HB5940 would amend Michigan’s highway obstruction and utility accommodation law to expand and clarify how utilities, broadband providers, municipalities, and transmission line developers may use public road rights-of-way, especially limited-access highway corridors. The bill preserves the general rule that utilities and municipalities need local consent to place lines and related structures in public rights-of-way, but it also reinforces a separate process for utilities covered by federal right-of-way rules to place longitudinal facilities in limited-access highway rights-of-way under standards approved by the State Transportation Commission and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
The bill would require those standards to allow collocation of projects, including aboveground lines and structures where permitted, while still requiring underground placement in ways that do not increase state maintenance costs. It also sets a one-time installation permit fee framework for longitudinal use of limited-access highway rights-of-way, with a cap of $1,000 per mile and a minimum fee of $5,000 per permit, and directs the revenue to highway capital and maintenance costs. If a relocation is requested by a government entity, the bill requires permit fees to be waived for licensed telecommunications and video service providers, unless the relocation was needed because the provider placed facilities in an unauthorized location.
HB5940 also creates a new section requiring the Michigan Department of Transportation to coordinate with utilities and transmission line developers upon written request to review highway corridors for permissible transmission line locations. MDOT would have to share known future project plans that could affect transmission line placement and, when a route is identified, work with the utility or developer on a constructability report before issuing a permit. The report would set terms and conditions for collocation, including a period during which MDOT cannot request relocation of the transmission line.
In addition, the bill would require MDOT to give at least five years’ notice before relocating a transmission line in a highway right-of-way, and it defines “transmission line” as a high-voltage transmission line. Overall, the bill would affect state highway permitting practices, utility relocation rules, and the planning process for electric transmission infrastructure along transportation corridors.
The bill would amend 1925 PA 368, the state law governing obstructions and encroachments on public highways, by adding new permitting, fee, coordination, and notice requirements for utility and transmission-line use of highway rights-of-way. It would directly affect the Michigan Department of Transportation, the State Transportation Commission, the Michigan Public Service Commission, local governments, utilities, broadband and cable providers, and high-voltage transmission developers. It also would redirect certain permit revenues to the state trunk line fund or highway maintenance and capital expenses, and it would limit when permit fees may be charged for government-ordered relocations of telecommunications and video facilities.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to streamline utility and transmission-line planning while protecting state highway interests through standards, fees, and notice requirements. Its structure suggests a generally pro-infrastructure and pro-coordination approach, with safeguards for state maintenance costs and highway management.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between state control of highway rights-of-way and utility/transmission access, the fee structure for longitudinal use of limited-access highways, and the new limits on relocation requests. Utilities and transmission developers may favor the bill’s coordination requirements, constructability reports, and five-year relocation notice, while MDOT and highway administrators may be concerned about reduced flexibility in managing corridors and future projects. Local governments and road agencies may also focus on the waiver of permit fees for mandated relocations, while utilities may object if relocation costs or permit conditions are seen as burdensome, especially where facilities are alleged to be outside authorized locations.