Alaska Legislature: House Community & Regional Affairs, 4/2/26, 8am

Good morning. I call this meeting of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order. Today is Thursday, April 2nd, 2026, and the time is 8:06 AM. Apologies for the late start, that's on me. Members present this morning are Representative Kai Hollen, Representative Mike Prox, Representative Carolyn Hall, Representative Steve St. Clair, Representative Garrett Nelson, Co-Chair Donna Mears, and myself, Co-Chair Rebecca Himschoot. We have a quorum to conduct business. I want to thank the members for being here.

Building's a little empty today, so thank you for sticking around and doing this meeting.

I'd like to remind members and staff to please silence your cell phones, and before we get started I'd also like to thank Sophia Tenney from House Records who's here documenting today's meeting and Jude Augustine from the Juneau LIO assisting us with the meeting recording. We have 4 items on the agenda today and I'm pretty sure this is the order we're going to go in. So House Bill 234 about emergency dispatchers, House Bill 217 that'll be our first hearing on

that bill, autonomous vehicles. We also have a new bill, House Bill 334, on unhoused young adults' IDs and birth certificates. And then we'll bring back House Bill 162, digital product repair for committee conversation with the bill sponsor. Okay, on House Bill 234, it's by Representative Hall. It's the second hearing on the bill.

Would you like to come forward with staff, Maya Narang? And maybe you could give us— put your names on record and give us a brief recap of what the bill does.

Good morning members of the committee. Thank you very much Madam Co-Chair for this opportunity to present um H.B. two three four to the committee again. My name is Carolyn Hall and I represent House District sixteen, um representing the West Anchorage neighbourhoods of Turnagin, Spenard and Sand Lake.

To review, HB 234 does two things. First, it amends the definition of emergency medical dispatcher in statutes relating to emergency medical services to specifically refer to them as first responders. Clarifying the definition recognizes the role dispatchers play in Alaska's first responder system.

Additionally, by clarifying their status as first responders in statute,

dispatch centers may be able to receive additional

may be able to receive federal funding for grants and training opportunities. The reclassification and statute will help align training for all dispatchers across Alaska, which is often much harder to access in smaller communities.

Second, the bill amends the PERS benefits for a peace officer or firefighter to include dispatchers in police or fire departments or in state trooper p offices, placing them in the same benefits category as their first responder colleagues.

At the first hearing, the committee asked why the bill does not include dispatchers within the village public safety officer programme. VPSOs serve regional non-profits and are not employed directly by the state, so VPSOs are not eligible to receive PERS benefits, meaning those dispatchers also would not receive PERS benefits.

By including emergency dispatchers and the peace officers and firefighter class of retirement benefits, local jurisdictions will be able to improve dispatcher recruitment and retention.

The bill's intent is to make available appropriate compensation to emergency response dispatchers who provide a critical public service for our communities every day. Thank you Madam Co-chair.

Thank you, and we have three invited testifiers who are online, should we go straight to those folks? Please. Okay, great. Let's start with

Lieutenant Asche in Sitka.

Lieutenant Asche is listed here as dispatch lieutenant,

but I remember him as our lieutenant in Sitka.

Could you unmute yourself,

please put your name on the record and give us your thoughts about this legislation.

Good morning,

Good morning, my name is John Shea. I'm a lieutenant with the Sitka Police Department.

Good morning.

We're looking at a bill and we're hoping you can give us your thoughts about how this bill would impact dispatch services in rural Alaska and specifically Sitka.

Yes, I'm in complete support of this bill.

I've been in law enforcement here in Alaska for the better part of 35 years from western Alaska all the way to here to southeast Alaska.

And during that time, public safety dispatchers are a very unique breed of person.

that are critical to every community,

especially the smaller communities,

because the phones have to be answered and the resources need to be sent,

and they are critical,

and they should be recognized as such as true first responders.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee?

Okay.

Lieutenant,

I say thank you for taking your time this morning. If you could stay on the line, we have a couple other folks and then if there are questions, we'll come back to you.

So thank you so much. We'll go now to Peter Gurney, Communications Sergeant in Unalaska.

If you could unmute yourself,

put your name on the record and share your thoughts with us about this bill.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Peter Gurney and I serve as the communications sergeant with the Anilaska Department of Public Safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm just going to give you a little background on our job and then I'll end telling you why I think this bill is so important.

Our dispatch staff provides call taking and dispatch services for police,

fire,

and EMS.

In a small community like Onalaska, dispatchers also handle a lot more than people may realize.

We do department documentation,

we send emergency Nixle alerts out to the community in different extreme scenarios,

we use apps for criminal history,

license information and other law enforcement related needs.

All of our dispatchers are required to be certified in emergency medical dispatch.

emergency fire dispatch and emergency police dispatch through the International Academy of Emergency Dispatch. We use these IAD protocols to get responders to the correct location with as much accurate and detailed information as possible.

We also provide post-dispatch instructions on emergency calls. This can include walking people through CPR.

Telling them how to control bleeding and others seeing and life safety guidance before responders ever arrive.

Because we are often the first public safety professionals in contact with people during an emergency,

dispatchers are often referred to as the first first responders.

We carry a great responsibility in our roles.

We're the first person that's in contact.

with the people at the scene and the instructions we give them can have a huge impact on the overall outcome.

We have a three-month training program in place for new dispatchers. It's a very important job that carries a great deal of responsibility and stress.

One of the biggest challenges, especially in smaller and remote communities similar to on Alaska is retention.

It can be difficult to keep people due to the 24-7 shift work schedule,

the high stress environment,

and often lower pay compared to the level of responsibility.

Dispatch as a profession experiences very high turnover nationwide,

and that challenge is especially significant in smaller agencies.

I think that...

In particular,

HB 234 would have a big benefit to dispatch throughout the state as far as having us recognized as first responders and given the respect for all that we do.

Okay, are there any questions for Sergeant Gurney?

Sure,

I'll have a question after we've gotten each of them and then I want to come back to

Okay,

a couple things.

so I'm sorry,

Mr.

D'Urni, if you could also stay on the line,

we're going to go to one more person and then we might circle back to you with a question.

So we'll go now to Christopher Cook,

Police Chief in Kotzebue.

Chief Cook, if you could put your name on the record and share your thoughts about this bill,

please.

Good morning,

Christopher Cook,

Police Chief,

Kotzebue.

I just want to say a few things real quickly, I'll be brief.

The last speaker that's gone is right on.

It's not only for retention for the support of this bill, but also just the beginning of hiring somebody.

Either corrections officers or police officers and they're able to retire within 20 or 25 years and that is not the same for a dispatcher. They're going to have to work longer.

They may not even apply for that position.

just for that reason, which makes it even harder to get them in the door, much less keep them and retain them. So I do also support this bill. I think it would help solidify the state and make it stronger with our public safety. That's all I have.

Okay, thanks so much for your...

Input this morning, does anyone have a question for Chief Cook? Looks like Representative Holland has a question for someone.

Great. Thank you, Chair Helmshute. This is a question potentially for Chief Cook, but this might also equally, and I'd be interested in any responses from Mr. Gurney, Mr.

Ache?

Ache.

Ache. Thank you for the clarification.

Atchey.

And it's a two-part question, as you'd expect.

Um it seems to me in many rural areas, and of course Whittier, even though it's on the road system, um typically is in a area with very limited first response capability, that the dispatchers um and those that are involved in those initial con uh contacts may be the only response for quite a long time, particularly if this is a first responder call to a remote location uh that could require days or longer for someone to

to get there, um much less hopefully only hours or moments. And I'm curious um how that's affecting this role of the dispatcher. But what I'm really curious is how is this role changing? Um is there a a trend in terms of a greater reliance upon first responders carrying a greater load and responsibility um in times of an incident um because of just the structure of

of departments and their resources and as we look at this role and defining um its um recognition as a first responder, should we be considering that its role is changing in some way that's important to how we look at the future. So kind of open-ended question, but I'm just curious, I I think the dispatcher role of old where somebody takes a call and forwards it on to somebody to respond is no longer the full um breadth of what's happening. I'm just wondering what the trend would look like in a few years.

years if we were looking ahead a little bit.

And it may never have been that way in rural Alaska, I'll just say. So um Chief

Fair point, yes. Thank you.

Cook, uh could you put your name on the record or I guess you don't really need to do that at this point, but Chief Cook could you um give us your thoughts on that, what dispatch may look like down the road?

Sure, definitely.

I think it's ever-changing,

just like we've heard from everybody today.

I'll give a good example that might help.

I had a new person starting in the role as a dispatcher, and I usually give them a piece of paper that explains that you may be the first contact for the police officer and their last contact.

The person calling you may be the last person they ever speak with.

And that really solidifies the seriousness of the position and what role is placed on that person.

I've had people

leave after reading and stating that that's too much for them. So the people that do stay and make it their career really have to have a passion for it, and it is evolving. Like Alaska was stating, they're not just taking for fire, EMS, police, but it's a lot of communities. This is the hub for that city. Water line breaks, they call in, we dispatch a call to Public Works,

many, many different things. A lot of these dispatchers are community hubs because they are online 24/7 and have to be manned 24/7. So the dispatchers become a jack of all trades. So they have a lot more on them than, say, you know, the regular call taker that's working at a call center. So it's very important and a very serious role, and a lot of times they're overlooked.

But they hear and see things that police officers do,

that corrections officers do,

and it's very important for them to be able to handle the same things that they do.

Hope that answered the question.

Follow-up?

Yeah, thank you, Chair

Hemschute,

you know, if either of the other individuals online want to add anything to that, I'll just, you know, note that I appreciate that feedback. I'm in complete support of what we're looking at with this legislation. I'm also just, you know, as I read it in light of, you know, what's happening, just am aware that it's perhaps limiting to refer to dispatchers as first responders,

given the conversation we just had about that may be the only responder. I just am curious about how we recognize and elevate to understand the full scope of what this role has. And as we look into the future where we have more telemedicine, more remote support, I can imagine this role becomes part of a greater role that is not just a first responder role. It is the responder,

not the first responder. And so I think this is necessary language that we're working on. I just wonder if it's complete, or maybe this will be part of a longer conversation in the future as this role evolves. Thank you. But if there's any other comments, I'm happy to take it. I just want to kind of open up that line of thought for the moment.

Sure. Did you want to ask anyone else or

can we move along?

Yeah, I'm happy to move along. If there's anybody

chomping at the bit that wanted to add in a thought, that's fine too.

Um,

Yes, I had a thought.

Okay, could you please?

Dispatching has come a very,

very long way. I started in western Alaska with the city of Bethel in 1986 and dispatching has come...

From being a answer the call and send the send it to the police officer to triaging calls to being professional with the implementation of the 911 system throughout the state of Alaska in the early 60s they became the lifeline for many many communities and and then with that the training.

Emergency medical dispatch certification. My dispatchers and all dispatchers, professional dispatchers of public safety linkage have to have annual recertifications for emergency medical dispatch.

They have training certification programs for police emergency dispatch,

for fire emergency dispatch.

And then the training is continually ongoing.

Technology has also affected public safety dispatching.

For example, cell phones.

Dispatchers are now also trained to figure out how to get the emergency coordinations from people's cell phones when they call 911.

So it is a constantly evolving area of professional standards.

Okay. And Lieutenant

Yeah.

Ashae, I wanted to follow with another question for you.

I know that SICA has struggled to staff dispatch for some time now.

Would this bill,

do you think this bill will help retain people in those roles?

I think it will once they are hired and they are properly trained because we explain all the benefits of a public safety side and we also just to explain to them early on and firefighters as well and the public safety retirement side also applies to corrections officers.

Public safety dispatchers, telecommunicators, anybody that has a TSAP, a public safety answering point,

911,

they are truly the first line of first responders.

They are. That phone has to be answered.

And I think this changing and giving that professional recognition instead of being recognized as clerical office staff.

Okay. It says a lot about the profession and may attract these people, make it turn it into a career and retain people.

That's very helpful. Okay, any other questions from the committee? Oh, um uh co-chair Mears.

Uh thank you through the chair to Lieutenant Esche. Um you'd mentioned retention and training and Representative Hall had mentioned uh potential opportunity for additional grants. Um what's that connection there?

That's for Lieutenant Esche.

Yes.

The connections are going to be what's available from the federal, from the Department of Justice.

Once they get recognized truly as a public safety responder,

then it opens up a whole new realm.

Because the very next step, in my opinion,

on this will be to talk to our federal senators to get their support to reclassify public safety dispatchers are very unique.

Job classification.

They are not your regular dispatcher that dispatches buses or trucks or trains.

They truly are the first line for people in trauma.

Because that's all they answer.

If the city has a 911 system and they are recognized as a PSAP,

then they are truly going to be getting all the phone calls because most people will not remember the police department or fire department.

part of the phone number,

but they will remember 911.

And there are moments where 911 calls answer the silliest questions,

but there are also moments when they answer the most.

dramatic and people in dire need.

Follow-up?

Follow-up?

Thank you, Lieutenant Neche,

Thank you, Lieutenant Esche. And then I guess just a comment that the State House did pass that resolution supporting that change in recognition on the federal level for dispatchers, recognition as first responders as well. So thank you for your work and your participation here today.

Okay, thank you to everyone who called in. I think at this oh apologies we do have one more question from Representative Prox.

Yes, thank you. Um

I'm I'm not sure whether this is for one of the folks that are calling in, but

it just occurred to me that they were mentioning a bunch of different calls that weren't commonly thought of.

As handled by the public safety system, the 911 system, if you will.

Um

It you know it almost sounds like it's drifting to the first call centre for any public service.

I don't think we're quite there yet, but

That wasn't my understanding of the 9-1-1 system.

Should we be thinking about that too?

I'm not sure. I guess there isn't a recognized certification police standards council.

They're not involved with those kind of things. So for the d for the job classification, or for the what I think the duties are I can certainly recognise that that the dispatcher should be included in public safety. But then is there a way to

limit what they do. 'Cause they shouldn't be handling calls about

snow plowing or water mains raking or whatever.

Yeah, I think we're wandering a little further afield from what this bill actually does, but let's go to one of our, maybe Sergeant Gurney there in Alaska.

Are your dispatchers taking calls that are not emergency calls on a regular basis?

Is that the question, Representative Proust?

I can say that for Alaska.

At public safety,

we handle all emergent and non-emergent calls.

So we get calls for pretty much everything.

You know, we could be...

Whether it's someone calling to see if the DMV is open,

someone calling to speak with this person,

and then we're getting a 911 call,

someone's having a seizure,

and we're walking,

we're triaging the situation,

getting as much detail as possible,

utilizing the emergency medical dispatch protocols.

to get responders there as quickly and efficiently as possible with the best information.

So and then that's happening then the officer's out in the field doing a traffic stop and he's needing us to run a person's license status and get it back to him and then we're getting a call.

from someone asking when a community event is taking place.

So we basically,

there's a lot of responsibility on the world.

We wear a lot of different hats, but our biggest responsibility is the emergency call scenarios.

But, you know, that we're all certified for and we do a great deal of continual training for.

We do a lot of mock scenarios. We follow a structured protocol software and that requires continuous training.

And I can say that for the job, it's not easy to hire people for dispatch also because...

There's not a lot of people that have all the skills that are needed for that job.

Like I've had seven applicants and six of them either failed the test or failed the typing test.

So they were viewed as not having the skills to do the communications officer job. So in a small community.

You know, we don't have a huge pool of candidates of people that can do the job that have the language skills that are able to communicate effectively,

document information into a highly technological computer software,

which things have become much more technological. It's not pen and paper anymore,

and we really need someone that's tech savvy and computer savvy,

able to handle a keyboard well.

Able to stay calm in extreme situations using the training that they've had

Thank you for that. It sure sounds like it's a combination of skills and disposition is what I'm learning that this job requires.

Co-Chair Mears, you had a question.

Thank you, Chair. More of a response to Representative Prox, so through the Chair to Representative Prox, I think

that that might be a different scenario with folks in smaller communities, like hey this is where I you know like these guys know everything. I think that's probably why there's been other

3-numbered lines that have come up over the years to deal with that. I know in Anchorage we've got, you know, the non-emergency number for APD as well that's widely publicized which I should be able to roll off the top of my head but I'm unable to.

But there would be time to there would be time to look that up. Representative Holland is flashing me a 311. And you know and the DIG line and you know there's

that's coming up because I think there is a need in the community to get to resources quickly.

So some of that is building up structures around 911

so that's not our only resource.

But I appreciate that there's folks that are able to do that triage and

help folks out in so many circumstances.

s

Yeah, and Representative St.

Clair, did you have a question?

More well, it's for the bill sponsor. If you want me to hold off on that until because it's not for anyone that's on the phone right now.

More—

Yeah, I think um go ahead and ask your question and

And we're going to do some public testimony in a minute, so let's just go ahead and take your question now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through the to the bill sponsor, are you aware of any federal legislation that does this already?

Okay.

Through the, through the co-chair, Representative St.

Clair, when you say does this already, what do you mean precisely?

Yeah, we're looking at

Putting these folks into our state benefits system, but as far as the definition of emergency medical dispatch, I think there is federal legislation on that. Would that help clarify?

Through the chair, yes ma'am.

Great um

Great.

I'll get with the bill sponsor. I'll get with you offline.

Oh, I

I'm happy to respond. Madam co-chair, it's up to you. But

Sure. Let's talk about that federal legislation briefly.

Sure. Um through the co-chair representative St. Clair there are two pieces of legislation at the federal level right now that would um if passed reclassify dispatchers across the nation from clerical or administrative to the Protective Service Occupations Standard.

Sure.

Is

Follow

up. Does that clarify?

Follow up. Would that take care of this issue then? Because it's that's what I was the Enhanced First Responder Act,

Follow-up?

Senate 725,

and I think it's actually passed now,

does exactly what we're trying to do here.

So would this mirror the federal legislation?

Representative Hall?

Through the co-chair representative St.

Clair, the Enhancing First Response Act passed the Senate.

And it's in the House, the U.S. Senate. It's in the House awaiting hearings.

Mm-hmm.

There's also a second piece of legislation that has started out in the House, but I don't believe it has received any hearings yet,

and that is the 911 Saves Act.

When it comes to the reclassification, both state and federal reclassification

Change would allow federal grants, federal classification opens for some grants and then state classification opens the opportunity for the rest of the grants for these dispatchers, but I believe somebody's going to be calling in for public testimony who's far more wise and has far more experience than I do and who can speak more, perhaps with more clarity to help answer your question.

Thank you.

Okay and so with that um I see no further questions for our invited testifiers, so I'm gonna go ahead and open public testimony.

And is there anyone in the room wishing to testify on this bill?

I have one person online.

So Matthew Carlson calling in from Las Vegas,

Nevada.

Could you put your name on record and we'll take your testimony. We're looking for about two to three minutes of testimony this morning.

Yeah, this is Matthew Carlson. I'm a firefighter paramedic.

for Ingrid's fire department.

I just wanted to give some clarification on some of this federal versus state classification changes.

The federal classification change would put this effort into a productive service class,

which is great and that moves the ball somewhat towards the finish line.

It does open some opportunities for some federal funding.

But the real change and the real opportunity for even more federal funding is through a state change specifically into public safety or first responder status.

Some examples when the governor declares state emergencies,

there are opportunities.

four police and fire centers in the state to access federal funds and the first responder or public safety status.

It's more difficult for dispatch centers currently to access these funds.

There are like specific classes in these FEMA grants in these mitigation programs,

fire management assistance programs.

It's difficult for these dispatch centers to access because they are classified incorrectly.

If they were reclassified into public safety or first responder status,

this opens up specifically more grants through FEMA, through like overdose grants and Narcan grants and firefighter grants that they would not have right now.

So this outside of retirement and outside of retirement and

Other options,

this opens up the state specifically even more federal funding than we have access to right now.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

I don't see anyone else online and without anyone else in the room.

Are there any questions for this person who called in?

Matthew Carlson.

Okay, seeing no further public testimony, I'm going to close public testimony.

And I'll remind folks they can always write to the committee at hcra at akleg dot g-o-v. Are there any committee questions before we set the bill aside? I feel like we've had some good conversation this morning. All right.

Excuse me.

Represent a procs.

Yeah, I guess I, I had not

thought about emergency dispatchers from the perspective of small communities and I wonder if we

should hear from

the mayors or the administration of these communities,

if that's going to

put in, you know, they were saying they were having a hard time recruiting in the first place. So if that would cause some unintended consequences of

not being able to hire somebody, and then this would seem to put some extra requirements on the job, which would then

make it more difficult to find somebody in smaller communities in particular.

W what I'm hearing is it's the opposite is this is gonna add an incentive to folks. It is difficult to find dispatchers, it's really difficult. Again, it's a disposition of skill set, so what I'm hearing is that this is an added incentive to help someone not only take the job, but stay in the job. But, Representative Prox, I'm happy to connect you to some small town um mayors or administrators if you'd like, I know several.

Not not right now,

Yeah,

but offline.

right.

It is.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

Okay, great. Seeing no additional questions, I'm going to set this bill aside and set an amendment deadline for Friday, April third at five p.m.

Okay. Thank you very much Representative Hall and um

Staff member Narang, appreciate your time today. Okay, we're going to move next to HB 217, autonomous vehicles. This is the first hearing on the bill. It's, let's see, representative Carrick and Griffin-Cow, correct me on that. I've never gotten it right. Please come forward and introduce the bill. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Uh good morning House Community and Regional Affairs Committee. It's great to join you again on a different piece of legislation. Uh for the record, Ashley Carrick representing West Fairbanks. And today we have the House Transportation Committee's HB 217 regarding autonomous vehicles. Um Madam Co-Chair and members of the committee um this legislation was initially brought up to us by folks in the

Um the community that's doing commercial traffic and trucking because of concerns about road safety and Alaska's unique challenges. And as commercial autonomous vehicles are increasingly contemplated for and used in shipping and product delivery,

there's new laws around their use and related liability that would provide critical guardrails that would keep drivers,

pedestrians and other road users safe.

Safe.

House Bill 2770 seeks to regulate use of commercial autonomous vehicles specifically,

so it's very targeted in that,

by providing specific requirements for commercial autonomous vehicles relating to interstate commerce,

goods,

and passengers and critically the bill requires that a human safety operator be present in the vehicle to potentially intervene if necessary.

H.B. two seventeen also establishes legal definitions for technology that's used in modern vehicles, ensuring enhancements like collision avoidance systems, adaptive cruise control,

lane assistance and similar programmes are not affected, again narrowly tailoring this bill to the concern at hand. Overall, the bill protects road users by setting legal definitions to guarantee safe implementation of commercial autonomous vehicles.

on our roadways.

And Madam Coach, I would also just note that the Transportation Committee considered this bill at some length.

We did add clarity just to make sure that this was very, very narrowly targeted towards commercial vehicles,

not towards the potential use of autonomous vehicles in potential.

I'm trying to think of the delivery system apps,

but there's uses for autonomous vehicles in urban areas that we wanted to make sure were excluded from this legislation.

We also ensured that other small devices are not within the scope of the bill and added further clarity around that.

So with that, Madam Chair,

my staff would be happy to walk through the sectional and we do, I think, have an invited testimony.

faster fire it looks like.

And Representative Karick, the sectional is lengthy, so I'm wondering if we could just allow members to read that on their own. It would take quite a bit of time I think to go through it. And I'd like to move, if there are no questions right now, I'd like to move to invited testimony.

So

With that in mind, we have one person to provide invited testimony this morning. This is Derek Musto with Teamsters Local 959.

Could you please unmute yourself,

put your name on the record,

and share your testimony with us please.

My name is Derek Musto. I'm the organizer for Teamsters Local 959, and I'm here to testify in favor of House Bill 217,

the legislation on Thomas vehicles.

First,

I'd like to thank co-chair Henshoot and co-chair Mears for hearing the legislation, and thank you to the House Transportation Committee for sponsoring it.

House Bill 217 would require a safety operator to be in the driver's seat of any commercial vehicle operating autonomously.

This serves mostly as a safety precaution. We believe it's necessary for any vehicle of size to be operating in ports on roadways in our state.

The automation integration in vehicles is rapidly developing.

It's an ever-changing technology and the incorporation of autonomous vehicles into society.

has been a continued trend nationwide.

News stories of automated vehicles suffering a shortage,

shutting down on crowded busy roadways,

misguided trips to wrong locations is too far of a risk Alaska should take especially in a state where road conditions are ever-changing and at times are extremely dangerous for even the most experienced drivers in our state.

House Bill 217 will ensure there's a safety apparatus

operator who's fully capable of driving the vehicle meaning they have the certified commercial driver's license and all appropriate endorsements needed for the vehicle to be behind the wheel of the vehicle to make sure there's a safeguard for any technological shortfall that would cause the vehicle to malfunction during operations it also ensures that our commercial operators remain you know the eyes and the ears of the roadway

and they help play that role in safety for various interactions.

I'll keep my notes brief today,

so thank you very much.

Type.

Thank you for your testimony. Um are there questions from the committee?

Representative Holland?

Thank you. I've got a couple questions um uh just for clarification, are you looking for questions right now to the invited testifier or back to the bill sponsor? I just want to know where you're at process-wise.

Let's go with the testifier.

Um I think I'll wait for my questions right now, thanks.

Okay. Any questions from anyone in the committee for our invited testifier? Okay, seeing none, um Representative Holland, your question for the bill sponsor.

Great, thank you through the

chair, and this is certainly open to the invited testifier or the bill sponsor, but I think the bill sponsor might be able to help me with two questions I've got. First off, there's a legal memo in the package related to SB 148, and I'm just looking for maybe a high-level understanding of what that memo is establishing, but more particularly how that memo applies to 217 and does it apply in whole or are there some caveats

to how we should understand the legal opinion that that memo provides us?

Through the chair, for the record, Griffin Sukeo, staff to Representative Carrick and the House Transportation Committee, um this

legal memo is drafted to the Senate version of this bill which is Senate Bill 148 which does the same thing as this bill and the legal memo just says that with the federal executive order 14179 this bill is not in

conflict with it.

That EO is, you know, removing barriers for artificial intelligence and innovation around artificial intelligence,

and this memo just says that we do not believe that these

two goals are in conflict.

Okay, that's great. Thank you. Um going off in a different direction and I think this is for the bill's sponsor perhaps maybe staff. There is a comment made during the introduction that there were some changes made so that this would not um

I'm not sure the right word, limit or prohibit some of the local delivery functions. Perhaps that also might include the um autonomous taxi services. In looking at the bill, it's not clear to me how that carve-out is established. Um when I look particularly, I think, section B_ one.

Mm-hmm.

That may be as a dressing up, but I just wonder if you could clarify the mechanics of how those local service delivery options and services are being um exempted in this bill. Thanks.

I

Thanks, Representative Carrick.

Thank you. Um through the chair to Representative Hall and so you're correct that sub-section B has those in section one, sub-section B, has those exemptions uh so we are limited to

those that are engaged in transport of interstate commerce goods or passengers over a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds. So functionally that

In the opinion of everyone we've consulted on the legislation would preclude inclusion of uh delivery vehicles. And then further in sub-section E of section one, we had an amendment from um one of our transportation committee members which would specifically carve out

I don't really know what the right term is for them, but they're like little delivery robots

Mm-hmm.

that go around on sidewalks.

And we I haven't seen them widespread in Alaska, but they are popular in other places. And so that section one subsection e carve out specifically is for that that type of service.

A follow-up. Thank you. And

Follow-up?

Thank you. I want to go back I guess to B1, because I'm still not clear. If I have a

car, an autonomous car, that's going to run around town and deliver things. Well let's assume that there's a person in it, so it's like the— I don't remember the name of the services, but a couple cities now have autonomous taxi.

It seems like this is prohibiting that. Because that's going to be less than 10,000 pounds, but it's going to be autonomous vehicle registered in the state, assuming it would be registered, it would be engaging the transport of a passenger.

And I'm not sure it would be for personal use since this would be a commercial transaction. This would be a business where I want somebody to move me. So it's a business movement. It is commercial. It is under $10,000, so it seems like that would be prohibited,

No.

but I need clarification on why, why I'm reading this wrong.

Um

Representative Carrick.

Thank you. Through the co-chair to Representative Holland. So we're not actually in this legislation prohibiting any autonomous vehicles.

We are just clarifying that if you have a commercial autonomous vehicle that you need a safety driver present and we're exempting transport for personal non-commercial use in section one, subsection B from the provisions of the legislation.

So autonomous vehicles aren't banned in this legislation and we're not even we're not even applying the provisions of this legislation to say the autonomous taxi or other transport. What you would think of as urban transport of autonomous vehicles. That would be a discussion potentially for this committee or for another piece of legislation.

Okay, I will, with that intent behind, try and reread this and parse it back out in my brain. Thank you for the clarification today.

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. One thing when this was going through Transportation that was helpful to me as well is that it is talking about interstate commerce.

That was one of the big applications as well. So, you know, as it's in...

If we go and then to define that, since, you know, we're not bordered up against any other state, but basically the goal is with interstate would be something that's coming down or, you know, out of Canada or just basically trying to keep autonomous, purely autonomous

heavy rigs off the highway without a safety driver. I had some of the same concerns. And then once again, like, I had concerns with— because it's well established on autonomous vehicles in like the mining industry and a lot of things like that. But you really start digging in statute and it's very clear in this bill that it's for registered vehicles. And so then you get into registration and you got to do quite a bit of digging, which is one reason why I think the section is so long.

But

Mm-hmm.

it does cover that. I mean, those things are exempted from this,

Alright.

which were some of my concerns as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Okay. Are there additional questions from the committee?

Okay. Seeing none, we're gonna go ahead and set um

House Bill 217 aside, and we're gonna take a brief at ease to switch the cochairs so that I can go to a different committee hearing. At ease.

We are back on the record with House Community and Regional Affairs. The next item on our agenda is House Bill 334, unhoused young adults' IDs and birth certificates. This is the first hearing on the bill. Representative Mena and Tomalevis-Selanoa, please come forward, put your names on the record, and introduce the bill.

Thank you Chair Mears and members of the House Community and Regional

Affairs Committee.

My name is Genevieve Mina.

I represent House District 19,

the anchorage neighborhoods of Airport Heights Mountain View and Russian Jack.

I'm here with my staff Tamaliva Salanoa and I am honored to introduce House Bill 334 which is related to eliminating barriers for unhoused young adults who are experiencing homelessness in my district.

We have experienced a lot of the

peaks of homelessness as we think about it in Anchorage.

And I've been thinking deeply about how we as a state legislature can highlight this issue and address it on a state level.

Last year, I was able to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures Youth Homelessness Fellowship, and I learned a lot from other states of different strategies to help tackle this issue. And one

One area of low-hanging fruit to help address youth homelessness is related to vital statistics and documents.

We know that in order to access employment or housing and to become economically self-sufficient,

you need to have your birth certificate,

you need to have your ID just to be able to get through the initial steps of paperwork.

But if you are experiencing homelessness,

you often don't have

have that security of having your documents.

There is also a risk of losing your paperwork or not even having it in the first place.

And so I wanted to take a look at helping to address this issues, particularly for young adults.

This bill is about

uh making it so that birth certificates and state ideas IDs that the fees related to them are waived by the state and that is specific for uh youth experiencing homelessness between the age of 18 to 25.

This is also known as the age range of transition age to youth and I would like to leave it to my staff Tamalee Vaselenoa to also read the sectional for the bill.

if it is the will of the committee.

Yes, please.

Tamalei Vassalanoa, staff to Representative Mena.

For the record, I'll be going through HB 334 Sectional Analysis version A. Section 1 amends AS 18.50.320. This is a conforming charge related to the creation of a new subsection B in Section 2. Section 2

adds a new subsection to AS 18.50.320,

subsection B establishes alternative methods for verifying identity when requesting a certified copy of a birth certificate if the applicant qualifies for a fee waiver under AS 18.50.330(c).

Identification – um, sorry, I lost my place.

Acceptable proof of identity may include an expired or unexpired government-issued photo identification,

two supporting documents,

such as school records,

education or medical records, or an

affidavit attesting to the applicant's identity, or other forms of proof of identity accepted by the Bureau of Vital Statistics.

Section 3 adds a new subsection to AS 18.50.330, subsection C

prohibits the state registrar from charging a fee for a certified copy of a birth certificate to an individual who is unhoused and between the ages of 18 to 25.

The section also authorizes the Department of Health to prescribe a form of verification to verifying a person's unhoused status.

Section 4 amends AS 18.65.310(c), adds unhoused status among the offenses for which a person may be charged for a misdemeanor when knowingly making a false written statement in an application for a state issued

identification card. Section 5 repeals and reenacts

AS 18.65.31G.

In addition to the individuals age 60 or older, this section allows individuals who are unhoused and between the ages of 18 and 25 to receive a non-federally compliant identification card without charge.

Section 6 adds new subsection AS 18.65.310S and T. Subsection S allows applicants to verify their unhoused status using written verification on a form prescribed by the Department of Administration.

Subsection T creates a new procedure specific to the state's identification cards issued to unhoused youth.

It allows these identification cards to list an address that is not a principal residence,

such as a location where a person is frequently located or an address of a service organization that provides services

to unhoused individuals.

It also expands alternative forms of acceptable proof of identity,

including expired identification,

school and/or medical records,

affidavit or other documents approved by regulation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Do you want to have any other further comments before we go to invited testimony?

Yes, please.

And thank you, Chair Mears. For the record,

Genevieve Mina.

has District 19 representative.

So just to be clear, this bill addresses the barriers related to state identification and birth certificates for transition age youth who are experiencing homelessness in three ways.

The first is that it waives the fees for state IDs and birth certificates.

Right now, birth certificate fees are actually not even set in regulation,

but they're at the discretion of the individual heading the Bureau of Vital Statistics within the department.

than the Department of Health,

whereas for state IDs,

those are fees that are set in statute.

And so currently,

Vital Statistics has the flexibility to be able to waive fees,

but the Division of Motor Vehicles does not because of the requirements set in state law.

Second,

what this bill does is that it broadens the different types of verification documents that transition aged youth experiencing homelessness can use.

to be able to access and verify their own identity to access these documents. And the third is that it also broadens what address can be put on a state ID specifically for an unhoused young adult because of the instability of their housing situation. The basic premise is that we want to make sure that people have their basic documents to access employment.

As the President mentioned in the 33rd Legislature, the Legislature passed a bill unanimously to allow Alaskans leaving correctional facilities to obtain state IDs and we have had a history of recognizing the importance of accessing these documents.

Happy to turn it over to our invited testimony to add more perspective.

Thank you.

So we have on Teams Josh Lowers,

Director of Statewide Initiatives at Covenant House Alaska.

could you please join us and provide your invited testimony after putting yourself on the record?

Yes, thank you, Josh Bowers,

Senior Director at Public House Alaska.

Thank you for the invitation and thank you, Rufino, for coming forward with this legislation.

I want to share some of the effects that this bill would have on young people experiencing homelessness.

We often talk about homelessness as a housing issue,

but it's also a systems issue and one of the most pertinent or persistent systemic barriers a young person working to leave homelessness is the ability to get access to replacement identification.

In 2025 at Covenant House,

over 300 young people, about a third of all the young people we served,

came to Covenant House in need or one of their needs was that they needed assistance getting replacement identification and documentation.

We know without a birth certificate or ID,

they can't get a job, they can't sign a lease,

they can't access health care,

they can't apply for benefits,

and in some cases they can't enroll in school.

So they are effectively locked out of systems designed to help them get back on their feet.

And for young people,

especially those aging out of foster care or fleeing unsafe situations,

those barriers compound quickly.

By waiving fees for birth certificates and state IDs for unhoused young people, this bill would remove a financial barrier that many young people cannot overcome.

When you have no stable income or even a relatively small fee can be the difference between moving forward and staying stuck.

Just as importantly,

this bill recognizes that traditional forms of identification are often out of reach for young people experiencing homelessness.

Allowing alternative documentation such as school records,

medical records, or evidence if this bill meets young people where they are.

In our work with young people, we see firsthand how transformative access to ID can be.

With ID,

a young person gets their birth certificate and suddenly they have, they can apply for a job,

they can get further ID,

they can open a bank account,

they can apply for housing,

they can enroll in programs,

begin to build stability.

Something as small as a piece of paper becomes the key that unlocks the opportunity.

And the opposite is also true. Without ID,

young people remain stuck in cycles of homelessness,

not because they lack motivation or ability,

but because the system won't let them in.

House Bill 334 also provides flexibility around the address requirements,

allowing young people to use service provider addresses or a location where they can reliably receive mail,

which is critical,

and you can't expect someone without stable housing to provide a traditional address,

and this change acknowledges that reality.

The impact of this bill is both immediate and long term.

Immediately it would help young people access services, employment,

and housing more quickly.

Long term it reduces the likelihood that young people remain homeless or return to homelessness.

And I think importantly,

this is a cost effective intervention.

By removing small barriers up front,

we reduce the potential for traumatic events on the street and the need for far more expensive interventions later,

emergency shelter,

mental and behavioral health.

both recovery services,

medical care,

involvement in public systems.

And I really want to reiterate that, that the longer a young person is experiencing homelessness,

the more traumatic events that they experience and the longer the runway for them to get to stability and the more that's going to cost us to help them do that.

So this little move of helping folks get their ID would be transformative.

But so in a sense this bill is about prevention.

It's about efficiency and most importantly it is about dignity.

Every young person deserves the ability to prove who they are and get access to the opportunities that come with that.

Passing House Bill 334 would help make that possible.

Thank you for the invitation and thank you for your time and commitment to Alaska's young people.

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning.

Do we have any questions at this time for Mr.

Louris?

Representative Prox and Representative Holland. Representative Prox.

Yes, thank you. Through the chair,

this is an interesting um

problem to solve.

I guess the question boils down to the,

what did we call these transitional age people that are unhoused.

Do you have information or statistics on how they became unhoused? I think I suppose it boils down to where they kicked out by their parents or left because of there has to be some conflict left voluntarily or kicked out.

Representative Prox, how's that relevant to this discussion?

Because in the he the thing I'm concerned about is i in an in my mind an ideal situation would be that they're not

unhoused they're with their family or some adult with them um and if they're on their own at this age we're making it easier for them to do to

live on their own, which I g understand the need what we're addressing here. But on the other hand,

they're exposed to a higher risk of well trafficking, I guess comes to mind, being on their own at that age

exposes people to

being taken advantage of.

I

Representative Proxite, that's a different

issue that I think we have before us today,

and I appreciate your concern,

but I'd like to keep focused to supporting these these folks with having identification so that they can go about getting business done.

No, I I understand that, but I I guess that is my concern with um

Uh yeah, I guess that's what I'm concerned about. The

making it easier

Mm.

to live without

i well there's parental supervision and there's then there is adult assistance. Um and the folks that are unhoused

from what I'm understanding are

Mm-hmm.

Mm.

exposed to a lot of other risks and our goal should be to get them in a safer situation than living on their own or living without their adults. Ideally, I suppose I'm saying parents, but that isn't an always ideal situation. So I'm trying to figure out

If there's some way of determining, 'cause something else should be done. If children are living outside of an adult situation, what do we call these, minor children?

We should be doing something to correct the core of the problem.

Representative Prox,

I, I

totally share your concerns about folks. We're talking about not minors in this case. We're talking about young folks that are living a little bit older, the age of my children, 19 and 22, are the ages of mine as they're getting into that. That's a different issue. I don't think that making this—

allowing this process makes anything about that situation easier.

Representative Mena, did you have a contribution to this portion of the conversation?

Yes, thank you, Chair Mirrors, for the record,

Genevieve Mina.

I know that...

Mr.

Lowers with Covenant House.

We've discussed screenings at runaway shelters and the Health and Social Services Committee in the past, and so I would love for him to just have a small opportunity to help add any additional perspective on the relationship between young adults who are put in a position of housing instability and how

The Covenant House helps with the documentation and helping a young adult holistically in their situation.

If Mr.

Lowers could respond.

Thank you, Mr.

Lauer.

Yes.

Yes, through the chair,

Josh Lowers for the record.

I can say, so I've been working at Covenant House for almost 15 years.

I work street outreach.

I worked.

shelter I've worked anti-trafficking programs pretty much every program we've had I've had some opportunity to work in or oversee I can probably count on one hand how many young people I know that just decided to leave because they wanted to the folks that are experiencing homelessness in our city and in our state are folks that are fleeing abusive situations they're

Half the young people that exit foster care every year are experiencing homelessness that first year after.

There's gaps in our mental health and substance use system that folks fall out of.

We would always...

We would always know when a program closed that Covenant House,

and we still do,

because those folks,

you know, in that intervention,

whether that's mental health or whatever,

end up experiencing homelessness. So the young people who I think would be using this would be our young people who have fled some sort of other situation,

who have not had the support they've needed, and so they have ended up in this situation.

And actually then the thing that is most important to get them off the street quickly, or one of the things, is being able to get an ID like this.

In an easy manner,

I know our case managers talk about the time,

especially,

you know, the runaround,

it can take months to get all the right pieces of documentation to get that ID.

And during those months, that young person, even if they're in shelter,

is still being exposed to the street life outside.

And so.

So I I I would not have concern um about folks using this in a way to to just you know get out of them.

Thank you, Representative Holland.

Thank you.

This discussion has kind of opened up a lot of different threads, and I don't think today I'm going to want to— I need to do some more work to chase this down. I think for the moment what would be helpful is just clarification on two issues. One is, and this is for Mr. Flowers or the sponsor, I'm just wondering if

If there's any more clarity on how we define unhoused, I know the bill seems to suggest that that's gonna be left for somebody to develop a form for someone to be able to attest that they're unhoused, but I I am just curious, and I put that into the context of folks that are perhaps um into a community like Anchorage for a medical visit and then get stuck there.

for a while trying to figure how to get back, or they've come to uh a community like Anchorage because of a storm and a disaster and they get transported to Anchorage and then become unhoused because they're just kind of stuck because they can't get back home. Um and so how do we understand or define unhoused in this context to um

look at it in terms of what's transient versus what is some sort of um situation that um is

um

different than just a intermittent situation. I'm sorry, I'm not getting a very clear question,

but I'm just looking for a little more background on what is unhoused and how should I understand it um and um

I'll leave it there for a moment and maybe have a follow

Okay, I'm

-up.

Okay, I'm going to look to Representative Mena for that since it's a little bit more specific to the bill rather than where folks are at.

Thank you, Chair Mears. Through the Chair to Representative Holland for the record,

Genevieve Mina. In the bill, there are a few different areas where we have more of,

in the way that a youth would prove that they have unhoused status on within

Section six, so I'm looking at page four between lines 14 through 16.

If it's a young adult who is applying for a state ID,

they would have to use a form with verification by the department.

So it's at the discretion of the department of how to prove that status.

I know that in other situations where you have to prove that you are experiencing homelessness,

you work with a service.

service agency that also verifies your status.

And so we have that ability to work with different agencies to help verify that status.

Additionally,

in federal law,

there's two main definitions for defining unhoused youth.

The first is, and this is within the supporting documents for the bill as well,

the first is within the

McKinney-Vento Act.

They define homeless children and youth as individuals who lack a fixed, regular,

and adequate nighttime residence.

There's also a different definition of unhoused youth that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development utilizes as well.

And they do differ in terms of how they define age and those statuses, but there is those federal definitions.

that are referred to and different programmes utilise those definitions depending on if it's a young adult applying for a housing voucher, you might go with the HUD definition. If you're working within the school district and trying to assist a runaway youth, you would use the McKinney-Vento Act uh definition. And I would also leave it to the invited testifiers to add more perspective on that as well.

Uh thank you Representative Mina. I think I'd like to um would you like further

Clarification, Representative Holland, because we do have another invited testifier and another bill to get to today.

Um, no, I think that's fine. There's, it's really, I just want to say I really am very supportive of this. You know, Alaska has the highest level of disconnected youth, which is another word we could bring into this discussion, which typically looks at the age of the 15 to 25 age that this transition definition is applying to. And it's the highest in the nation.

It's— last time I saw it, it was like 18%. And that's, you know, almost 1 in 5 of our youth are not involved in school, they're not involved in work, they have become disconnected. And I suspect that this work you're doing under this legislation is incredibly valuable and helpful, but we're touching on to a really bigger issue. And I don't want to necessarily go too far afield on what you're doing here, which I think is very valuable. So I'm happy to learn some more at this process— at this point, and

and look forward to more discussion on it later.

Thank you Representative Van Hollen. Thank you Mr. Larus for joining us. Uh next up for invited testimony we've got with us in person here today Brian Wilson, the Executive Director of the Alaska Coal Coalition on Housing and Homelessness. Thank you for joining us this morning. Please put yourself on the record.

Good morning. My name is Brian Wilson.

Good morning.

I'm the executive director of the Alaska Coalition on Housing and Homelessness.

I'd just like to open up through the chair representative practice and Holland.

I appreciate these questions and recognize that homelessness is a really complex issue.

And it's always challenging when we have bills that address a certain aspect of homelessness because we don't really have a committee that has housing and homelessness specifically assigned to it.

do it.

So that's just my little plug right there. But I just like to say that the goal of our organisation, um uh the goal our organisation has as planners and implementers of the homeless response system is to connect individuals with the appropriate housing and support of services uh that uh as efficiently as possible. That means finding solutions to reduce uh or eliminate barriers to

to access of services which can take many different forms. We could be talking about prohibitive costs which is relevant to this bill, restrictive admission policies, or even transportation issues. HB 334 is one of those solutions to a problem that you heard from Josh has been long known and frequently delays our ability to connect young people experiencing homelessness with the services they need.

Last year alone,

so twenty twenty five, nearly one out of three Alaskans who received some form of homeless services were under the age of twenty five in this state.

Uh for the group, uh the age group specific for H_B_ three thirty four, the transition age youth, uh that's one thousand four hundred and sixty four unique Alaskans. Uh I believe uh Representative Mina stated a six hundred and seventy one number earlier. That's a point in time count, so that's like a snapshot of one day uh in January. Uh the the number that I stated is for the entirety of the year unduplicated.

And that's just youth and communities where homeless providers exist that can enter data into the homeless management information system. We know there are many more youth experiencing homelessness across the state as many communities don't have any youth service providers which makes it even more difficult for those youth that are experiencing homelessness to obtain an ID because they don't have assistance in that process.

As it's been stated, without legal identification documents you can't get enrolled in most of the

for the federal housing program.

So all of the housing programs we uh we partially fund uh that requires I_D_ Uh you can't file your taxes, you can't start a new job, so on and so forth. Uh and while this bill addresses the cost of obtaining a government I_D_ and birth certificate, what is often overlooked is the additional costs a youth experiencing homelessness incurs during the process while they're trying to make it to the D_M_V_ counter to

or to begin with. We were just actually helping a youth last month in the Kenai Peninsula with this process. Her ID was expired.

get

She had no birth certificate. She had no social security card. She had a car, but it was broken down. She didn't have the money for the needed repairs to fix it.

To make it to the DMV location during operating hours,

she had to take time off of work. And she's a shift worker, so that means you can't just show up late, you lose the whole shift.

shift the whole day. And this is someone who has zero discretionary income to begin with.

So while this body can't alleviate all of those hardships,

what it can do is make the process just a couple of percentage points easier on the people who are facing what often feels to them like an impossible hole to crawl out of, especially at a young age.

So HB 34 does just that.

It removes that last hurdle in an already stressful and complex

full and complicated process young people are facing across the State. So uh thank the committee for considering this piece of legislation, and Representative Mina for introducing the bill and the opportunity to testify before you today.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I appreciate that um

we do need to take things sometimes steps uh to get all the way through the journey and making some parts of that path a little easier is is is where we need to go.

Representative Holland.

Great, thank you to the chair. Uh I'm just curious,

With what you're learning working with folks in this situation and given the shift to the real ID, is this doing enough to help people, young people in particular,

get the ID they need to be able to get on a plane and go where they need to go? Or has real ID created a new barrier in terms of address verification aspects of the ID? I'm just curious, the world has changed in the last year or so.

So with this issue and just from your personal experience working with youth is the Real ID issue creating a new barrier and is this is this enough or is there one more piece of the puzzle so that folks get the ID that actually gets them to where they need to go?

Through the chair,

that's a great question. Um, when I think of somebody who doesn't have identification,

it's a barrier for many different

aspects. So real ID to travel, yes,

is absolutely a challenge. But for us, we're looking at immediate removal of barriers to things like sources of income,

like access to benefits.

And sometimes in this state,

that might mean having to travel,

and I'd defer to the bill's sponsor on how this piece of legislation would refer to real ID as

as opposed to just state IDs, but yes, um the lack of a real ID can be an issue for travel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh are there any further questions for either of our invited testifiers or for the bill sponsor?

Uh seeing none at this time, we really appreciate uh you bringing this issue forward and making a small change uh in amongst many others. And with that we will set this bill aside for further consideration.

The final item on our agenda for today is House Bill 162, digital project repair.

This is the third hearing on the bill, and today committee members will have an opportunity to ask questions of our sponsor. So I would like to invite Representative Deibert and Arnold Kinsky to the table to provide a brief cap of the bill before we get into questions.

Our conversation.

Whenever you're ready, Representative Deibert.

Good morning. Good morning Chair Mears and good morning to the committee. Um I'd like to first thank everyone for um hearing House Bill 162, um Digital Product Repair. For the record, this is Representative Maxine Deibert. I represent downtown Fairbanks, House District 31.

Um since the committee recently heard this uh just a few weeks back we are here um to listen to the committee, learn from the committee and um kind of craft this bill even better. Um but first uh before we turn to the committee members I'd like to address some key points that um we've

come upon um since the last time we've met.

So this bill um House bills one sixty two seeks to alleviate the harms that consumers are experiencing from manufacturer monopolies on repair, on expanding options for repair process,

and promote local Alaskan businesses.

We heard some testimony from industry that brought up ranging concerns, but the truth is that manufacturers that already have robust repair options, they will see very little impact from this bill if it should pass. And the intent of this bill is to promote consumer rights without causing significant harm to industries or businesses.

The scope is intentionally broad, um but the purpose of applying to a wide range of products

Our plan has been to adopt only the amendments necessary for safety and reasonable accommodations. However, we are willing to work with the committee members and industries to refine this bill into something that will work for all Alaskans, whether it's in urban Alaska or rural Alaska. And while keeping the essential functions of the bill intact to help us all.

Chair Muir's our intention is to adopt a CAS.

Um so with amendments aligning with the senate version

of the bill and clarifying some key provisions within the bill.

I was very grateful to be able to sit down with many of you in have one-on-one conversations um to discuss

and

the direction and answer any questions that this bill should move forward with. Uh and look forward to continuing that work with all of you today um to make this the strongest bill that it could be. It's a good piece of legislation. It will help many Alaskans. Um I'm in the thick of it myself. I was just thinking about my own

um products that I'm wondering whether I should throw away or try to attempt to fix by myself.

And I'm not the only one. I'm just one story. There are many. So um with that I will pass the mic over to my legislative intern, Emma Solchinsky, to provide more information on the bill and we will try to answer as many questions as we can today and from that, Chair Mears, I will hand it over to my intern.

Good morning.

My name is Emma Zuchinski and I am legislative intern to Representative Dibert of House District thirty one.

Thank you to the committee for taking the time to once again hear H_B_ one sixty two. I recently sent a letter to the committee uh to address some of the points that were brought up during the last hearing two weeks ago, as well as those brought up in written testimony, that I would just like to highlight a few points from on the record. Firstly, it seems that there may have been some misunderstanding regarding

regarding how the bill actually functions. What it does is requires manufacturers provide the parts, tools,

and documentation that they are already providing to authorize repair providers at the same cost and terms. It does not require that manufacturers start making their products reparable, nor does it require them to provide tools or parts for only the cost of shipping and handling. They are not mandated to share anything beyond that which they are already providing.

they already make available to authorise repair providers. This bill simply expands repair access to independent repair providers and to owners.

Secondly, there were a lot of concerns from industry about unintended consequences that might occur under the bill. Safety and cyber security concerns were brought up specifically. But in the Federal Trade Commission's twenty twenty one report to Congress on repaired restrictions, they pointed out that more accessible repairs may actually increase safety.

E.

Many consumers and independent repair providers will attempt to repair their products even without the access to manuals and authentic parts, which increases the risk of faulty repairs. By providing access to clear schematics and genuine parts,

independent repair providers and product owners will be better able to carry out repairs in a much safer manner. The F_D_C_ additionally stated that despite being asked to do so, quote, "manufacturers provided no data to support their argument that

that injuries are tied to repairs performed by consumers or independent repair shops, nor have manufacturers provided factual support for their statements that authorized repairpersons are more careful or that individuals or independent repair shops fail to take appropriate safety b precautions, or that independent repair workers who enter homes pose more of a safety risk t to consumers than authorized repair workers, end quote. On the cyber security side, the F_T_C_ found that

that, quote, the record supports arguments that consumers and independent repair shops would be equally capable of minimizing cyber security risks as our authorized repair providers, end quote. Experts from secure repairers actually argue that right to repair helps foster greater security by reducing downtime and exposure from unpatched systems, enabling faster incident response and recovery,

encouraging independent security research and oversight.

an increasing competition and accountability among vendors. There were some industries that claimed that they should be exempted from the scope of the bill because of particular impacts they were concerned about. We have heard these concerns and want to help alleviate them. I communicated with the CEO of a security system company who was worried that the application of this bill to his business would require them to provide sensitive information, such as floor plans and pass codes, to anyone who requested them.

them. We also received written testimony from the Alarm Industry Communications Committee, who are worried that the bill as written would require them to provide any information necessary for diagnosis and repair to the owner or independent repair provider. However, this does not fall under the scope of the bill. No information beyond that which is already provided in some capacity for repair purposes is covered by H.B. 162. The expert on right to repair legislation who we have on the line, Nathan Proctor,

proctor will likely be able to speak at greater length about how this bill will apply to the security sector. Our office additionally heard several hypothetical concerns about various scenarios in which the bill may have unintentional impacts, such as less reputable p repair providers who may cut corners and subsequently damage the reputation of a brand due to the resulting decrease in quality. We do not see this as a likely outcome, per the reasoning previously outlined regarding the quality of independent repair

...in repairs.

And more than that,

we are most concerned with maximizing the benefit to Alaskans,

which means giving them back the right to maintain and repair their own belongings.

It is worth exploring the consequences that this bill may intentionally or unintentionally result in,

but the biggest outcome from this bill's passage would be the concrete benefit for the life and livelihood of Alaskans across the state.

For Alaskans,

right to repair is not a simple...

Desire is a necessity; the practice of putting repair access behind walls,

providing repair materials only to authorized providers,

essentially creates monopolies on repair.

Companies have been increasingly engaging in this practice to the point that the f t c has had to file several lawsuits over anti competitive practices that stifle the open market and limit small businesses.

This bill seeks to address this issue for the good of our state.

By breaking these monopolies on repair we put power back in consumer hands.

create a more competitive marketplace and give small businesses a fair chance. And I want to emphasize that this is a huge issue in Alaska. We have incredibly limited access to authorized repair providers even in the most urban areas of the state. And for many people, especially in rural areas, repair can be a matter of livelihood and survival.

The representative and I have been grateful for the opportunity to sit down with so many of the committee members and to discuss the questions and concerns that they have brought forward regarding the bill, and we've been glad to be able to work together to create some consensus. Our intention is to adopt a C_S_ with some conforming changes to S_B_ one eleven, as well as a few clarifying changes to make the bill clearer and stronger. We hope to have robust discussion and answer any further questions that

that the committee may have. But also do bear in mind that we do have the C_S_ in the works and are hoping to go that route.

Thank you for your time and I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you Ms. Solczynski. So uh with that uh perspective of a z the s Bill sponsor working on a C_S_ I'll remove the um amendment deadline for tomorrow. Um I no point in drafting something to a document that will

will evolve.

So I think that makes our conversation today a little easier as things that come up we can work on in collaboration.

It's easier to do that collaboratively.

So we do have Mr.

Proctor on the line.

I don't want to get into that quite yet if there's some pressing questions from the committee ahead of that.

Representative Holland.

Great. Thank you Chair Meirs. Um I don't have any uh question. I just want to kind of note for the process and the record, this one I appreciate the conversations we've had with the sponsor's office. Um we've um shared quite a bit of information as we were working on the amendments and I appreciate their willingness to consider those amendments and what's being developed, uh as well as working with other members of this committee. I'll note at this point that having an amendment diad d deadline is

Mine has been helpful because it's kind of gotten us focused to get to work on trying to sort out how to share the concerns and provide some options for consideration. So at this point in time, I I don't have any specific questions. I think uh we've provided a lot of information through the context of the amendments that have been drafted so far and that are in the works. And I'm looking forward to working with the sponsor as they sift through that and decide how that'll be incorporated into the C_S_ and see kind of where we're at once that's

that's been done, but I'm c I'm good for today, but I appreciate that we've got some folks available if there are other questions um and uh

Yeah, but I'll I'll leave it at that for today.

Thank you Representative Holland, Representative Sinclair.

Shank Thank you Madam Chair. A question for the bill sponsor or whoever can answer this. Most warranties say that uh it your warranty will be voided if not done by an authorised dealer. Would this legislation as an unintended consequence um

eliminate any potential warranties on uh items that are fixed or repaired by non authorized dealers.

To the Chair to Representative St.

Clair, that is a great question. Um under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, it is actually federally unenforceable and in my case illegal to um

uh require that repairs be done by an authorized repair provider. It um unless it is provable that um independent or consumer repairs were what caused the damage to the product in the first place, um it is uh not legal to avoid that warranty just for someone attempting repairs in that manner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh thank you. Uh so I think with that uh Nathan Proctor, Senior Director Right to Repair Campaign, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, I I take it you've been following along with the conversation and um just want to do a time check. We've got about twenty minutes left in committee this morning and um welcome your uh entry into this conversation.

Hi, thank you so much, chair and members, for having me,

and kudos to Emma for really quite accurately answering that question about diagnosis of autism.

It is true that it is prohibited federally for a company to...

by the void your warranty if repairs are done by another entity with without evidence of you know something else was done that damaged the product my name is Nathan Proctor I run the right to repair campaign for Federation of state advocacy organizations called PIRG or the public interest research groups you know our state

Groups have been working to support pro-repair reforms across dozens of states for the last eight years or so, and we've actually issued about 15 different reports about the various right-to-repair topics. So I can definitely waste 20 minutes, but I won't, to talk your ear off about this particular issue.

But I really think it comes down to a pretty simple premise that I just wanted to reinforce.

Manufacturers have a pretty clear and obvious incentive to control the repair of the products after they sell them,

and they clearly have done so.

The only one who can fix something is the manufacturer or their brand-authorized partners.

Manufacturers control the cost of that repair,

and they can charge accordingly.

They can decide not to repair the product and force the consumer to pay.

the consumer to upgrade or do without and this is kind of endemic to the system basically everything that we have in our society with a microchip in it

That allows the manufacturer to make basically any part of the repair process proprietary because of the way that we protect the manufacturer's exclusive ownership of software.

And if no carve-out is given for repair,

then basically you buy something and then it will be you're more or less beholden to the manufacturer for the continued use of that thing and the maintenance of that thing because of the protections that we have given the manufacturer.

around unauthorized people making unauthorized copies of that software,

they've decided that that protection should extend to not even letting the owner of the product have access to what they need to fix the product and I think that's just wrong and so we've been working on this for

You know, here I have had conversations with the engineers in all of these companies about what their products really do.

We have tried to, you know, kind of chase down every little rabbit hole when it comes to.

The excuses people have for not having rights repair,

and I really don't think,

I think that you've addressed every legitimate question in the bill text before you and that if this bill were to pass,

there would be no, you know, unintended consequences.

We've heard all the arguments. We've done all that research.

We've made some changes to it to prevent anything that we found to be credible, but mostly companies just do not want freedom.

from their customers to choose where to fix things.

They might believe that they offer the best repair services and I support them and their pride and their wanting to offer the best services,

but in the case where their customer chooses to go somewhere else,

we shouldn't create barriers that make it impossible to get that repair done somewhere else, especially because a lot of these markets are driven by the very top end of the market, not by what

what is practical possible realistic in a place where you're not even connected to the road network or you know you authorize repair providers hundreds and hundreds of miles away so with that I think I will wrap up my testimony I'm happy to answer whatever questions you might have

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't know if this would be for the bill sponsor necessarily or the gentleman online,

but my question is I'm.

Definitely no expert on the Magnuson Moss Act, I believe is what it was.

But I did, you know, just perused it briefly because it has been mentioned before.

And I could be misunderstanding it, but it's my understanding that that act applies predominantly to consumer electronics or uh it it's not a it's n you know, and so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that it applies to um like uh industrial equipment or vehicles or things of that nature. I thought that m my understanding was that it is predominantly for like consumer electronics.

electronics.

Is that accurate?

You

Mr.

You are correct

Parker?

that it is primarily designed for consumer electronics, or for consumer products of all kinds.

So Representative Nelson,

we also have Eric Wareham,

VP of Government Affairs for the North American Equipment Dealers Association that I think we might want to bring into the conversation.

That'd be great, yeah.

That'd be great.

Yeah, um, Mr.

Wareham?

Yes,

Yes, good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. I take it you've been following along with the conversation and may want to address some concerns for Representative Nelson.

I have here,

I have, Karen.

yes.

Yes.

So the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,

I don't know if the other speakers are attorneys,

I am,

but specifically Magnuson-Moss only applies to household consumer goods.

The reference is 15 USC Section 2301.

Thank you. And then also we have online Chad Tokowitz,

government relations manager for Marine Retailers Association.

Do you have something you want to add to this part of the discussion?

David Brooks,

Chad Tokowitz, Government Relations Manager with the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas.

I think our biggest concern with this legislation currently drafted is that it does include marine products, including marine engines, electronic electronics.

And one of the issues is that would potentially

violate federal emissions regulations primarily the Clean Air Act regulations around anti-tampering with emissions devices I would be happy to go into

more depth regarding this but I did submit testimony along with the National Marine Manufacturers Association written testimony that I would encourage folks to review that goes into more detail regarding this concern but if folks would like to hear that I'm glad to read from our testimony just let me know thank you folks

Thank you for submitting testimony.

At the moment, do you have anything you'd like to contribute about warranty use and repairs?

I think the only thing I would say regarding repairs is that in the recreational boating industry,

many small businesses that sell these boats have

essentially a service side to them where they do repairs,

work on customers' boats.

The recreational marine industry prides itself in giving our customers the ability to do repairs when they can.

So, simple things like fixing,

replacing a spark plug, or if your water pump in your engine, the piece of machinery that's responsible for

circulating water throughout your engine to cool it goes out, that is another thing that we will work with our customers to fix themselves. Certain repairs, however, require certified technicians to access diagnostic controls of these marine engines, and that is sort of an aspect of these right-to-repair bills that we're concerned about, is allowing

everyday consumers the ability to access these diagnostic features of the engine where they could then bypass emissions and safety controls. And so

that concern of ours bleeds into the previously mentioned EPA Clean Air Act regulation,

but also infringes on a very important business model in the recreational marine industry where,

like I said before,

we are empowering our customers to do the repairs themselves that they are able to do.

But like I said before,

certain other things require the attention of a certified technician to do so.

And that's due to safety concerns as well as liability. So that's everything I have to share today. But again, if members do have additional questions, feel free to reach out or refer to our written testimony.

Thank you for joining us. We certainly have a lot of communities in Alaska that are boat dependent,

not just for our saltwater coastline, but lots of rivers are vital to transportation and the ability to get around in interior Alaska. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the gentlemen on the line.

Does the liability for modifying emissions controls or safety controls or something like that,

does,

if I, which I can't do, I won't buy this crap anymore,

but if I had,

if I was stupid enough to buy one of these vehicles and I modified it, does that liability...

fall back on the manufacturer if

We've got three gentlemen on the line,

so I think we'll

look

towards Mr.

Wareham as he deals with equipment dealers.

Mr.

Wareham.

Yes, thank you, Jerry. Thanks for the question.

So Section 45.

Dot 4580 of the bill subsection B does provide for a protection from liability for modification for the intent service provider owner to answer your question specifically but more broadly

I think the issue is, at least for large equipment, and this is where we get into a distinction of products that have a difference as far as emissions and safety, you know, talking about personal household consumer electronics versus a, you know, $500,000 tractor,

a million dollar combine or mining equipment,

we do have significant safety concerns when that equipment is modified,

you know, whether it's a sensor on a seat that...

deactivates the PTO if there's not pressure there etc these things are created and mandated sometimes by federal law and so when those are modified we have had dealers testify on these bills around the country about their technicians that have not known about a modification because sometimes it's difficult to identify and they go to work on it and unfortunately we have had circumstances where technicians have

have been maimed or critically injured because they were unaware of that modification when they worked on the equipment.

So,

you know, sometimes that can sound like a red herring for maybe some other products, but it's certainly not when we're talking about the type of equipment and the type of products that we represent.

Thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to shift a little bit to potentially a question for the bill sponsor on what was mentioned before was specifically about tools and so I appreciate the work that was done in the, you know, with parts and that those aren't provided for free and I think maybe I misunderstood it. So my interpretation of reading it in,

you know, page 3,

line 10.

Version G,

right?

That's the one.

Okay.

Is that the digital product manufacturer shall make available.

To an independent service provider or owner of the product, then jumping down to Item 3,

the tools required without charge, except that if the provider or owners request the tool in physical form, the manufacturer may charge the provider or owner for the reasonable actual cost of preparing and sending the tool.

With that, you know, talking about digital products,

a lot of the tools are,

they're not physical tools, it's actual software.

And so I just don't see the language in here where it would, because the dealers pay like equipment companies sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a year for access to that software.

And so I don't see in here where...

I just don't see it in language,

and maybe I misunderstand it, or maybe it's somewhere and I just haven't seen it.

But I don't see where the digital product manufacturer will actually be able to essentially recoup the cost that they put into building essentially that entire software package that manages a machine.

And it may not be like a physical tool at all. It's it's literally a piece of software and so will the digital product manufacturer be required to provide that software as it says without charge except for shipping or handling since it's not a physical tool itself.

So we'll start with Ms. Solczynski and then maybe Mr. Proctor can help with that.

Yes, this is a trader representative Nelson. Um

Anything that is not requested in physical form I believe would be required to be provided without charge, but the concern that you brought up with um not having language in there that explicitly states that production costs may be recouped um we have heard and considered and would like to add just a little bit of language in the C_S_ to clarify that production costs will be included within that.

Thank you.

Thank you,

Sochinski,

Mr. Park, do you have anything to add on our software?

Yeah, thank you very much.

And if I can respond to the EPA thing,

I would like to at your discretion, Chair.

But I would say that the concept of the tools piece is that

To make a copy of software is functionally, you know, without cost to make a copy of the zeros and ones.

And if you pay half a million dollars for a piece of equipment and then they say,

oh,

wouldn't you know it, you have to now pay tens of thousands of dollars to get the software that manages that equipment. I think that's part of the reason why we made tools, if they're software,

not come at a cost.

is one because it's an unfair practice to you know kind of have an unlimited amount you can charge for that software that the equipment relies on and two what auto mechanics are now paying to get access to the things they need to fix your cars is

basically driving is ruining the aftermarket for car repair and you know you can talk to your local mechanics they're terrified whenever a new car comes in if you want to work on a new Jeep you could be up in up to five thousand dollars with the software fees before you get everything you need to complete the repair on that vehicle that's a really concerning process I don't want to live in a world where if you want to keep using something you

You spent a lot of money on the manufacturer can charge you whatever they want for a bunch of zeros and ones

They've kind of got you over the coals at that point.

So part of that language is to address this very real

market power and an extorted market power that manufacturers possess over the owner of the product and manufacturers should plan when they sell you something to recoup whatever they need to provide you the software that keeps it running and they shouldn't be able to charge you unlimited rents for the rest of the life of the

product uh you just you know that just that's unfair we i don't want to live in that kind of a market

So, Mr. Proctor,

we are getting towards the end of our time here today.

If you've got other responses, if you could provide that in writing to the committee and we can distribute that.

Representative— just super quickly, that the EPA clarified that

uh, there's nothing in the Clean Air Act which prevents independent repair of this equipment.

Um, I respect that there's some concern there,

but the EPA has clarified that. I can provide that commentary in writing to the committee.