HB 695 would create a new state-law framework governing pole attachments for broadband providers and other attachers when the pole owner has received broadband grant funding or is otherwise offering broadband service. In those circumstances, the bill requires the pole owner to allow access to its poles under the rules, regulations, and orders of the Federal Communications Commission under 47 U.S.C. 224, or any successor regulation. It also requires state broadband grant agreements to include compliance obligations for applicants and any affiliated pole owners, and it directs existing grant agreements to be amended to conform to the new requirements.
The bill also creates a private right of action for an aggrieved attacher to sue in the First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County if a pole owner fails to comply. A prevailing attacher could recover actual damages, equitable relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. The measure defines key terms such as affiliate, attacher, broadband grant funding, department, and pole owner, and it would be codified as a new chapter in Title 90 with immediate effect upon passage and approval.
Impact
HB 695 would affect state broadband grant administration and the rights and obligations of pole owners, including rural electric cooperatives, by tying grant-funded broadband participation to mandatory pole attachment access. It would add enforceable state-level requirements to agreements administered by the Department of Administration and could alter how pole owners manage access to electric distribution poles for broadband deployment. The bill would also create a new judicial enforcement mechanism and potential liability for noncompliance, including damages and attorney fees.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had some initial support in committee, as the Energy, Technology and Federal Relations Committee voted 14-0 to table it, which indicates unanimous agreement to set it aside rather than advance it. The bill ultimately died in process, and there are no transcript excerpts showing floor debate or committee testimony. Overall, the limited record points to procedural opposition or lack of momentum rather than a clearly documented ideological split.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s requirement that pole owners receiving broadband grant funding must provide access to attachers under FCC pole-attachment rules, which could be viewed as imposing additional obligations on electric utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Another possible concern is the bill’s reach into existing grant agreements, since it would require amendments to prior contracts to ensure compliance. Supporters would likely emphasize broadband deployment and fair access to infrastructure, while opponents may focus on property rights, administrative burden, and the risk of litigation in a single district court forum.