Evansville licensing panel to review master HVAC exam after contractor says test includes boilers, chillers questions

At a recent Evansville City licensing-panel meeting, a license applicant raised concerns that the master HVAC exam includes questions on boilers and chillers even though the Vanderburgh County master HVAC license described on the board's website does not authorize work on boilers or chillers.

The applicant, identified in the meeting record only as Commenter (license applicant), said he has taken part 1 of the exam four times and failed each time, and that “the test is flawed.” He told the panel the exam’s first part is composed mostly of boiler and chiller questions — “over 70% of the questions,” he said — and that his license and experience do not allow him to work on those systems.

Why it matters: Board members said the issue affects whether experienced local technicians can be licensed in Evansville and whether the exam aligns with the scope of work allowed under local licensing rules. Commenters said the mismatch can bar qualified technicians from working in the city despite having experience in jurisdictions where different scopes apply.

Board discussion focused on whether the current exam is outdated and whether exemptions or recalculations of scores for specific question subsets would be appropriate. Several board members acknowledged longstanding concerns about the test and said a new exam is already being developed. One board member said the body has been “in the process of making a new test” and agreed that the panel would look at the specific questions raised by the applicant.

Panel members discussed procedural limits and past attempts to replace the exam. Board members said the process to develop a new test has been underway for years and previously stalled when a selected vendor stopped work. At least one board member suggested any changes should be measured and avoid being made “just because” one candidate fails. The record shows the panel did not take immediate action to change any scores or retroactively alter a candidate’s result at that meeting.

The applicant told the panel he has customers and a potential commercial lease in Evansville and said continuing exam failures have a direct business impact. Board members responded that the body will review the specific questions the applicant identified and consider adjustments as part of the longer-term exam revision project.

The panel did not adopt any formal remedies at the meeting; minutes reflect that members agreed to review the test content and continue work on the new exam currently under development.