Missouri committee hears bill to require contractor registration for roofing and solar work after storm-chasing complaints

A Missouri House committee heard testimony on House Bill 1348 on consumer protections for roofing and solar customers, including a proposed state registration for contractors and minimum documentation requirements.

Representative David Castile, 90th District, told the committee the bill would require roofing and solar contractors doing business in Missouri to file basic contact information with the Secretary of State, obtain a sales-tax license from the Department of Revenue, provide a tax ID number and carry workers' compensation insurance. "All it's doing, it is mandatory for roofing companies and solar companies operating within the state of Missouri to, to do business," Castile said. "It's asking for basic information for the sake of, protecting the address and website addresses of and any other contact information of the applicant."

The nut graf: supporters said the measure is aimed at reducing so‑called storm‑chaser scams that follow severe weather; opponents and committee members pressed on how the registry would be enforced, how out‑of‑state contractors would participate and who would investigate workmanship complaints.

Proponents said the proposal would make it easier for homeowners to identify reputable firms after storms. Jonathan Dolan, executive director of the Missouri Solar Energy Industries Association, said the association represents many in the state and backed a low-cost database to provide contact and certification details: "This will say, get on the database, pay your fee, check with workers comp, have a tax ID. Who are you again? What's your real website and phone number? And who's signing here? And how can I find you?" Dolan said.

Lawmakers questioned practical details. Representative Dahl asked how consumers would verify registration; committee staff said the department would post notifications on its website and could send a weekly notice. Committee members also raised reciprocity concerns for contractors working across state lines. Castile said the bill would not prohibit out‑of‑state contractors from registering in Missouri.

Lawmakers and witnesses also discussed enforcement of workmanship complaints. Castile and other witnesses said the bill does not create state inspectors; they proposed using third‑party, industry‑funded observers or working with existing professional boards and manufacturers to review warranty and installation disputes. "We had suggested a third party...to come in and do an independent analysis on the roof," Castile said, describing one proposed approach.

Committee members asked about fees, license revocation and the duration of any penalties. Castile and other witnesses cited draft figures in committee materials: the draft referenced an approximate $1,800 fee for roofing registrations and $2,000 for solar registrations (figures discussed as breaking down to an annual equivalent), and a revocation period (one witness said a revocation could include a one‑year waiting period). Committee members noted some of those numbers and timeframes may need clarification in bill language.

Supporters acknowledged there are outstanding implementation questions. Dolan said the Department could flesh out program rules under statute and that registration is intended to be a minimal, low‑cost step to increase transparency rather than a licensing program: "We're not here to license, and we respect our licensed electricians and others," he said.

The hearing also included local examples: witnesses cited recent hail and storm damage in St. Louis area communities — including Arnold and Valley Park — as why homeowners are targeted by transient companies after storms. Castile said roofing is especially vulnerable to high‑pressure sales tactics and out‑of‑state crews who may be difficult to locate after a job.

No formal vote or committee action was recorded during the hearing; sponsors and association representatives asked for follow‑up work on enforcement, complaint review and reciprocity before the committee advances the bill.

The committee set the bill for continued consideration and invited stakeholders to work with the sponsor on clarifying language, enforcement mechanisms and fee structures.

Ending: The committee moved on to other bills after the hearing; proponents asked to continue drafting work on enforcement and complaint‑investigation details if the bill is advanced.