The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/10/2016 Public hearing transcript on BILL#2613 PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 10, 2016 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kaua`i was called to order by Ross Kagawa, Chair, Public Works / Parks & Recreation Committee, on Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at 1:34 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Historic County Building, Lihu`e, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Mason K. Chock Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i Honorable Mel Rapozo Excused: Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: "Bill No. 2613 — A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 13 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ELECTRICAL CODE," which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kaua`i on January 13, 2016, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on January 22, 2016. The following communication was received for the record: 1. Nishimura, Randall, February 10, 2016 The hearing proceeded as follows: SCOTT K. SATO, Deputy County Clerk: We received one (1) written testimony and we have two (2) registered speakers. The first speaker is Ryan Takahashi representing the Hawaii Electricians Market Enhancement Program, followed by Randall Nishimura. Committee Chair Kagawa: Thank you. If you can please come up and state your name, then you may begin. RYAN TAKAHASHI: Good afternoon Chair and Councilmembers. My name is Ryan Takahashi with the Hawaii Electricians Market Enhancement Program representing the IBEW Local Union 1186 and the Electrical Contractors Association of Hawaii. We strongly support the County of Kauai in adopting this 2014 National Electric Code, the NEC. All the Counties in the State are operating on outdated Electric Code updates from the NEC. So we applaud the County of Kauai for leading the way in the State proving that the County has the public's best interest in mind. Unfortunately, we cannot support the proposed Bill in its current form, and ask that the Council amend it so that we can continue the process of adopting the PUBLIC HEARING 2 FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BILL NO. 2613 Code. Specifically in Section 13-2.3(a), the Bill proposes to remove existing language and insert new language. We believe these changes could be creating unnecessary and perhaps dangerous loopholes, lowering regulations, lessening inspections, and in fact taking away much needed finances for the County by eliminating the need for electrical permits and permit fees for work that has collected fees for many years. There is electrical contractors here who I am sure can attest to that as well. Persons supporting this language have explained that this language is only to be consistent with State law, but this is not really completely accurate. The language is taken from a generally worded Administrative Rule within the State's Building Code, but it ignores the intent of this rule and furthermore, it could create a conflict with other State laws and even the County Code as it already exists. To give a little background, the history of this language is kind of tangled in a long ongoing dispute with how much electrical work a general contractor can do as opposed to an electrical contractor. The Building Code Council at the State level denied previous attempts to insert language that could be interpreted as expanding the scope of the general contractor because the proposed language was vague. Previous unsubmitted drafts of this code update specifically proposed allowing a general contractor to obtain an electrical permit. Fast-forward to the current language, and now the attempt is to simply just remove the permit requirement completely for certain types of work. We just think this is a bad way to achieve that goal. The language already exists in the County Code. The way it already exists is consistent with the State law. The utility companies performing their own work utilizing their own employees is exactly what State licensing law already exempts in Chapter 448E. This exemption is expressly not to be passed onto the contractors and subcontractors that the utility might hire, and nor should it be. The license boards have upheld that interpretation may times. This is because the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates the utility company and the work performed by their employees with rigid codes and standards of their own. Committee Chair Kagawa: Ryan, your time is up. You will have an additional three (3) minutes after everyone has spoken. Mr. Takahashi: Okay. Committee Chair Kagawa: We would like to hear the rest of what you have. Mr. Takahashi: Alright. Thank you. Committee Chair Kagawa: Thank you. Mr. Sato: The next registered speaker is Randall Nishimura representing Ron's Electric Inc. and Electrical Contractors Association of Hawaii. RANDALL NISHIMURA: Good afternoon Council Chair and Councilmembers. Randall Nishimura for the record, representing Ron's Electric Inc. and the Electrical Contractors Association of Hawaii. Both our company and in speaking to many of the other contractors on the , are in support of the general intent PUBLIC HEARING 3 FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BILL NO. 2613 of the Bill, which is to adopt the 2014 edition of the National Electrical Code. Like Ryan, we have concerns about Section 13-2.3(a), which would eliminate the need for permitting by Public Utilities Commission regulated industries. In addition to what Ryan has already brought up, one of the abuses that may occur and I think is inadvertent, but it does occur, is public utility regulated industries include transportation like Young Brothers, Limited. It includes gas operations like Gas Company. All of these, if you read the language as currently written, would be allowed to do electrical work without a permit. I do not believe that is what the Building Division intended, but that is one potentially unintended consequence. Beyond that, I think Ryan has, and I think he will go into it in much more detail and much more eloquently than I can, as to the other reasons we oppose the change in the language for permitting. With that, if the existing language was kept in, we would strongly support adoption of this Bill. Thank you. Committee Chair Kagawa: Thank you, Randall. Just for your information, Christiane from our staff, is in charge of this item. So if you have any proposed amendments that you would want the Committee to consider, I would advise if you can contact Christiane and let her know of what amendments you would want. Thank you. Next speaker. Anybody else want to speak for the first time? Seeing none, Ryan. Mr. Takahashi: Thank you very much. I am just going to continue on saying that the PUC does regulate the utility company and their employee's work through their own rigid codes and standards, but when they hire out a contractor and the subcontractors, the jurisdiction of that is with the State licensing laws and within the Counties and the County Codes. The County Code already requires that in Section 13-3.1, which requires compliance with statutes in Chapter 448E; that is the one I talked about earlier. Again, the language is already in the Code and that is the language that is being proposed to be removed. We would want to keep that language intact. Lastly, we just want to always mention that electrical work is not an area to cut corners and save money by using unqualified persons or lower regulations. A National Fire Protection Association report from 2011 said that there were nearly fifty thousand (50,000) reported fires involving some type of electrical failure or malfunction in the United States (U.S.) resulting in four hundred (400) deaths, one thousand five hundred (1,500) injuries, and about one billion four million dollars ($1,400,000,000) in property damage. According to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), over the past decade, forty-six thousand (46,000) workers have been injured by electrical hazards on the job with more than three hundred (300) deaths each year, ranking electrical accidents sixth among causes of death for work related accidents. We urge the Council to amend the Bill, not allowing the proposed changes in the language in Section 13-2.3 and we look forward to supporting the adoption of the 2014 NEC without any changes to that section. PUBLIC HEARING 4 FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BILL NO. 2613 Committee Chair Kagawa: Thank you, Ryan. Anybody else want to speak? There being no further testimony, the public hearing adjourned at 1:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, p22W.&— SCOTT K. SATO Deputy County Clerk- :aa