AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4 and Title 54, relative to utility relocation projects by the department of transportation.
SB1792 revises Tennessee law governing utility relocations required by the Department of Transportation during highway construction projects. The bill broadens and modernizes the statutory definitions of “utility” and “utility facility” to expressly include broadband internet, fiber optic, and telecommunication services, along with traditional electric, water, gas, sewer, and related systems. It also clarifies that all public, private, and cooperative utilities are covered by the relocation reimbursement framework.
The bill requires the commissioner of transportation to reimburse utilities for relocation costs when utility facilities in public highway rights-of-way must be moved for department projects, subject to compliance with relocation planning and scheduling requirements. For projects costing less than $2.5 million, reimbursement must equal actual relocation cost. For projects costing $2.5 million or more, the commissioner must reimburse at least $2.5 million per project and may authorize a higher amount based on specified factors, including project complexity, utility service impacts, ratepayer effects, environmental or right-of-way constraints, and the department’s schedule and design requirements. The bill also directs the department to adopt rules governing these reimbursements and sets the reimbursement amount based on the rules in effect when the relocation contract is executed.
SB1792 further revises the process for approving utility relocation plans and schedules. The department must approve submitted plans if reasonable, with reasonableness tied to achieving the lowest cost to ratepayers, and may direct an alternative plan if the utility’s proposal is not reasonable. The bill adds notice and timing requirements, including certified mail communications, notice to proceed procedures, and a reservation-of-rights process if the utility and department cannot agree on a schedule. It also provides for reimbursement of additional relocation costs if the department later requires further relocation or adjustment.
The bill’s impact on state law is to codify and refine the existing utility relocation reimbursement framework in Title 54, while aligning the statute with current departmental policy and explicitly recognizing modern broadband and fiber infrastructure. It creates a more detailed statutory reimbursement structure, establishes a minimum reimbursement floor for larger projects, and formalizes factors the commissioner must consider when authorizing higher payments. The bill also takes effect immediately for rulemaking purposes and on January 1, 2027, for all other purposes.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive and policy-driven rather than contested in the available record. The bill’s stated purpose emphasizes predictability, administrative transparency, protection of utilities and ratepayers, and support for broadband deployment and infrastructure investment. Potential points of contention, based on the text itself, are the expanded statutory reimbursement obligations, the commissioner’s discretion to authorize amounts above the $2.5 million floor, and whether the bill could increase state transportation project costs, although the bill asserts that it largely codifies existing practice rather than expanding it.
SB1792 amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 54, to expand and clarify the utility relocation reimbursement rules applicable to Department of Transportation highway projects. It updates statutory definitions to include broadband, fiber optic, and telecommunication infrastructure; requires reimbursement for qualifying relocation costs; establishes a $2.5 million minimum reimbursement floor for larger projects; and directs the commissioner to promulgate rules governing reimbursement and plan approval procedures. The bill affects utilities, the Department of Transportation, highway contractors, and ultimately utility ratepayers through the allocation of relocation costs.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to assess. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed positively as a modernization and clarification of existing policy, with emphasis on fairness to utilities, protection of ratepayers, and support for broadband and infrastructure investment. The stated rationale suggests generally favorable intent toward the bill’s approach.
The main potential areas of contention are fiscal and administrative. The bill requires the commissioner to reimburse at least $2.5 million for larger relocation projects and allows discretionary higher reimbursements, which could raise concerns about transportation project costs and state exposure. Another possible issue is the commissioner’s discretion in determining higher reimbursement amounts and in judging whether utility relocation plans are reasonable, especially because those decisions can affect project timing and cost allocation. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill codifies existing practice and protects utilities and ratepayers, while skeptics may focus on whether it creates a more expensive or less flexible reimbursement regime.