Conference committee sets aside electrical code update over inspection-fee questions

A Minnesota legislative conference subcommittee on jobs and labor paused consideration of electrical-code language after the Department of Labor and Industry said inspection fees tied to the change must be resolved first.

The committee discussed provisions (listed as R86) that would amend the Minnesota electrical code to adopt national code changes that recognize so-called Class 4 electrical circuits and systems. Commissioner Nicole Lisonbee, Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, told the committee, “the department does support this language…[but] the fee related to the adoption and recognition of those class 4 electrical systems would is also necessary for us to really do the work to make sure that that policy language…will function properly.”

Why it matters: Lisonbee said Minnesota’s adopted code does not currently recognize Class 4 circuits, so the change would allow those systems to be used in the state and require inspection capacity. She told members the agency’s construction codes and licensing division is fee-based and that without a corresponding fee the division “would not be paid for the service, which would likely impact the rest of the entire division and result in long waiting times.”

Committee discussion focused on how the policy and fees are linked. A Senate draft included fee language that would set a specific inspection fee — referenced in the hearing as “50¢ per item” in the senate draft — while the House draft placed the change on a different timeline. Several legislators expressed sympathy for the agency’s need to recover inspection costs, and some chairs recommended setting R86 aside until fee and appropriation questions are resolved.

What the committee did: Members agreed to remove R86 from immediate consideration and “set it aside” pending further work on the fee alignment and any related appropriations. Lisonbee and other witnesses encouraged the committee to pair the policy change with statutory fee language so inspections would be funded if the code is adopted.

Next steps: Committee staff and the agencies will continue to confer on the appropriate fee language and any appropriation adjustments. The measure was not formally voted on; committee members said they would revisit R86 after fees and budget implications are clarified.