastructure means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the state that the incapacity or destruction of the systems and assets would have a debilitating effect on security, state economic security, state public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. Now, I once again recognize that, like, any manufacturer is going to take advantage of any loophole. So I recognize that.

But now we're coming back to kind of the crux of the issue where I'm thinking of gensets, standalone gensets in remote communities, and we're talking about iPhones. And so I think that critical infrastructure is something that can be owned by maybe not necessarily an individual but a private entity. And is worth exempting for those reasons.

Representative Prox.

Thank you.

Through the chair to Mr. Nelson, I can see the point that you wouldn't want information to utilities out in the public.

But do you know, is that a contract if the utility buys a sophisticated control system? Is that in the contract or is that without? I guess I I— the reason I bring this up, I worked on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the repair— and this is getting to be quite a while ago, so I don't— like 15 years ago. But at any rate, they purchased some new turbines to drive their generators and they were virtually impossible to fix out in the field, and they had to call Sweden or Switzerland or someplace, I forget, to get them fixed. And I don't know, hmm, I don't know if we should require that.

That information to be available to the people that need to fix it out in the villages and what have you.

Representative Nelson. Um, yeah, through the chair, co-chair, to Rep. Prox.

In that particular situation, I don't know if this amendment or this bill would have had any material impact on the situation that you gave. And so, um, and I'm not aware of what kind of access to software or any of that kind of stuff, um, these contracts would have. I just think it's prudent, um, as we have discussed, that this would be the most sweeping definition of a digital product, that even some things that even Alaska has designed as critical infrastructure and put protections around those. I think it would be prudent for us to do the same here.

Follow-up? Or just comment. I guess I would have to agree that the utilities and the pipeline operator should be big boys and able to do that within the contract rather than us requiring it, because if it does get out, if that information does get out into the wrong hands, it can cause some serious problems. Representative Holland. I think Representative Hibbschuh may have been next.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks. I just want to follow up on this because I support the amendment. Critical infrastructure, particularly as it relates to water, wastewater, power utilities, and we're— and keeping in mind this bill is looking at the digital systems associated with critical infrastructure, so we're not talking about a a beam or something.

We're talking about where we're using digital systems. We've seen repeatedly over the last 20-ish years where bad actors have used digital control systems, security systems, temperature systems as a way remotely and across, you know, internationally to access our critical infrastructure in this country. That's well documented. It's a fundamental concern. And the reach right now of the bill into industrial digital control type technologies and systems, because it's so broad opens us up to that area.

So I'm supporting the amendment because this critical infrastructure exposure has been a problem. And I agree with the comments that allowing the manufacturers to keep some boundaries around that and to, through contract with the buyer, control how that support is going to be affected and what information is going to be accessible. And just to the general comment, and this is going to come up, um, probably a couple other times, to a certain degree I put a lot of importance on the buyer figuring out if they're buying something that they can prepare. And so I'm sensitive to some degree of somebody figuring out that they've got something that all of a sudden requires a factory technician or a part coming from someplace. But to me, that's part of the due diligence of buying something, is thinking about what are you buying, are you going to be able to get what you need to keep it working.

So at any rate, critical infrastructure I think was a good addition. Representative Hemstreet. Thanks. Through the chair, I want to make sure I'm understanding this. I want to go to perhaps Ms. Solchinski with my question.

Is there an instance, or has it happened, that by including critical infrastructure that a manufacturer then said, because Microsoft, um, makes the software governing certain critical infrastructure— pipeline, utilities, whatever— that now Microsoft declines the right to repair for individuals. So my personal I don't know, Microsoft is software. I need some kind of a hardware example, but something where my individual personal equipment can't be repaired because of a blanket manufacturer statement saying, because we service the pipeline and their use of this equipment, let's say they use Apple computers, and I have an Apple computer, that Apple would say, because critical infrastructure is exempt, therefore you also cannot repair your personal computer. Is that, is that your position in objecting to this amendment? To the chair, yes, that is what we are concerned about.

And I'd have to get back to you in writing on examples of that happening, but we've heard from our experts at Alaska Environment and the National Public interest research group, director of Right to Repair campaign, that that is one of the things that manufacturers have at least tried to do in their experience. Follow-up, follow-up. So I'm just going to toss it out to the committee, maybe to the maker of the amendment. Would it stand up to conceptually amend it to say, to say except for personal equipment? I mean, is there a way to make a line between critical infrastructure, which I think of as more public-facing, serving communities, and my own personal device, right?

To me, there's a difference there.

But I don't know if that would— I mean, would that be favorable in your mind, at least? If we could make a line there. Representative Nelson. Yes, Madam Co-Chair. I apologize.

I just about just jumped into conversation there. So through the co-chair, I mean, I guess conceptually anything is possible, right? But there's no— in this bill, there's no differentiation between government to business or business to business or business to consumer. Um, so, I mean, it's, it's, it's, as we've discussed a lot, it's, it's purposefully incredibly broad. And so if we want to go down that road, then like, then that's what my Amendment 3 is for, um, when we get to, you know, consumer electronics.

So I do not doubt Once again, that giant companies have found loopholes where none actually exist or were intended. I think that this definition is clearly laid out. It covers critical infrastructure, and I'm sure that it will be taken advantage of, and I'm sure that it will be taken advantage of both ways, both by sellers and consumers, just like people always are looking for an edge. So, um, I mean, I'm open entertaining it, but I think that it would muddy the waters of what this amendment is intended to do and what the statute clearly says. Once again, as it says, as, uh, Rep. Pond was saying, systems and assets, physical— whether physical or virtual.

So I think it addresses exactly what we're discussing here on this. Representative Sinclair. Uh, yes, uh, thank you, Madam Chair. And to, to— I'm going to get in the weeds in this. We were talking about software, and you were talking about Microsoft, and you were talking about Apple.

Normally systems are coded differently. They may have a GUI— that's graphical user interface— that is, uh, gives you a Windows interface, but normally this is all coded in a different language, whether it be Oracle, whether it be DOS, whether it be— because computers are all ones and zeros, on and off. Um, so when you, you ask about the Windows thing, there would probably be an application assigned to Windows, an application specifically to interface with this different operating system or this equipment that potentially we as a consumer would not have access to, or This is what we would exclude, such as a dashboard or something like that that wasn't used, that's a part of an interface with, uh, critical infrastructure, that, uh, we could say that nope, we're not going to give it to the users because it is specific to a specific piece of infrastructure, whether it be monitoring the pipeline, whether it be monitoring electricity, whether it be monitoring a dam or anything like that. Usually there's code behind it that it's written in, and there's usually a, like I said, graphical user interface that the user actually goes in and uses, and that can be proprietary. Thank you.

I guess that kind of speaks to why I'm concerned. So, um, because there are clear distinctions between these systems, and so If the two amendments work in tandem, if both were to be adopted, we would be, in theory, protecting these critical infrastructure systems. And then Amendment 3 would, in theory, clarify that personal electronics and appliances— we can call it the Bosch Amendment Number 3. That that would be what the bill does apply to, so it would be restoring that. Okay, okay, thanks for the conversation.

So I take it there's no motion for— oh, do we need a—. No, there's no conceptual amendment. No. Okay, uh, further discussion on this amendment? Um, I will maintain my objection.

Uh, Miss Tenney, please call the roll.

Representative Sinclair. Yes. Representative Nelson. Yes. Representative Hall.

No. Representative Holland. Yes. Representative Prox. Yes.

Co-chair Hemmschuh.

Yes. Co-chair Mears. No. 5 Yeas and 2 nays. With a count of 5 yeas and 2 nays, the amendment is adopted.

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I move Amendment 3. I object. Can you please explain?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So I think this gets to the crux of the issue that we've been coming up against a lot. As we've heard testimony earlier in this committee, like the Magnuson Moss Act was brought up. We've heard multiple examples where, as we've discussed as well, personal electronics have been brought up as, you know, the reason why we need this— e-waste, things of that nature.

And I think that this— while there are some states that do have broader definitions, I think that this amendment will once again, give— like, we can call it the Bosch Amendment, and it will kind of go carte blanche, but it will align us with the vast majority of other states. Um, I think that the broad definition is one of the biggest risks. Um, and, and I absolutely, uh, support this in, in concept, and I would like to echo what Rep. Paul said as well, is that I think people need to take some personal responsibility. However, when that's not possible, um, then they should be able to get the help that they need or the parts. So I just think that this amendment actually gets to the crux of the issue, um, that we've been discussing since the beginning of the hearing of this bill, and I look forward to the discussion.

I think I'll look to the bill sponsor for a comment on the amendment. Chair Meers, we are not in support of this amendment. We are aiming to keep the focus of the bill broad and are willing to continue to refine the bill so that it does not have any unintended consequences or harms. However, we see a very broad and concrete benefit from keeping the scope of the bill broad. It would be the broadest right to repair bill in the country.

However, the European Union in recent years passed sweeping right to repair legislation and have seen pretty substantial benefits from that. And this bill is not even close to as broad as the EU's legislation, and we would strongly oppose anything that limits the scope of this bill because we're hoping to benefit the maximum number of Alaskans we can. Thank you. Representative Holland. Great, thank you.

Well, as the maker of the amendment mentioned, this is kind of the crux to the issue today in terms of the bill. You know, I, in researching the, the bills and providing some options and amendments in the earlier stage of the process. To me, there was a fork in the road for us to look at this, um, type of legislation. One is to, um, have something that has the, the fairly narrow boundaries of consumer home application, in which case you don't have to worry about enumerating a lot of other extraneous products, like critical infrastructure we just got done doing, or you have a very broad umbrella for a right to repair, but then you have a long enumeration of all the things that are exempted. And I think some of the information that the bill sponsor provided, you know, gives us some documents with those long lists.

And there was a fork in the road of either going down the path of of limiting this, you know, broadly through the consumer home application or going down the path of really working on a long list of products and applications that would be exempted. The bill presently, from my perspective, isn't kind of in one camp or the other, and I think we're at the fork in the road. Where we're either going to set ourselves up for long-term starting to add one new product after another that needs to come in because we've got a few in there. I think we'll come up with more over time. Or we bring this back to what the rest of the country has done, which is looking at consumer products and electronics.

I just note that, you know, I appreciate that this is very broad, and I think the bill sponsor acknowledges that it is extremely broad. I think the broadest in the country, I heard. But yet we're the— probably the smallest market in the country, and for us to be trying to expect manufacturers to be able to conform to the kind of requirements here I think is a challenge. So I'm supporting the amendment at this point in time. I'm not comfortable being in the position of having to do that, but it's where we're at right now.

So I appreciate the maker of the amendment for bringing this clarity and bringing us to this fork in the road. Before I go back to Rep. Nelson, is anyone else on the committee got a question or comment? Representative Prox?

Yes, thank you. Through the chair, I guess, to the sponsor of the bill, you can just make a comment. You don't have to ask a question. Do we have something that clarifies the expectation of the manufacturer? I guess where I'm concerned is that prior to all of this digitally controlled stuff that is is so complicated.

The manufacturer wouldn't— well, let's see, the manufacturer typically would sell parts at wholesale to a repair center, and they would probably give the manuals to the repair center, but it appears that this section requires them to give the parts to the owner, bypass the authorized repair center, at essentially the same wholesale price. Is that the expectation? Yes, Lachinski. Through the Chair, that is correct, except for where there are businesses that operate on a dealership model, in which case they are able to provide those parts on fair and reasonable terms.

Follow-up, Rep. Prox? Okay. I'll go with my own experience. Way, way back, I was the Maytag repairman.

I worked for a guy who was the Maytag repairman.

And we were an authorized repair company for Maytag. And we were able to buy parts at a, well, I guess a wholesale price, if you will. But the other repair shops in town that were not authorized by Maytag they essentially had to buy the parts from us, from the authorized— we would— we were a dealer as far as parts were concerned, but we didn't have to sell the parts to the Speed Queen authorized repairer for a Maytag machine.

So I'm not quite sure how this would work, and it seems like it would be difficult for repair shops, and then if they— if the manufacturers had to do that, ultimately they would just raise the price of their machine. And I don't care because I don't want to buy this stuff. But as a practical matter, this has kind of broad implications. So I think I support the bill— I mean, the amendment. Understood.

Ms. Luchinski, did you want to have a response to that? Yes, through the chair, to Representative Prox. In the example that you mentioned, as the authorized dealer, um, the— you would have been able to charge reasonable costs rather than providing them at price. We oppose this amendment because we are very open to adding to and refining the exemptions and tightening up the language, but adopting this amendment would eliminate, eliminate a lot of the support we've gotten. Our largest supporters at Alaska Environment and the Public Interest Research Group, Group, are strongly opposed to this amendment.

And there are industries in Alaska such as the Alaska Mining Association that would no longer benefit from this bill if this amendment were to pass. So I would just like to remind the committee of that. Thank you. Representative Nelson.

Yes, thank you.

Rep. Holland— thank you, Madam Co-Chair— through the chair, Rep. Holland nailed it on that we were at a cross in the road. And I had a laundry list of exemptions, and if one felt that was disrespectful and also was ineffective or inefficient. So that's how we came up with this. Um, to respond to some of the points where— well, one, this clearly would align this bill with what is going on nationwide at this point, and things are still being refined. And we are a small market, and I have talked to businesses who would be directly impacted by this bill, and they would do exactly what you said, Rep. Prox, is they would be forced to raise their prices on the actual sale of the machine since so much of their business model relies on providing— not, not gouging customers, but providing good service.

Um, and so they service those customers for decades. And lastly, with the European Union, one, I think that with all due respect, that's an oversimplification, but I don't think that we should be using the European Union as an example of right-to-repair laws when their farmers are in revolt and literally hauling wagons full of turds into the Capitol in frustration because they're being put out of business. And so I think that we need to be a business-friendly state. And I, once again, in closing, I understand the idea behind this, and I just think that the actual ramifications have not been fully vetted. Thank you.

I'll maintain my—. Oh, can I say one more thing? Yes. Thank you. Through the co-chair, it takes out— this amendment takes out power sports equipment.

So all those ATVs down in Cake and Angoon and all over my district, those owners would not be able— under this amendment would not be able to repair their own power sports. No. Well, sorry. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-chair.

Um, it's my understanding that the access that they already have, um, they would still have this, just that the parts, which would be parts and tools, and tools would be defined as software, that they wouldn't get that for free, and the parts wouldn't even the tools, if it was a physical tool, they wouldn't be provided those tools just with shipping, because that's, that's how it's defined in the bill, is that— I can't remember exactly where it is, but it talks about, I don't know, like the fair and reasonable— I mean, I have other issues with this, but where is it? The tool part? Parts, yeah, tools. Shall be required, or a digital manufacturer, uh, the tools required without— they will provide them without charge, except that if the provider or owner requests a tool in physical form, the manufacturer may charge the provider or owner for the reasonable actual cost of producing, preparing, and sending the tool. So I mean, I guess that they wouldn't get it for free But I still am— I have not ran into a situation where I haven't been able to fix an ATV or snow machine.

That's just me.

Representative Haan. Thank you, through the chair. Um, my understanding of how this amendment is functioning in terms of the removal of Section C, which includes the power sports, is that Section C was in essence a carve-out, one of the exemptions that was providing a workaround to the rest of Sections A and B. And Section C was creating an area that largely protected the existing dealership model. And created a way for the rest of the bill's requirements not to have the same effect on dealership models.

So since we're now moving to, in this amendment, the consumer electronics and household appliances, essentially the bill no longer is addressing the products that were listed in C that were being exempted because now they don't need to be exempted.

So basically it leaves those business models and those products that were being exempted out of the bill so that they don't need the exemption anymore. Mm-hmm. That's the fork in the road we were talking about earlier, which was either we have a bill that is very broad with a lot of exemptions for different business models, for different products, for different situations, or we have a bill that limits itself to consumer household products, in which case we don't have to have the exemptions process. So that's the fork in the road we're at.

Any further discussion on this amendment? Ms. Solchynski. Ah, yes, thank you to the chair. Just to address some of the concerns brought up by Representative Nelson, we did include those provisions that Representative Hall had mentioned to respect the dealership business model of businesses and allow them to charge reasonable costs. For their provision of parts.

What this bill seeks to address is the usage of manufacturers of software that limits the functioning of devices. So for example, we heard stories from farmers in Alaska who had to fly someone out, and it cost them thousands of dollars just to reset a software code. Under the bill as it is written, um, the manufacturers would have to provide those software tools to reset those so that they don't have to fly someone out from, say, Seattle just to reset that, and they're able to, um, use those software tools. Uh, under the amendment, they would be able to charge for the provision of software tools that are free to provide copies of and could essentially create those same barriers to repair. Thank you.

Further discussion? Representative Sinclair. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. To, uh, Ms. Zolchinski, um, in this I know that it talks about proprietary, um, that trade secrets, proprietary, and again we go back to proprietary software. Software and interfaces.

Would this bill then prohibit, based on proprietary software, etc., etc., preclude doing exactly what you just said? Uh, through the chair, to Representative St. Clair, they are not required to disclose trade secrets or confidential intellectual property. It just requires that they provide the same information that they are already giving out to authorized repair providers. So if they are receiving those software tools, it would require them to provide them to independent repair providers and consumers as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Solchinsky. Further discussion?

Yeah, through the co-chair, this is Sarah Snowberger, staff to Representative Maxine Daibert. I just wanted to add that a big part of this bill when we were considering running it is, you know, I'm from rural Alaska. Rep. Daibert's family's from rural Alaska. I—. And I just wanted to add that, you know, this is why rural Alaskans were so supportive of this bill and came to us is exactly a main reason is before powersports equipment, farm equipment, things like that that they need that is completely necessary to and vital to their lives.

Four-wheelers, snow machines, tractors— they use these things every single day to provide subsistence foods, put food on the table, get to and from wherever they need to go, and And I agree with Rep. Nelson that, you know, they are fairly easy to fix, but not everybody has access to that. And so, um, it also would help provide a lot of safety when working on that equipment as well. Um, when you actually have the right people to talk to that have the manuals and the tools that can get you through the process, it, it, the whole, everything that we've learned about right to repair is providing a huge safety network for these people who are going to work on these anyways, because it is a necessary way to survive out in rural Alaska. Out there, we don't have a lot of vehicles. Trucks are not a thing.

So these are what people truly rely on. So I just wanted to add that as like the essence of why our office this bill was so important to us was listening to the people from out in our rural communities. And so another reason why we're not supporting this amendment, with all due respect, is I think that that takes away a huge chunk of our supporters and the heart of why we wanted to run this bill. So just wanted to add that. Thank you.

Thank you, Kachra Hemchute. Yeah, I wanted to add to what Ms. Snowberger was just saying in that I think a lot of the modern equipment— I mean, when I first started riding quads, they were three-wheelers, right? There wasn't quads. And I mean, even I could do some pretty basic repairs on my three-wheeler. And then things have become very digital and much more complex.

And I just want to add, in the communities I serve, there is no dealer. There is no dealer. So I can't support this amendment. Thanks.

Thank you. With that, I will maintain my objection. Ms. Tenney, please call the roll.

Representative Proksch.

Pass. Representative St. Clair. Yes. Representative Nelson. Yes.

Representative Hall. No. Representative Holland. Pass. Representative Prox.

Shit, I have to renew my membership in the Chronically Indecisive. Yes. Representative Holland.

No. Co-chair Hemmschulte. No. Co-chair Mears. No.

3 Yeas, 4 nays. And with a vote of 3 yeas and 4 nays, Amendment Number 3, also numbered T.7, is not adopted by the— Representative Nelson.

Um, I'm gonna withdraw Amendment 4. Um, if I could actually— I'll move Amendment 4. Object. Um, after talking with the Department of Law, um, our, uh, our concern was that it would provide a double right of action essentially, or, um, but that's our intent. First, please.

Pardon? Could you explain it a little bit first? Yeah, so what this was going to do is basically prevent a a private right of action if the AG was taking action on behalf of citizens. And so after talking with the Department of Law, we had it drafted, but that's already covered under statute. So with that, I will withdraw Amendment 4.

Thank you. For a moment, so that is not adopted. Amendment number 5, Representative Nelson. Okay, I move Amendment 5 to 11. Object.

Representative Nelson. So we've already kind of crossed the Rubicon on this, and I— in talking with my constituents, this was the biggest concern, was not iPhones or e-waste their biggest concerns were frustrations about not being able to fix motor vehicles, which we've talked about in this committee as well. And so this amendment, even though these are exempted and I recognize the reasons why they are, I think that— I don't know— it would, it would I recognize that, as was discussed when this question was asked, that it would open the floodgates of the lobbyist ire. And so that's why it wasn't brought initially. And I don't necessarily want to do that, but I do want to point out that, um, this is the biggest frustration that people have.

That affects their actual everyday lives in the most negative way. And so I just want to point that out. Um, it's regrettable that we are setting a precedent like this, but I also— I'm not in support of the bill at all, and so I'm not in support of this amendment. So with that, I will be withdrawing Amendment 5. Thank you, Thank you, Representative Nelson.

And that concludes Representative Nelson's suite of amendments. So relax a moment, although I'm sure you still have more to say as we, as we go along. Now I look to Representative St. Clair. I move Amendment Number 6T.2. Object, Representative St. Clair.

The purpose of this is is basically starting from scratch.

The, uh, it takes out the digital product diagnosis and maintenance, um, because it forces businesses, uh, to do something that they weren't necessarily intending to do. And it's actually going to put other small businesses out of business if you've got independent repair So instead of taking your three-wheeler to the guy in town that fixes three-wheelers, you're going to fix it yourself and potentially put him out of business because they're going directly with the manufacturer. Um, an example, um, I don't know how many of you know, uh, Diesel Tuners. You can go in and you can tune your diesel to Eco, pulling, towing, and extreme. I'm not going to say what I did with one on extreme, but that was not— putting it in extreme mode basically gives all the fuel, all the air, everything gives you more power than you can expect, which is not what was intended by the manufacturer when they made it.

So allowing some of these tools to just go directly to individuals versus service providers and the manufacturers can actually destroy the equipment. Let's see, I talked about that. And this bill, from the research I've done, is the most restrictive right to repair— actually, not restrictive, I want to say it's the, the most exclusive, not inclusive inclusive enough than any of the other right to repairs that I've seen. And when it comes to motor vehicles, which I think is, is another one that I have coming up, there aren't a lot of states that have motor vehicles or this in their, in their right to repair legislation. I'm going to look to the bill sponsor for comment.

Yes, thank you to the co-chair. We are not in support of this amendment, um, and just to clarify, um, what the amendment would do, um, my understanding was that it deletes, um, the, uh, subsection B of 45.45.800 and leaves A as the sole part of that section. So it would not require documentation parts and tools to be updated. Is that understanding correct? Representative Sinclair, through the chair.

No, it's not. It says delete Section A. A digital product manufacturer shall, as required under the statute, make available to independent service providers. That's not what it says. Through the chair, it's deleting Section B.

It's deleting the A, but that's just a grammatical correction. The effect of it is the intent was that it removed all of— yeah, if you look at line— excuse me, through the chair, on Amendment Number 6, if you look at line 4, page 2, it's deleting lines 2 through 5. That's the substance of Section B. Through the chair, the intent was that all of Article 12 Alpha be removed, which is Section A and B. That was the intent behind it.

Section 45.45-800, requiring manufacturers to provide this to private citizens or owners of digital equipment. Ms.

Sluchinski. Through the chair to Representative St. Clair, we're in opposition because that would eliminate the heart of the bill and what aiming to do with providing right to repair to independent repair providers and consumers.

Through the chair, Representative St. Clair, to do what you want to do, you would need to make a conceptual amendment here to change lines 1 and 2 of your amendment, I think, to get it to do what you want it to do. Not, not that that would gain my support, but right now the amendment isn't doing what you just said. I move conceptual amendment number 1. Representative St. Clair. To amendment number 6.

Would like to change page 1. It would basically be line 9 through Page 2, line 1.

That doesn't work either. That doesn't do it either?

To the chair. You want to withdraw that conceptual amendment? I withdraw that conceptual amendment. Representative Holland. Thank you.

To the chair, I'm reluctant to help because I don't support the amendment. Same. Because I think to the bill sponsor's point, if you remove this section, you essentially remove— you basically delete the whole bill in its scope. If you wanted to do what you're attempting to do, you would be deleting essentially line— page 1, line 8 through page 2, line 5.

But I'm not going to move that conceptual amendment for you, and I wouldn't support it if it happened. Okay, through the chair, based on, on comments we're getting right now, I'm gonna go ahead and withdraw this amendment because the intent was to, uh, gut the bill. So I withdraw it at this time because there doesn't appear to be enough support for it. Representative St. Clair. Amendment number 7.

Move amendment number 7, Tango Dot 3. Object. It deals with parts pairing. Manufacturers should be allowed to, to have specific— their products have genuine parts that are paired with what they make, then not aftermarket parts. And you— and it's like what was said before, you kind of— it's the Bosch thing.

You you look at what you're getting knowing that, uh, that, uh, your ability to repair or not repair. Um, so I support this amendment because— and, and it's the, the government getting in the way of private business. We shouldn't be telling them what spare parts, uh, can and can't be used. So I support, um, uh, removing, uh, this language, uh, from the bill.

I look to the bill sponsor for comment on the amendment. To the co-chair, we are not in support of this amendment. Parts pairing has increasingly been used to, rather than verify repairs, just to prevent them. It requires consumers to go through authorized repair networks, which, as we have stated, are often inaccessible in Alaska, just to have, even if it is a genuine part, like we've heard from farmers with John Deere that they got a genuine part and tried to do the replacement themselves. But because it was digitally serialized, it essentially bricked the functioning of their product because they have to get it reset by the authorized service provider, which is costly and often inaccessible, especially in Alaska.

And the Federal Trade Commission actually still has a lawsuit pending over more than just that practice against John Deere, but that is part of it. We spoke with the legislator behind the Oregon Right to Repair bill, and they said the provision they were most proud of getting passed within the bill was the banning of parts pairing because of how, um, large of a barrier it provides to repair. So we're not in support of this amendment. I'm going to call this to the co-chair. This is the Keurig Amendment because that was what happened to me.

Even though the thing said it worked with Keurig, put it in the Keurig and it wouldn't work. And I just— whatever we can do to prevent that from happening, because I'm stuck with this thing that doesn't work and a Keurig that I can't use, or I could have used but have to buy the disposable things. And I think consumers are getting, getting taken to the cleaners. So I don't think I'm going to support this one. Representative Holland.

Great, thank you. This is a problematic amendment for me. This has been essentially my life for 40 years, is being a part of businesses that design proprietary products and in many cases patented products that then had protection over all the replacement parts. That's the business model, is you create a razor and then you sell razor blades. You make a coffee maker and you sell pods.

It's a business model. It is protected through our country's Constitution that folks can come up with innovative new solutions and protect their ability to sell what they have invented to do that. And it is hard for me to— on one hand, I get it that folks get frustrated when they buy a printer for $100 and then they get a little ticked off that they have to go to the store and buy the name-brand replacement print cartridges for $50 a set, and they wonder, is this fair? Without realizing that they could have been asked to pay a fair market value of that printer of, call it, $600 or $800 and then had access to an open market, but they chose to buy the $100 printer and benefit from that low cost of acquisition in exchange, and that's the way the world works in our current proprietary product innovation-based economy, and it's a wonderful economy. It provides the incentive for manufacturers to come up with new amazing things like a Keurig coffee machine, to use that name brand that came up before, or printers are familiar with.

So part of me is struggling with having this language in there because it's essentially taking away a foundation of what so many products and innovations in our economy depend upon is a product being able to invent— a company being able to invent a new product and then being able to have some control over monetizing the benefit of that product. And in some cases they do that through controlling the aftermarket supply. We made the base product, you're going to have to come to us to buy the replacement product. The other concern I have with the— section is that for many digital products, pairing is a necessary part of configuration. As you bring in one section of a digital product, it has to be able to talk to another part of the digital product, and the configuration's unique to each one, and the versions of all the components and the firmware on there, they've all got to be matched up, and if they're not completely 100% aligned, Things don't work because you assume that.

So that pairing is a necessary part of it. Do I think that in some cases manufacturers take that to an extreme? Probably happens. I mean, that's just— as we talked about earlier in this hearing, there's cases where folks are going to work the edges of these rules to a large degree. But the fact is, pairing is a necessary part of the functionality of digital products to be able to make sure that you know that the part you put in is properly configured, matched up to the part that it's being installed in, so it's all going to work correctly.

And you can't just always drop in something that you think kind of looks the same and think that it's going to work the same. So, anyway, at the moment, I'm in favor of this amendment. The section on parts pairing, I think, has some good aspects to it in terms of, you know, I think there is a place to look for making sure consumers are not being abused unnecessarily. On the other hand, intellectual property replacement part business models and the functionality of digital products that need to be able to have some sort of, um, pairing connection in order to be properly configured needs to exist, and this takes away some of those pathways. So I'm concerned about the language to begin with and always was.

This amendment would, um, help remove those concerns. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I also am in support of Amendment 7. I think that we've talked about it some.

I have problems even with Section 2(b) talking about the misleading alerts or warnings that the owner cannot immediately dismiss. Some of these digital products as they would be defined here. Um, how is that defined? How do we— what is it? What is a misleading alert or warning?

The machine doesn't know, the computer doesn't know what the problem is necessarily, just knows that something's wrong. Some parts pairing is absolutely required. And well, I'm going to save that for later. Um, but well, no, I, I will say, because I think it was brought up on this, the the example of the John Deere tractor. Now, I recognize John Deere is going through litigation right now, but, um, I'll go into more detail later, but the continual insinuation that our John Deere dealer here in the state is abusing customers, that frustrates me incredibly.

Frankly, they've taken that business in just the last couple decades from like $11 million to almost $120 million. And they haven't done that by gouging customers. And so I'm just— I recognize that there is frustrations from some customers, as there will be in any business, but anecdotal examples of a frustrated John Deere customer who apparently got the John Deere part, and I know for a fact that you can get the software reset that from a John Deere, and it can cost you, I think it's $200 a year per machine, and you get complete access. So I have to push back on that because it's been brought up almost in every hearing, and I think is disrespectful to the owners and the business in this state. So I support Amendment 7.

Representative Nelson, I think that characterization was a little extreme. But, um, uh, Ms. Snowberger. Oh, yes, um, thank you, Co-Chair Mears. For the record, Sarah Snowberger, staff to Rep. Dibert. I just had another comment of something when we were doing this bill we brought— got brought up a lot, and I, I think that it has been brought up in this hearing, so I apologize for repeating it, but it's something that we all have— phones.

Um, and one of the biggest problems with parts pairing that brought up, at least when we were talking to a lot of consumers, especially in the state of Alaska, was the fact that you buy this $1,000+ phone that we all need every single day, especially in this building and the jobs that we're doing. And when you talked about the messages that you will get, there's constantly a problem with phones where you go online to buy a charger or Nowadays, if you buy an iPhone, it doesn't even come with the charging block anymore. And so you have to go out and Apple, for example, but many phones charge an extraordinary amount for the blocks and the chargers themselves. So you go and buy an Apple-certified charging unit and eventually over time you use it, it works a few times and then all of a sudden it says does not parts pair. You get a big message on your phone that says, "Does not parts pair with this product," or the charging block doesn't work.

And so just because that was brought up so many times to our office, and I'm not saying— Emma did a great job of explaining why there's so many more reasons for this. I just wanted to throw one more example that was brought to us many, many times because it is an everyday basis, and I'm sure it's happened to to almost every single one of us in this room as a frustration. But I couldn't go without mentioning that since it was brought to our office many, many times. But there's many more examples. But thank you for letting me share that.

Representative Himschuk. Yeah, this is such a fine line to have to make a decision on something like this because I'm kind of, you know, I, I, the Keurig is a name brand, and so I don't support a business model that says you can only use one thing with this one thing, because I didn't, in that case, it was a shared piece of equipment and it wasn't the low-end model, right? So for them to then continue making money off of disposable pods, to me, again, for my communities, We ship, we pay to ship our solid waste south. We barge it out of our communities. And I'm hoping for a better solution to that someday.

But in the meantime, every single one of those things, every single time you have something go wrong and you can't trust that the part you bought is going to be able to work even though it says it will, where I live, a lot of that stuff goes right into the garbage. By the time you pay the postage to send it back. So, um, this is tricky stuff, really tricky stuff. But this business model, I think, is not good for Alaska. And the inability of people in my region to be able to buy something that says it will work, have it not work, then you're delayed because you have to get a different one.

You're not going to get your money money back, um, because you've already tried to use it, and then nobody else can use it either. So now you're throwing it away. So, um, I'm not going to support this amendment. Representative Sinclair, then Representative Nelson. Uh, yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, and, and again, when I had conversations with, um, Miss Solinsky— and I apologize if I butchered your name— um, the, the, the thing we talked about additionally was about you know, iPhones and phones. Why don't we just make this a phone bill then? When you talk about the Keurig, I understand that I've gotten bad parts that, that don't fit. Also, I usually go back and try and get another one or use something to, to modify it, but then again, I am a little mechanically inclined. Um, if— and Keurig is a brand name— going to, uh, what the, the Coach Air was talking about, and I've had that same issue.

I just went and bought a different part or did something else. It wasn't, uh, overly expensive. And the parts pairing is— it, yes, it, it's a business model. It's how you retain customers, whether we like it or not. If you don't like that business model, don't do business with them.

You have that option. You know, consumers can make their feelings known, uh, by their feet and their wallet, just not buying the stuff. So I do support this. Actually, I do support the amendment because it's mine. That works better than last.

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Uh, final comment. Um, once again, this entire conversation is revolving around Amendment 3, just as a recap. But also, with that being said, as it sits here now with this parts pairing language.

Um, if this bill were to go through, everyone's familiar with the company Hewlett-Packard, and I knew those gentlemen, and I learned to swim in Mr. Packard's pool, and my family for generations managed their ranches, and my cousin still does. And they, in a garage which is a national monument, built the first color printer And if you bought it, there was no opportunity for somebody to go and make some other little cartridge. You had to buy HP parts. If this bill went through, them protecting their legitimate, uh, product for a long time would not be possible. So I support Amendment 7.

Further discussion? Ms. Luchinski. Yes, thank you to the co-chair. Um, just to address some of the points that were brought up, parts pairing has increasingly been used to monopolize repairs. Manufacturers force consumers to go to their authorized repair providers in order to get the parts serialized, which prevents them from installing or replacing parts that they would otherwise be able to do.

In the case of John Deere, in— this is one of the sources in my response letter to the committee. I'm not sure if any of you happened to read it, but it's estimated that John Deere's practices that monopolized repairs cost farmers, I believe it was $1.4 billion. And the class action lawsuit, they just settled for $99 million, which is just a fraction of that cost. And the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit is still ongoing over these practices that monopolize repairs and force consumers to go through authorized repair networks and pay exorbitant costs. It discourages competition and a free and fair marketplace.

We want our independent repair shops in Alaska and our consumers to have the chance to repair their own products rather than being forced to, say, drive all the way to Anchorage just to get a new phone installed in their iPhone. Um, I don't know if y'all could see, but my phone had a little accident accident. It's pretty, pretty crushed up, and it's, uh, I'm having to wait until I can go to Anchorage to get that repaired. And we don't believe that that's a repair landscape that is good for Alaskans or good for small businesses. So just to reiterate, those are some of the reasons that we oppose this amendment.

Thank you. Um, Representative Yes, thank you.

Just comment, I received a letter from some lobbying organization that was opposed to this whole bill, and I wrote them a terse letter back, basically complaining that we just didn't have the I wanted them to tell me about the authorized dealers, and it turned out there were more than I thought there were, and they are making an effort to, um, authorize more dealers. It speaks to the independent dealer part of this.

I guess the problem is that we don't have enough independent dealers that are going through the trouble of being certified by the manufacturer.

And I think if we— my concern is if this is enforced for iPhones as an example, that those products would just disappear. Appear from the Alaska market, which again, frankly, would make me happy, but I don't know that, um, other Alaskans would be happy with that. This is a frustrating business model, but makes a good point that some businesses do make their money off of the getting the right printer cartridges, and that's just one of the risks you have to be aware of. And so I think the only viable solution is to quit buying the damn stuff until they come up with a better business model. But this probably is going to backfire if we, if we, uh, yeah, force manufacturers to do something that just might not be possible to do in this small market.

So I guess I reluctantly support this amendment. Representative Prox, I appreciate your personal commentary, but please keep your language clean. Rep. Kocher-Hempschulte. Thank you, through the chair. I just— I'm just gonna take one more bite at the apple here.

I had a problem with my iPhone. I happened to be going to Anchorage. I got to Anchorage and I called them ahead and said, I'm coming with this problem. They said, well, we can't guarantee that we will have the part, but we will order it when you bring it in. And I said, well, that's, you know, not really great either, because this is a however, you know, $1,000 phone.

So I get there, I take it in, they don't have the part, but they'll order it for the next time I come through Anchorage, but they can't guarantee they'll hold on to to it in case somebody else needs it and it's not a part they're going to have a bunch of in the store. So I'm basically stuck with a lemon. There's nothing you can do, whereas I'm confident my nephew could have gotten in there and probably fixed the thing had he been able to get the parts. And so it's the cost of the item, it's the cost of the travel to get the item fixed if it's something that can travel, it's the time. It's a lot of stuff, so I suggest these companies change their business model.

Charge me more for the item, fine, but don't make me keep paying and keep paying and keep paying to make the item work.

And with that, I will maintain my objection. Ms. Tenney, please call the roll. Can I give some closing comments? I apologize. Through the chair.

Representative St. Clair. I just wanted to answer— there are a whole bunch of questions that that got thrown in there and comments, um, through the chair, uh, to the co-chair, um, the parts, that's not the issue. This would absolutely do nothing, uh, for having parts on hand, um, in, in Alaska. It just, it's the nature of the beast and where we live. I understand frustration with that because I've had that before.

However, parts pairing, um, I don't think having this legislation in there or not having to parts pair for an iPhone-specific item that is even within the scope of this, this legislation. Additionally, Miss Solchinski— they spelled your name out for me— if you had gotten sent a camera, could you repair it? Could you repair your iPhone? Uh, through the chair to Representative St. Clair, no. And that's why we support allowing independent repair providers to have the access to those parts and documentation without the serializing the digital components.

Because if someone in Juneau, the repair shop that I took it to, was able to repair that, I would have paid the money to do so. But without the authorization of Apple, I'm not able to get that done. And it goes back to authorized dealer. I looked in, and there are 3 iPhone repair places here in Juneau.

I had 2 more things.

We talked about the parts pairing and sending it to the consumer. That puts small businesses, as we talked about about, um, out of business. The authorized dealers here, uh, would potentially go out of business because all their business is now being done by the consumer. So I think parts pairing, um, should be allowed. It's a business model.

If they choose to use it and you don't like it, you can take your business elsewhere.

That's all I have, ma'am. Thank you, Ms. Slocinski. Yes, thank you to the co-chair. Um, we are against parts pairing because it, uh, is anti-consumer, it's anti-free market, it's anti-small business. Um, it is the case that authorized repair providers will still be preferred because of their expertise, because of their knowledge, because of their reputation for being able to repair those products.

The issue is that we don't have those authorized repair providers in Alaska. We have one for Apple, or the only location for Apple authorized repairs are in Anchorage. So if you're in on the North Slope, if you're in Southeast, it could cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars just to get there. To get it repaired without the cost of the actual repairs being factored in. And the Federal Trade Commission is engaged in several lawsuits right now because parts pairing is anti-competitive.

And the amount of businesses that are engaging in it means that there's very few places you can turn when it comes to, say, smartphones that allow and have a robust repair landscape. We just want to give the option to consumers and to independent repair providers. This would actually help support small businesses because in Alaska we have many of these independent repair shops, but they're not able to fill those gaps left by the lack of authorized repairs. Parts pairing is not good for consumers. And it is a way to artificially inflate manufacturers' profits that, um, the Federal Trade Commission has opposed.

So, uh, there are protections for business models, for intellectual property, and we believe that those should be in there. But, um, these artificial monopolies we don't believe should have the right to exist. Final word, Representative Sinclair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you, you mentioned the comment, not enough authorized dealers in the state of Alaska.

Um, I don't think this increases the number of authorized dealers. We're in Alaska. If you want, um, a Starbucks on every corner, you know, you've got Seattle. I know because I used to live there and I took— anyway, um, it's, it's, it's the nature of the beast and Don't buy an iPhone. Thank you.

I'll maintain my objection. Miss Tenney, please call the roll. Representative Holland? Yes. Representative Prox?

Yes. Representative St. Clair? Yes. Representative Nelson? Yes.

Representative Hall? No. Co-chair Hemmschuh? No. Co-chair Muir?

No. 4 Yeas, 3 nays. And a vote of 4 to 3, Amendment Number 7 is adopted. Representative Sinclair? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move Amendment 8, Tango Dot 4. Object. Okay, what this amendment does is it goes into the same thing— actually, it might have I have been the same thing as Representative Nelson had with the cost. It deletes without charge. The business should be able to, and I know it goes on further, but I think without charge should be taken out of there, and you just say flat out, because you're giving the option to the company to give it for free, which they can do anyway.

Or they can charge for shipping, tech time, uh, finding a pro— nothing— or finding the information, shipping the information, etc. So I just— it, it should be beneficial. The business should be able to, um, charge for this, for the product that they are sending out, or the tool. Um, yes, and I'll leave it with that. Thank you.

And I'll turn to the bill Sponsor for response to the amendment. [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] Yes, to the co-chair, we are not in support of this amendment. The manufacturers are able to provide or to charge costs for the distribution of physical copies. One of the big issues that this seeks to address is, again, the software tools. Which cost nothing to copy and distribute, or like PDF manuals, which again cost nothing.

But by allowing them to charge for these repair materials that they're able to reproduce at no cost, it allows them to create barriers to repair. They could charge hundreds of dollars for a software tool that is free to reproduce. So we are not in support of this amendment. Ms. Snowbird. Yes, if I may, Co-Chair Mears, question to the sponsor of the amendment.

Could you explain the second part of the amendment, the page 3, line 8?

Representative St. Clair, when you're ready.

Oh, it adds a semicolon instead of a— it's a technical fix. Okay, my apologies. I did miss the semicolon. Thank you. Before we get into discussion, I want to note this is the last 3 amendments and we've got about half an hour left.

So if we're thoughtful in our comments and efficient, that would be helpful. Representative Holland. Thank you. Through the co-chair, thank you for clarifying the second part. I've been sitting here trying to figure out what the difference was, and I could not see the comma for the semicolon, so now my brain feels much better.

I am supporting the amendment. I think one of the discussions that we had before, but I, you know, continue to have concern about, is the notion that hosting software is somehow free. It's not. The time and effort that a company goes through to create a customer portal, to curate the material, to keep it current, to provide the hosting— in some cases, if they are trying to protect access to that material, to make sure that it's from a qualified owner or someone that should be getting it— requires systems for validation and authentication. Authentication.

So, while I certainly agree with the general notion that the marginal cost of allowing one download versus the next download is pretty darn small, the hosting cost is not insignificant, and there is a cost to it. There's a benefit to the customer to have access to it, and I support the notion that the manufacturer should be able to cover costs of hosting and providing the software, not just the physical copy. Representative Prox. Yes, thank you. I support the amendment as well because it is very difficult to say what it actually cost.

It cost $2 million to provide the first copy and the next one cost 10 cents, but they got a bunch— they got to sell a bunch of them at 10 cents to require to recoup the $2 million. And just from previous experience, I used to purchase factory service manuals and they were expensive, $300 or $400. The alternative was to purchase, what was it, Chilton's manuals, and somebody just took the car apart put it back together and documented what they did. And they worked pretty good. So you had that choice.

And this still could be done, and I think people are in fact doing that. But to dictate that charge again would be problematic to the original copyright holder really. So this— I support this amendment. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

And this is going to end up being a question for the, the bill sponsor. With this, um, whether this amendment went through or not, because I mean it talks about— well, it talks about physical tools. And so my question is, software doesn't cost nothing. Maybe Cinegate does, but— and I'm assuming that Apple spends significantly more in developing software than John Deere does, although both numbers are significant. And so this kind of goes back to like the documentation.

So if this went through— so I don't know if this would be a— I mean, this is some of the problems I have with this whole bill are how do you enforce enforce this? If this went through, how would you determine what's a reasonable price for a piece of software? To Rep. Prox's point, if it got developed yesterday, then it's worth a lot more than if it's been sitting for months or years. Like, how, how is this enforceable? Even going— I mean, I don't know how it'd be enforceable.

I don't know if that's a question for you. I support the amendment because it's not free, nothing costs nothing. But I mean, I just have no idea how this is enforceable, or who defines what's a reasonable cost, as it said multiple times in here. That would be the question for the bill sponsor. I apologize.

How would we define what a reasonable cost is? Ms. Szelchinski. I can provide some Language from other right-to-repair legislation, if that's helpful. So for Colorado, for example, fair and reasonable terms and costs means with respect to obtaining documentation, embedded software, firmware, or tools from a manufacturer to provide services, costs and terms that are equivalent to the most favorable costs and terms the manufacturer offers to an authorized repair provider and costs that are no greater than the manufacturer's suggested retail price, including terms that are equivalent to the methods and timeliness of delivery. Costs under this section are calculated using net costs incurred, accounting for any discounts, rebates, convenient and timely means of delivery, means of enabling fully restored and updated functionality, rights of use, or other incentives or preferences offered.

Follow up. So is it basically a reasonable cost is what the manufacturer did? You said, I think you said MSRP basically, right? I mean, is that what it said in there? I think I caught that.

Um, Ms. Slocinski, through the chair to Representative Austin, could you elaborate? MSRP, manufacturer suggested retail price. Okay. That was a yes. Representative Sinclair.

Only in closing, if—.

In closing? In closing, thank you, Madam Chair. Rep. Holland hit the nail right on the head, and it was a point that I was going to make. There is a cost associated with software, with CDs, with development of software, and putting a price tag on it is cost recovery. Cost recovery is something that we acknowledge here in Alaska with salmon, recovering the costs of the hatcheries, etc.

It's not free. It can't be free. And I'm not going to regurgitate the same points as Rep. Holland, but there is a cost associated with it. The manufacturer now gets to set that charge based on what they do with independent independent dealers, but they're going to charge. They need to charge.

If they didn't charge anything, they'd go out of business. Thank you.

Thank you. We've wrapped up. Ms. Sluchinski, I'll maintain my objection. Ms. Tenney, please call the roll. Representative Hall?

No. Representative Nelson? Yes. Representative Holland. Yes.

Representative Prox. Yes. Representative St. Clair. Yes. Co-chair Hamschute.

No. Co-chair Mears. No. 4 Yeas, 3 nays. And with a vote of 4 yeas and 3 nays, Amendment Number 8, also known as T.4, has adopted.

We'll do another time check. 25 Minutes and 2 amendments to go. Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment 9, Tango Dot 5.

Object. Representative St. Clair. This removes powersports out of— it adds it as an exemption. And talking to manufacturers and the example that Ms. Zielinski and I talked about was a four-wheeler breaking down out in the middle of nowhere. Again, parts became the issue, but this does nothing to address parts.

If it was to stockpile parts, that would be a different story. And, and to the co-chair's comment about the iPhone and needing the part and then they ordered the part, it's inventory and stock is what that deals with, not necessarily pertaining to this. And as the co-chair stated, with their three-wheel four-wheeler. I have an old '03 four-wheeler that the electronics went out on it, and I put a push button to start it, um, because the parts were available. I just chose not to.

So this— in the definition of powersports concerned me because— actually, no, that's not what concerned me. Um, Just removing power sports. We all, we all use them. They, they do have electronics. You can Google the information.

And when it comes to the parts, again, they don't stockpile all the parts. Normally a Snow Go will have a spare belt and a spare spark plug, you know, the basic things. And if you understand the function of a motor, you can usually fix it or bypass it. So that's the purpose of this amendment. Before I go to the bill sponsor, to the co-chair, do you still have a three-wheeler?

Through the co-chair, I do not. Thank you very much. Just to set the record straight. I do. To the bill sponsor, do you have a comment on this amendment?

Yes, if I may, Co-Chair Mears. This is Sarah Snowberger from Rep. Dibert's office. To the— to Representative St. Clair. I just have a quick question before we respond. You said that you're removing the power sports because it doesn't have to do with parts.

Is that— is that what you said correctly? Representative St. Clair. Through the chair, it actually removed power sports, period. It's not just because of the parts. The parts was one of the rationales that was given for using power sports when I when I spoke to, uh, Miss Zolchinsky, and I'm looking at you so I get it right, um, that was one of the examples that she brought up.

Parts has nothing to do with this. It still takes a long time to get parts in Alaska. Um, the, the software to fix it, uh, Alaskans are pretty resilient. So the, the parts argument that it's hard to get parts doesn't really fit, um, because that's a problem we have now, and this bill does absolutely nothing to fix it. So the removal of power sports is because it's something that is involved in our day-to-day lives.

We can fix small businesses, uh, repair shops. I mean, I've had my neighbor bring his lawnmower over to me. Hey, I can't figure this out. I figured it out, got it started for him and sent him on his way. So, and I would just like to take power sports out of this completely.

Great, thank you. Uh, just, I don't support this amendment. I just want to note that I think the way the bill sponsor is currently handling powersports, which is to protect the dealer model and the dealerships, is appropriate. And, you know, if we're going down the path of a right to repair, I think the bill speaks to the ability of people to have different ways of accessing the resources to be able to fix their products, in this case powersports. So to that degree, kind of like the earlier discussion about if we're going to allow fixing anything, it ought to be motor vehicles— well, that's been exempted.

But I think powersports needs to stay, and I think the way they've handled it in the bill is appropriate for protecting the dealers, for protecting the access that this bill's intent is for in terms of consumer access to parts, tools, and repair equipment. Thank you, Representative Nelson. I'm expecting a reference Mr. Three-Wheeler? Um, yes, called the Red Dragon. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

I wasn't anticipating that. Um, but yeah, it was, uh, an amalgam of multiple three-wheelers. We used to get them free whenever we would buy Zimmatic pivots for irrigation. I'm going to be in support of this amendment. I think we're going down this road now where we bring up these other states as examples and there are a litany of exemptions which I tried to avoid, and the conversation continues to keep coming back to personal electronics.

And so, um, this is, I guess, the first kind of bite at the apple. And so I'm going to be in support of this amendment, um, purely on philosophical grounds, but also I recognize that that there are— I just, I've not experienced the inability to fix any kind of a powersport. And if we are going to be looking at other states, other states have exempted them for a variety of reasons. And, and I honestly don't see how this bill would fix the, you know, a broken-down four-wheeler in the middle of nowhere. So we are now going down this path, and if this bill moves forward out of this committee and eventually makes it to the floor, then I will be coming forward with more amendments along the same lines.

So I will be in support.

Rep, a response from the bill sponsor and then wrap up from Representative St. Clair. Yeah, if I may, really quick, and then I'm gonna pass it off to Ms. Sulkosinski. Again, for the For the record, this is Sarah Snowberger from Brad Dybert's office. I would just like to know that in the state of Alaska, I don't believe— I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure in other states you're not allowed to drive like four-wheelers, three-wheelers, for example, on roads, etc. And so if you look at four-wheelers now, they don't make three-wheelers, but four-wheelers nowadays have an electronic display, and that is a lot about this bill.

And so if you're talking about safety measures, especially in rural communities where this is your main vehicle, if your dashboard were to go out, you can no longer see how fast you're going, the, the gas that you have left in it. There are a lot more of electronic— unfortunately, it's still— you can go out and you can fix it in the field and you don't need it at that time, but if this is your day-to-day mode of transportation, and this goes the same for snow machines as well, that electronic— unfortunately, I wish it wasn't. I miss the old ways that we had. I had 3-wheelers too. But that's the kind of part of life that we're living in now.

And in rural communities, or even, you know, out in, like Matt Sue, I spend a lot of time snowmobiling and using side-by-sides out there. It's still hard to get those parts and components so that you can use it when that's the reality of what they build now. So I'd just like to make that comment and then pass it off to Ms. Jelczynski, please. Yes, uh, to the chair, we are in opposition to this amendment because not only are powersports equipment just like vital in many areas of Alaska, it would help by allowing them the parts, tools, and documentation to be able to fix these products in a safe and effective manner. A lot of people rely on their, their four-wheelers, their ATVs, their snow machines, but as they become more complicated and more modernized, people are still going to try to fix them themselves, but without the schematics and the manuals, it's, um, harder to do that safely in a manner that is effective.

So we want Alaskans to have the ability to repair those products in a safe and effective manner. And it does, uh, address gaps in the lack of access to repairs, like we heard from Joe Torma of Green Star in previous hearings. About how his business, which fixes up, uh, electronics and things, has suffered from a lack of access to parts manufacturers won't sell to, um, those who are not in their authorized dealership network. And that might not be as widespread of an issue with powersports, but this would still help by expanding access. So, Nelson, please keep it brief because we got one more amendment and a discussion of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Um, in my experience, I have replaced— um, in my experience, the more digital these things become, in some ways almost the easier these particular parts are to replace because it's literally just plugs. And I have not experienced, uh, being unable to get and replace a display. So, I mean, if we're just tossing out anecdotal stories, it's actually becoming easier to replace significant parts, especially when it comes to monitoring. So that's it.

I'm still in support of amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll make this real brief in closing. Uh, the same comment— parts, parts, parts, parts. This has nothing to do— this legislation is, is when it comes to, uh, the availability of parts.

That is— it really isn't in this legislation. Pulling out a display out of a four-wheeler is about 8 screws, and like Rep, um, Nelson said, you unplug it. But again, we fix our, our own stuff, and I'm sure Alaskans do the same way. But it all goes back to parts, and you gave us one example of a dealer that said that he can't get the parts because he's not an authorized repair. Um, why isn't he an authorized repair?

That was a rhetorical question. That wasn't necessarily requiring an answer. So I asked you to support this, uh, amendment. It was an electronics recycler, Green Star, I believe. Uh, so I will maintain my objection.

Ms. Tenney, please call the roll. Representative Sinclair. Yes. Representative Nelson. Yes.

Representative Hall. No. Representative Holland. No. Representative Prox.

Yes. Representative co-chair Himschute. No. Co-chair Muir. No.

3 Yeas, 4 nays. With a vote of 3 to 4, Amendment Number 9 is not adopted. On to our final amendment. Representative St. Clair. Madam Co-Chair, thank you.

I will be quick. All that— I move amendment number 10, tango dot 6. Object. And the only thing is this is moving the effective date out 5 years.

Thank you. I'll look to the bill sponsor for comment.

Thank you to the Co-Chair. We are in opposition to this amendment. We believe that Alaskans should have the right to repair their products without having to wait, um, 4 years for that to happen. Uh, there has been, um, in right to repair legislation, some of the first ones that were passed, there was lead-up time to allow manufacturers the time to adjust. However, that has been in place for several years now, and manufacturers have have had to adjust to the EU's regulation for large companies.

Small companies we don't anticipate will be affected to that same degree, so we don't believe that that lead-up time is necessary and support the 2027 effective date.

Co-chair— or, um, Representative Holland, co-chair is your title later in our meeting this afternoon. Thank you, co-chair. Um, I, I support the intent of this amendment, I think having the effectivity in 2027 is unreasonable for the dealers, for the companies doing work in Alaska. I'm going to move Conceptual Amendment Number 1 to Amendment Number 10 to change the date in line 3 to 2029. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] change.

Okay, so conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 10. Can you please repeat that date, Representative Holland? 2029. So it would read line 3 in amendment 10 would be insert 2029. All right, is there a further discussion on amendment number 10.

Um, I will, um, actually, um, the sponsor of the bill, do you have a comment on the date change, 2029?

[Speaker:DR. LISA SMITH] If it's necessary to gain the support of the committee, then— and allow manufacturers lead-up time to prepare, we do support 2029 over 2031 to be certain. Though we would prefer the 2027 if it's necessary to the committee. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER ARKOOSH] Thank you. I will withdraw my objection. 10 Is adopted.

Is there any further objection? I object. Would you like to speak to your objection? I think if we're going to do it, let's do it.

Representative Troxell.

Well, I speak in favor of Amendment 10 as amended. I guess the way I'm thinking about this whole bill is that it's kind of a shot across the bow.

I'm not really sure how far this goes because it's a really complicated problem, and I would bet that we're either going to get manufacturers boycotting Alaska, if you will, or we're going to get lawsuits. So giving this an extra couple years is probably a good idea. We might be able to straighten a few things out and make it work better.

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I would like to echo what Rep. Prock said, and I think, you know, the— it is a shot across the bow, and I I feel conflicted because I oppose the bill and the thing that my constituents want the most in it, I know would destroy it and would destroy the sponsor. I mean, I recognize that, so I'm conflicted about this. It is a shot across the bow.

I don't think the ramifications have been— well, at least the ones that I've been concerned with have been adequately addressed. And I think at least if it goes through as is, that is absolutely what's going to happen, is that there will be companies that absolutely will not comply. And but giving it a couple more years to work those details out, I think, is prudent if we're going to move forward with this, because it is a shot across the bow. And shots across the bow are not friendly high fives. This is going to cost the state money.

And so I think trying to at least move that down the path a little bit— this is not kicking the can down the road. If it goes through as is, it will be established and there will be a hard date. Um, and we're here now, so I support the amendment as amended. Okay, Representative Herschuk, do you maintain your objection? Yep.

Ms. Tennant, please call the roll.

Representative Prox. Yes. Representative St. Clair. Yes. Representative Nelson.

Yes. Representative Hall. Yes. Representative Holland. Yes.

Co-chair Hamshoot—. Nope, Co-chair Mears. No. 4 Yeas, 3 nays. And with a vote Of 4 yeas and 3 nays, Amendment Number 10 is adopted.

And that concludes our amendments. I'd like to note we adopted 5 of the 10 amendments, and there were 3 that were not offered. So with that, um, the bill is before us.

Thank you, Co-Chair Mears. I move HB 162, work order 34-LS0809/T, as amended from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Representative Himschuh, do you make that motion with the ability of legislative to make technical and conforming changes? I would love for legislative to make technical and conforming changes. Thank you very much.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Is there any further discussion before we vote on the bill? Senator Prox? Yes, thank you. Where does the bill go to next if it leaves this committee? I believe it's Labor and Commerce.

That is correct. Any further comments? Representative Holland? Yeah, thank you to the chair. I'll support the effort to move the bill on.

I have concerns about the bill. I'll note those in my individual recommendations, but I'm happy to recognize that we've done the work we can here in this committee. I appreciate the work that the bill sponsor has done to work very hard with many of us individually, and I don't want to slow down the process for perhaps some additional work in the future. Thank you, Representative Nelson. I assume you maintain your objection?

Yeah, I do not want to discount the work that's gone into as well. Uh, thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I apologize, I would just fall into conversation. But I also recognize that there's been a lot of hard work done, um, and, uh, I am sad that we don't get to discuss it further, frankly. But it is what it is, and this is the process.

So I will maintain my objection. Thank you, Miss Tenny. Please call the roll. Representative Holland? Yes.

Representative Prox? No. Representative St. Clair? No. Representative Nelson?

No. Representative Hall? Yes. Co-chair Himschute? Yes.

Co-chair Mears? Yes. 4 Yeas and 3 nays. And with a vote of 4 yeas and 3 nays, House Bill 162, Work Order 34-LS0809/T, as amended, moves from to the Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. For everyone, please stay behind.

Thank you all for this work. This is— we have had a lot of Committee hearings on this and done a lot of work and refinement. So I appreciate everyone getting deep into the amendments and thoughts on this. With that, we are concluding our business for today. Please remember our amendment deadlines.

For SB 63, Local Boundary Commission, and House Bill 255, Senior— oh, I wanted to make a change. We will not be hearing Senior Citizen Grants Dividend Raffle on Thursday, so I'm removing that amendment deadline. SB 63, Local Boundary Commission, amendment deadline today at 5:00. PM, and on Thursday we will be hearing that bill again, SB 63, Local Boundary Commission, and there is a committee substitute for House Bill 291, Municipal Property Tax Exemptions. Our intent there is to adopt the CS and do work on that bill over the interim.

And we will be removing House Bill 255, Senior Citizen Grants Dividend Raffle, from the schedule. Seeing no further No further business before the committee. This meeting is adjourned. It is 9:57 AM.