REQUESTED BY: Charles G. Nelson, Executive Director, Nebraska Board of Engineers ; Architects INTRODUCTION
In Op. Att'y Gen. No. 96057 (July 23, 1996) the Attorney General concluded that, under Neb. Rev. Stat. §
Referring to the fact that the statutes governing licensed professional engineers and architects have changed since 1996 and making an argument as to why you believe the Attorney General's conclusion was wrong, you ask us now to re-visit Opinion No. 96057, presumably with the view to changing the above conclusion regarding the authority of licensed electrical contractors and master electricians.
Having reviewed the Engineers and Architects Regulation Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§
Subsequent legislation does not call for a change in the conclusion reached in Opinion No. 96057.
Opinion No. 96057 was directed toward an apparent conflict between the language of §
The first option set forth in this conclusion ___, i.e., that a person licensed as an electrical contractor or master electrician may design electrical installations — was based on the language of §
The second option set forth in the conclusion of Opinion No. 96057 ___, i.e., that registered professional engineers are also authorized to design electrical installations — was premised on the pertinent statutes regulating the practice of engineering in existence at that time. Shortly after the opinion was issued, in 1997, the Legislature repealed those particular statutes and enacted the Engineers and Architects Regulation Act, which is a comprehensive statutory scheme for the licensing and regulation of professional engineers and architects in Nebraska. There is nothing in the act that would change our opinion to the effect that licensed professional engineers are authorized by law to design electrical installations for others. This conclusion is supported by §
It is apparent, however, that the passage of the Engineers and Architects Regulation Act did not in any way change §
In summary, the subsequent repeal of §
Absent a change in the statutes indicating that the earlier conclusion is contrary to the Legislature's intent, the conclusion reached in Opinion No. 96057 will not be changed.
We recognized in Opinion No. 96057 that there was some ambiguity in §
Were we being asked to interpret §
Opinion No. 96057 was issued more than eight and a half years ago. Yet, as discussed above, the Legislature has not, in any relevant way, amended §
Moreover, while the Legislature enacted the Engineers and Architects Regulation Act after Opinion No. 96057 was issued, it did nothing to amend or alter §
Given the foregoing history, we are unwilling to alter or change the conclusion reached in Opinion No. 96057 just because a plausible argument for a contrary conclusion can be made. Absent an amendment to the statutes clarifying the legislative intent as to whether licensed electricians and electrical contractors may design and plan finished electrical installations for others, we adhere to our conclusion that they do have such authority.
Sincerely,
JON BRUNING Attorney General
Charles E. Lowe Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
