Bill on pole attachments sparks contentious hearing as cooperatives and broadband providers clash

The committee took testimony on House Bill 695, a measure addressing pole attachment agreements between pole owners (principally rural electric cooperatives) and broadband providers receiving public grant funds.

The sponsor described HB 695 as establishing that a pole owner ‘‘shall attach’’ consistent with Federal Communications Commission rules and that, when a pole owner or its affiliate has received broadband grant funding and offers service to subscribers, it must enter an attachment agreement or the aggrieved party may seek judicial relief in the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County.

Opponents argued the bill is narrowly targeted and punitive. Mark Lambrecht of the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association told the committee the bill is ‘‘specifically targeted at Ravalli Electric Cooperative’’ and characterized the proponent as a large national company that received substantial federal and state broadband subsidies. Ravalli Electric’s general manager, Mark Grotbo, said the co‑op had attempted to negotiate and that the national company did not respond for months; he said proposed contract redlines would shift liability to the cooperative, allow unauthorized attachments and trimming, and undermine linemen’s safety. Grotbo said the co‑op had offered attachments in advance of grant projects but had not received cooperative responses in return.

Linemen and safety witnesses described concrete safety risks from nonengineered or unauthorized attachments. Kevin Notts, a line superintendent with over two decades of field experience, testified that utility poles are engineered for specific loading and that extra, unreviewed attachments can weaken poles, create clearance violations, impede safe climbing space and raise the risk of failure during storms. Notts said unauthorized or improper attachments “turn what should be a safe working environment into a serious hazard.”

Broadband‑industry representatives and other proponents argued the policy issue is time‑sensitive and operational: a broadband provider that wins public grant funding must meet deployment deadlines (the ‘‘shot clock’’), and inability to reach timely pole‑attachment agreements can force projects to be buried underground at substantially higher cost or to forfeit grant awards. A proponent who spoke without a named affiliation said the bill’s limited scope — attaching to pole owners or affiliates that received broadband grant funding and commit to offer service — aims to ensure grant projects are not stalled by protracted negotiations.

Other witnesses raised procedural concerns: Broadband Montana, representing locally owned community broadband providers, opposed the bill because it could harm relationships with local electric co‑ops and open existing ARPA grant agreements to renegotiation. Several opponents also warned the bill could create precedent by turning pole‑attachment disputes into legislative fixes rather than contractual or FCC matters.

No committee action was recorded at the hearing; opponents asked lawmakers to reject a statutory remedy that they said would undermine cooperative safety standards and local negotiation processes.