The MN House Ag, Finance and Policy committee heard about HF47: Provisions governing the certification of underground telecommunications installers modified. In a 7 to 6 vote the bill is assed and moved onto the general register.

Agriculture Finance and Policy

Chair: Rep. Paul Anderson
Location: Capitol G3
Agenda:

Bills may be added.

Live Video

Bills Added

HF47(Schultz)
Provisions governing the certification of underground telecommunications installers modified.

 

Rep Schultz:

• A1 Amendment: working with folks – removing a line – amended
• Addressing language passed last year. We want to keep people safe and have broadband. Working with all of the industry folks, trying to find a balance of safety and expanding broadband

Testifiers

Melissa Wolf MN Cable

• Supports the bill
• We have been working hard
• We are on the edge of ubiquitous broadband – but the bill passed last year could stop that
• Right now broadband installers need to take 40 hours of training and pass a test before July 1 to continue to work on deploying broadband – that can’t/won’t happen
• We are not trying to repeal the bill from last year but need some changes
  • Training timeline is impossible – we need extended deadline
  • Training requires hands-on component, which again is hard to do given MN weather
  • Training requirements are confusing and contradictory
  • The staffing mandates double staff when we don’t’ have it and it would double the costs
• When deadlines are missed installer have three choices: shut down projects, work in noncompliance, lose permits and delay broadband
• Why do broadband providers need 40 hours and water pipe layers only need 4?

Q: The bill before us doesn’t define jobsite – does this bill meet your need?
It will help make sure we don’t have to double staff a site

Q: The 2024 law was due to increased damage. That’s why standards are high.
Safety is paramount. Another bill related to underground excavation that passed last year should help. We don’t’ need 40 hours or training.

Q: Is the main concern is the hours of training? Or training in general?
Not enough time to deploy training, need more clarity and too onerous for seasoned workers.
Q: This is a staggered bill – why haven’t folks prepared? And why does having two people over one onerous?
Because this is entirely new, there were no trainer or programs to use. We had to build from scratch, get approved and train trainers.

Q: The bigger question is – can we meet the broadband building deadline? If we don’t do we lose the money?
We are trying to make it workable.

Rep Schultz

• We want to make sure the timeline works for everyone

Nick Anderson – Anderson Underground

• Employ 500 people and work all over the country
• Supports the new bill
• We have an apprenticeship program. It’s recognized at federal level – we think it should be recognized at state level too. If we can’t make that work we risk missing deadlines.
• We focus on CGA damage goals
• We think everyone should join CGA and follow their structure

Brent Christensen MTA

• Supports the bill
• Spent nearly $500M in MN to deploy better broadband
• This bill isn’t anti-union, it’s not a repeal of last year’s bill.
• Last year’s bill wasn’t about safety, it is about creating new education programs.
• We need local government permits – that’s where we need to focus on paying attention to safety.
• MTA has an educational program. We struggled to come up with 40 hours of training for broadband deployment

Q: What are you planning for training now? Why is it impossible?
We have been working since getting requirements in Nov. We are forming the classes now. Hope to do roll out in mid March – then we start when we can. We have online, virtual and hands-on program. We have had a lot of interested – maybe more than we can handle.

Michelle Benson – Chamber of Commerce

• Supports the new bill
• Broadband is important
• Public and private investment has been made in broadband in MN
• These changes will remove barriers without removing the training

Joel Hanson – Assn of Builder and Construction’

• We support the bill
• We have developed training. Should be operational by early spring.
• Our program is open to all. We expect a lot of folks (1000?) to take training. Given weather issue, we’re just not sure we can get it all done.

Q: SO the program is developed at 40 hours?
Yes because that’s the law.

Q: SO if this bill changes, you’ll take out 30 hours – what will you remove?
The requirement in hours is subjective. But really you just need to have the skills required

Kevin Pranis, LiUNA

• Last year found lots of damage, lots of turnover in jobs
• Our bill was about safety. We have heard from many that last year’s bill is important.
• We have heard many horror stories of safety issues.
• The new bill will reduce issues from out of state installers creating delays, unqualified workers
• There are 7 programs already approved
• We need the 40 hours program
• DEED was comfortable with the bill last year.

Jake Schweitzer North Star Policy Action

• We work on safe work spaces
• Telecom installation had more common that other damages
• Damage done can be deadly
• Nearly half of telecom drilling damage comes from excavator errors – that’ higher than other industries
• We support the bill from last year.

Crystal Gorse – CenterPoint Energy

• Increased installation of fiber has impacted our business. Top two telecom issue – inadequate hand digging and blind boring
• Safety certified installers would help prevent that
• We’d like to add to the training
• The cost of damages is considerable
• Who is responsible for the damage? We investigate the damage and bill contractor that is responsible.

Jason Clare, small business

• Yesterday by business was working in the street. Out of 15 gas services we need marked, 14 were mismarked. That’s the usual problem.
• We figured it out and worked with CenterPoint all day on this issue – we don’t get to bill anyone for that. We could have plowed ahead and done damage – but we didn’t and it cost us money.
• This law doesn’t address the problems that we see with installations

Q: Looks like exponential growth in damages – but is because we’re doing more fiber installations?
We have a lot of money coming into fiber installation. We need many voices at the table

Q: Are we seeing more damage per foot – or just more work happening?
Might be ground for more legislation on locating

Q: The timeline is only extended to metro area right? Not the Jan 1 2026 rural deadline?
Yes

Q: I see why industry wants this bill? But from public health – what’s the attraction?
The goal is to not stop building in metro area. The timeline is too tight.

Q: The workforce here so transient. Won’t this bill make it worse?
We just need to decide who on a job site needs to be trained?

Q: If the issue is about the timing – why are we cutting out requirements? Why not just extend deadline?
That’s part of our focus. But we do want to clarify some language.

It seems like we still have a lot of questions. That should happen in this committee.