HB3520 creates a new statutory framework governing the relocation of utility facilities when they conflict with publicly funded infrastructure projects. It defines key terms such as “notice to relocate,” “public infrastructure project,” “relocation,” and “utility,” and requires a utility to finish required relocation within 90 calendar days after receiving a proper notice. The 90-day clock starts only when the utility has received final approved construction plans and the funds needed for relocation are contractually available.
The bill also imposes a financial consequence for delay: beginning on day 91, a utility that has not completed the relocation would owe liquidated damages of $5,000 per day, per project, until the work is finished. Those damages are described as a reasonable estimate of delay costs rather than a penalty, and they may be recovered by the public entity funding the project through withholding from relocation reimbursement or direct invoicing. The bill authorizes enforcement in district court and allows prevailing public entities to recover liquidated damages, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and court costs.
HB3520 would affect utilities operating in public rights-of-way, including public utilities, electric cooperatives, telephone and cable providers, broadband providers, pipeline companies, and similar entities. It would also affect municipalities, counties, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and other public entities funding infrastructure work such as roads, bridges, drainage, water, sewer, broadband, transit, and other public improvements. In practical terms, the bill would add a mandatory timeline and enforcement mechanism to utility relocation disputes tied to state, local, or federally funded projects.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is neutral to supportive by design, with the bill appearing aimed at speeding project delivery and reducing delays caused by utility relocation. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor debate or recorded opposition in the provided materials. The bill was referred to the House Utilities Committee, suggesting it was still in the early review stage.
The main point of contention likely concerns the strictness of the 90-day deadline and the size of the $5,000-per-day liquidated damages, which could be viewed by utilities as punitive even though the bill labels them as non-penal. Another likely issue is the limited grounds for extensions and the requirement that any extension be approved in writing by the public entity, which gives project owners substantial control over schedule changes.
HB3520 would add new provisions to Title 17 of the Oklahoma Statutes governing utility relocation for publicly funded infrastructure projects. It creates enforceable duties for utilities, authorizes liquidated damages and court enforcement, and gives public entities a statutory remedy for delay. The bill would directly affect utilities, public project sponsors, and relocation reimbursement practices for infrastructure projects funded by municipalities, counties, the state, or federal funds administered by public entities.
No committee discussion or vote history is available, so there is no documented debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears intended to improve project timelines and accountability, which suggests a generally pro-project, pro-public-works policy approach. The referral to the Utilities Committee indicates the measure was under initial consideration rather than having advanced through recorded votes.
The likely areas of contention are the short 90-day completion deadline, the start date for that deadline, and the $5,000 per day per project liquidated damages. Utilities may object that the schedule is too rigid or that delays outside their control could still trigger liability, while public entities are likely to favor the bill’s stronger enforcement tools. The extension process may also be disputed because it is narrowly limited to specific circumstances and requires written approval from the public entity, giving little flexibility to utilities.