2SSB 5690
SignedSenate
Utility relocation
Concerning actions of the department of transportation to notify utility owners of projects and seek federal funding for utility relocation costs.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to coordinate with broadband providers and utilities during highway and fish barrier removal projects—specifically by sharing early notices, allowing broadband conduit installation during road work, and seeking federal funds that cover utility relocation costs. It also formalizes requirements for franchises and cost responsibilities for broadband infrastructure in state conduits.
- Requires WSDOT to proactively share information about planned state highway projects with broadband providers to enable concurrent installation of broadband infrastructure.
- Allows WSDOT to use its contractors to install broadband conduit during road construction if broadband providers are not ready to participate—specifically to reduce future traffic impacts, support telework/congestion goals, or prepare for autonomous vehicles.
- Requires broadband providers to obtain a franchise from WSDOT before installing facilities in state-owned conduits, and makes them responsible for all installation and maintenance costs.
- Directs WSDOT to proactively notify utility providers at least one year in advance (when feasible) about planned fish barrier removal projects.
- Requires WSDOT to request federal funding for fish barrier removal projects and include utility relocation costs in those requests.
Who is affected
- Broadband providers (e.g., internet service providers) — Must apply for and hold a franchise from WSDOT before installing broadband infrastructure in state-owned conduits, and are responsible for all installation and maintenance costs.
- Utility providers (e.g., water, sewer, electric, gas) — May benefit from reduced construction delays and improved coordination when broadband infrastructure is installed alongside road projects, and may receive earlier notice about fish barrier removal projects affecting their facilities.
- General public / drivers — May see reduced traffic disruptions and improved road safety due to coordinated underground utility work, and could benefit from better broadband access supporting telework and future autonomous vehicle systems.
- Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) — Must adopt new policies and procedures to notify utilities about fish barrier removal projects and seek federal funding that includes utility relocation costs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Coordinating broadband conduit installation with highway projects reduces repeated road cuts, lowering long-term traffic disruptions and construction costs—benefiting drivers and commuters through smoother, safer roads and fewer delays.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1) and Sec. 1(2)Proactive utility relocation coordination during fish barrier removal projects reduces environmental risk from repeated excavations and helps ensure habitat restoration proceeds efficiently, supporting salmon recovery and ecosystem health.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)By enabling WSDOT to install broadband conduit proactively (e.g., to support telework and autonomous vehicles), the bill may accelerate broadband access in corridors where providers otherwise wouldn’t invest—potentially expanding digital inclusion and remote work opportunities for everyday Washingtonians.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)Requiring WSDOT to request federal funding that includes utility relocation costs helps offset local and state costs for infrastructure upgrades, easing fiscal pressure on public utilities and local governments during large-scale projects.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Early coordination with broadband providers may reduce project delays and improve infrastructure planning, benefiting small contractors and local ISPs that can respond faster to coordinated opportunities—though large providers may still dominate outcomes.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Broadband providers must obtain a franchise from WSDOT and bear all installation and maintenance costs, which may increase barriers to entry for small providers and reduce competition in underserved areas.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(3)The requirement that broadband providers obtain a franchise and pay for installation/maintenance may deter small or rural ISPs from participating, potentially limiting service expansion in low-income or rural communities where infrastructure gaps are greatest.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(3)While the bill cites telework and congestion reduction as justifications for WSDOT-installed broadband conduit, the provision does not guarantee equitable broadband access—especially in low-income or rural areas—where providers may still decline to participate due to low ROI, leaving underserved communities without meaningful improvements.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(b)The one-year advance notice requirement for fish barrier removal projects may strain local governments and utilities with limited planning capacity, especially smaller agencies without dedicated infrastructure coordination staff.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(4)The franchise requirement and cost-shifting to providers may create administrative burdens for small ISPs, potentially consolidating market share among larger incumbents and reducing consumer choice in some regions.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(3)
Who Is Most Affected
May face new franchise requirements and upfront costs, potentially limiting participation by small or rural ISPs—though larger providers may benefit from streamlined permitting and shared infrastructure access.
Benefit from earlier notice and coordinated work during fish barrier removal, reducing unplanned outages and emergency repairs; however, may face new coordination demands and potential liability for delays.
May see fewer traffic disruptions and improved broadband access, especially along corridors where WSDOT installs conduit proactively—but rural and low-income communities may not benefit equally without targeted outreach and subsidies.
Gains new authority and procedural clarity for broadband coordination and federal funding requests, but must invest in new staff time and interagency coordination to implement notice and franchise processes.
May benefit from improved broadband access and reduced roadwork delays, but small local governments with limited technical staff may struggle to coordinate with WSDOT’s one-year notice timeline.