Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pole Attachment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over pole‑attachment bill centers on safety and broadband deployment timelines
Summary
HB 695 would require pole owners with broadband grant recipients or affiliates to adopt FCC‑style attachment terms for grant‑funded projects; electric co‑ops warned it targets a single cooperative and could shift safety liability, while broadband proponents said the narrow change would prevent grant deployment delays.
Representative Larry Brewster introduced HB 695 to address pole‑attachment disputes affecting broadband deployments funded with public grants. The bill, as presented, would require a pole owner that received broadband grant funding and whose affiliate offers broadband service to enter an attachment agreement aligned with federal FCC formulas; if agreement cannot be reached, the bill names a specific judicial venue for disputes.
Opponents including the Montana Electric Cooperatives Association and Revalley Electric Cooperative argued the bill appeared punitive and targeted specific cooperatives. Revalley’s general manager said proposed contract language would shift liability and safety responsibilities to co‑ops and cited an existing record of negotiations and specific engineering concerns. Line‑superintendent testimony underscored worker safety risks such as pole overloading, restricted climbing space and the need for engineering review before attachments.
Proponents for national broadband providers, including Charter Communications’ counsel, said the change is narrow and aimed at preventing grant recipients from stalling deployments that are bound by federal “shot clocks”; they argued that if attachments cannot be agreed in a timely way, projects face either delays, higher cost to bury lines, or forfeiture of grants.
Committee members asked procedural questions about enforcement, unauthorized attachments, and alternative solutions (building new poles or undergrounding). The hearing ended without executive action; committee members acknowledged the issue is complex and involves contractual, safety and broadband‑deployment tradeoffs.
