Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right To Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on right-to-repair bills covering farm equipment, mobility devices and consumer electronics
Summary
Representatives and industry and advocacy groups testified on a package of right-to-repair bills including HB5159 (farm equipment) and HB5246 (omnibus). Industry trade groups warned of safety and liability risks; environmental and consumer advocates urged the bills to reduce e-waste and preserve consumer choice.
Representatives introduced multiple right-to-repair measures and the House Committee on Corporations heard more than an hour of testimony from equipment dealers, trade groups, repair advocates and environmental organizations.
Representative Shalcross Smith introduced House Bill 5159, a bill “relating to the right to repair significantly on agricultural equipment,” saying farmers who buy a tractor “which costs anywhere between 25,000 to well over a hundred thousand dollars…should be able to…fix it and repair it.” Representative Kislak presented House Bill 5246 as an omnibus right-to-repair measure that would include agricultural equipment and assistive devices; she said the bills together would allow consumers and independent shops to choose who repairs devices, and that the policy would reduce waste and create local repair jobs.
Industry witnesses warned of safety, emissions and liability risks if certain off-road and heavy equipment were covered. Dan Mustico, representing the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, said the industry "opposes including off road equipment in H 05/1946 because it isn't necessary and only creates the risk of unsafe products," and stressed electronic controls, battery safety and existing repair frameworks. Jonathan Porter, government affairs manager for Associated Equipment Distributors, told the committee these bills "are unnecessary and would ultimately harm the very businesses that support Rhode Island's farmers, contractors, and equipment owners," and noted manufacturers have agreements and grievance processes through the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Dealers described available options for customers. Dan Doon of Monroe Tractor said his dealership stocks about $1,000,000 in parts and that approximately "60% of those parts are sold across the counter to customers and independent repair shops," and said manufacturers also make diagnostic tools available for purchase.
Supporters argued the bills address planned obsolescence and e-waste. Clean Water Action Rhode Island and Environment Rhode Island said easier repair access reduces landfill waste and extends product life. Representative Kislak pointed to other states that have enacted right-to-repair rules and said "when we buy stuff, we should have the right to fix it." Opponents said many machines have embedded codes tied to safety or EPA emissions that should not be widely exposed; MelonCat and Millencat representatives warned that misuse of embedded controls could disable safety systems or emissions controls.
Several witnesses referenced federal litigation and memoranda of understanding. Dealer and industry witnesses said manufacturers have MOUs with the American Farm Bureau Federation; others noted recent federal enforcement activity (FTC and Department of Justice suits) addressing repair access in the agricultural equipment sector.
No formal committee vote on these bills was recorded in the hearing excerpt. Committee members said they would accept written testimony and limited public oral testimony was scheduled at three minutes per person.
The committee record captures a multi-stakeholder dispute: dealers and some manufacturers seek protections for embedded safety and emissions controls and for battery safety; farmers, environmental groups and repair advocates seek broader access to parts, manuals and diagnostic tools to reduce downtime, cost and waste.
