The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, represents a historic investment in closing America’s digital divide. However, as BEAD implementation moves forward, congressional committees and the Federal Communications Commission have intensified scrutiny of broadband deployment, focusing on whether so-called “deployment barriers” should be addressed through new federal mandates.
Unfortunately, these discussions have also given telecommunications companies a platform to advance misleading claims that consumer-owned utilities are responsible for broadband delays due to unreasonable processes or excessive fees. These claims are largely unsupported by evidence, yet they are shaping legislative and regulatory proposals that would impose sweeping federal requirements on consumer-owned utilities, despite their long track record of enabling—not obstructing—broadband deployment.
The BROADBAND Leadership Act: A solution in search of a problem
At the start of the 119th Congress, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) reintroduced H.R. 278, the BROADBAND Leadership Act, legislation he has promoted since 2020. The bill would significantly expand federal authority over consumer-owned utility infrastructure by imposing rigid shot-clock deadlines on local permitting decisions and granting automatic approval if deadlines are missed. Under the bill, states and local governments could have as little as 90 days to act on requests to place telecommunications facilities—regardless of volume, engineering complexity, or safety concerns.
At a Dec. 3, 2025, House Energy and Commerce Committee markup, where the text of the bill was considered as part of a larger package, H.R. 2289, Griffith said his bill merely requires timely responses to applications. However, he was unable to cite examples of unreasonable delays in his own district. Democrats on the committee, including Reps. Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), warned that the legislation would overwhelm already understaffed state and local offices, forcing approvals by default rather than by review. The result would be inefficiency, increased costs, and unnecessary reapplications—without improving broadband outcomes.
More concerning, the bill would undermine the long-standing exemption of consumer-owned utilities from FCC pole attachment regulation under Section 224 of the Communications Act. The bill would effectively eliminate the exemption, overriding local control of critical electric infrastructure, introducing new safety risks, and offering no guarantee of lower costs or faster broadband deployment for customers.
The FCC’s wireline deployment inquiry: Expanding federal reach
The FCC is pursuing a parallel effort. On Sept. 30, 2025, the commission adopted a notice of inquiry titled Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments. The notice of inquiry examines whether certain state and local laws or permitting requirements unlawfully restrict broadband deployment under Section 253 of the Communications Act.
The notice of inquiry builds on the FCC’s 2019 Small Cell Order, which established federal limits on local review timelines and fees for the deployment of small wireless facilities in public rights of way. State and local governments and consumer-owned utilities are rightly concerned that the FCC may now seek to extend this preemption framework beyond wireless facilities in rights of way to wireline broadband infrastructure and utility-owned poles, using the notice of inquiry to justify broad, one-size-fits-all rules that fail to account for local decision-making and safety obligations.
In its comments, the American Public Power Association rejected the FCC’s assertion that public power pole attachment practices are a widespread barrier to broadband deployment. APPA emphasized that when public power utilities process attachment requests, they act as market participants managing their own infrastructure—not as regulators—placing them outside the scope of Section 253. The comment also states the FCC lacks authority under Section 253 to regulate rates, terms, and conditions for wireline attachments to public power poles. Doing so would undermine Congress’s intent in preserving the Section 224 federal exemption of FCC pole attachment regulations for consumer-owned utilities. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, APPA contends that it is doubtful that the commission’s interpretation of its Section 253 authority over public power poles would be upheld.
Consumer-owned utilities are not barriers to broadband deployment
The BROADBAND Leadership Act and the FCC’s notice of inquiry rest on a misplaced assumption that federal preemption is necessary to achieve broadband deployment. Experience in the Northwest shows otherwise.
Public power utilities across the region are partnering with broadband providers, tribes, and state agencies to close connectivity gaps while managing some of the most challenging terrain and weather conditions in the country. As not-for-profit entities, consumer-owned utilities have no incentive to deny broadband access to the very communities they serve. Through partnership—and, in many cases, by directly offering broadband services themselves—consumer-owned utilities are helping deliver affordable, high-speed internet where broadband deployment is most difficult and costly.
As Congress and the FCC consider changes to permitting and pole attachment policies, it is critical to distinguish between genuine barriers to deployment and essential processes that ensure safety and reliability. Furthermore, preserving local control for consumer-owned utilities will be key to delivering reliable and affordable broadband that truly serves communities in the Northwest.
