SB5383 – Allowing PUDs to provide retail broadband in unserved areas if existing providers don’t object and plan to provide it.
Prime Sponsor – Senator Wellman (D; 41st District; Mercer Island) (Co-sponsor Short-R)
Current status –
In the Senate – Passed
Substitute referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy and Technology; had a hearing February 3rd, and passed out of committee February 11th. Referred to Ways and Means, and had a hearing there February 18th. Replaced by a 2nd Substitute and passed out of Ways and Means February 22nd; referred to Rules. Passed the Senate February 26th. Concurred in the House’s changes April 23rd.

In the House – Passed
Referred to the House Committee on Community and Economic Development. Had a hearing March 17th. Replaced by a striker, amended, and passed out of committee March 26th. Referred to Appropriations; had hearing on April 1st; replaced the striker from the Committee on Community and Economic Development with a new striker and passed the bill out of committee the same day. Referred to Rules April 2nd, amended on the floor and passed by the House April 11th. Returned to the Senate for consideration of concurrence.
Next step would be – To the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
A limited alternative to the public internet proposal in HB1336.
I think the bill would require an existing provider to have begun construction and to present a plan about how it intends to complete the expansion, not simply present a plan about how it intends to provide service, but the bill isn’t very clear. It doesn’t provide any mechanism for reviewing the adequacy of the plan, or require its approval by the broadband office. It’s unclear about what qualifies as “near”. There’s no timeline for providing notice of the absence of an objection to the PUD.

Summary –
In Appropriations –
The new striker removed the provision that only allowed expansions when using State or Federal funding for the purpose and made a couple of other small changes summarized at the end of it.

In the House committee –
The striker makes the bill contingent on the passage of HB1336 (the Public Broadband Act), and makes this bill expire June 30th 2023. It defines “unserved areas” as those in which households and businesses lack access to broadband service providing at least 100 megabits/second download and 20 megabits/second upload. (The previous version was at least 25 Mbs/sec download and 3 Mbs/sec upload, or a higher level set by the Broadband Office.) It removes the provisions allowing existing broadband providers to object to ports and PUDs providing retail service in unserved areas. It also only allows the ports and PUDs to do that with State or Federal funding for that purpose, allows them to provide retail service to up to 20% of the residences in a served area if expanding through that to reach an unserved area, and makes some other changes which are summarized by staff at the end of it. Amendments removed the restriction about State or Federal funding, removed the 20% limit, and authorized a PUD that doesn’t provide electrical service to provide wholesale telecommunication service in an adjacent county if there isn’t a PUD providing electrical or telecommunications services headquartered in that county. (I don’t know what quirky situation that provision is designed for…)

Substitutes –
The substitute merely corrects a typo. The 2nd Substitute makes quite a few adjustments, which are summarized by staff at the beginning of it.

Original bill –
The bill would allow a PUD to provide retail internet service in any unserved area of the state if no company objected and said they were doing it. The PUD would be required to notify the Governor’s broadband office of its intent and post a notice of that on its website. Any existing broadband provider “near the area” to which the PUD wanted to provide service could file an objection within 30 days, demonstrating that it currently provides, or has begun construction to provide, retail broadband with speeds of at least 150 megabits a second in the area. It would also have to submit a broadband service plan about how it “intends” to provide service to the area, showing that it currently provides minimum download speeds “at or near” 25 megabits a second and minimum upload speeds “at or near” 3 megabits a second to end users near the PUD’s proposed area, and “an outline” of how it intends to provide service of at least 150 megabits a second in the unserved area. If the broadband office notified the PUD that no objection has been filed, it would be able to go ahead and provide service in the area.

By December 31, 2023, the broadband office would be required to submit a report to the Governor and the appropriate committees of the Legislature evaluating the effectiveness of the bill, including the number of PUDs providing retail services in an unserved area, an analysis of the effectiveness of the required broadband service plans, and any recommendations on improving the provision of retail services in unserved areas.