WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 849

Department of Law Enforcement

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Shane Abbott and 1 co-sponsor

Requires the state or cities to cover all eligible relocation costs for utility/communications facilities when relocations are caused by federally funded highway projects or city-r

Laid on Table, refer to CS/SB 524
#subjectindex #publichealth
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 849

Summary — HB 849: Utility Forced Relocation Expenses (North Carolina, 2025 session)

Status note: This summary covers the North Carolina bill titled "Utility Forced Relocation Expenses" (House Bill 849, 2025). The bill as filed would take effect when it becomes law. It was referred to relevant committees (Energy & Public Utilities; State & Local Government) and progresses through usual legislative steps.

Main purpose / intent

Require the public entity that mandates relocation of utility or communications facilities (the State, a city, or certain public authorities) to bear the direct costs of relocation in specified circumstances — particularly where relocations are necessitated by federally funded highway projects or when a city directs relocations in its rights‑of‑way.

Key provisions (by section)

  • Section 1 — Amendment to G.S. 136-18(10):

    • Clarifies that owners of lines/facilities must move them at their expense except as provided in G.S. 136‑19.5(c) and new subsection (c1).

  • Section 2 — New G.S. 136‑19.5(c1):

    • When relocation of utility facilities is necessitated by construction of a project on the federal‑aid interstate system (per 23 U.S.C. § 123 and 23 C.F.R. § 645.105), and the project cost is eligible for federal reimbursement, the utility owner/operator must perform necessary work on notice and the State must pay the entire relocation expense properly attributable to the work.
    • The State’s payment is reduced by any increase in value of the new facility and any salvage value derived from the old facility.

  • Section 3 — New G.S. 160A‑296.2 (city rights‑of‑way):

    • When a city requires removal/relocation of broadband, franchised video programming, telephone/telegraph, or wireless facilities in the city right‑of‑way, the city must reimburse the owner/operator for attributable costs.
    • Exception: this provision does not apply to cities with population under 5,000 (per most recent decennial census), unless the relocation is for a road improvement funded exclusively with federal funds.

  • Sections 4–6 — Amendments to authority statutes (G.S. 160A‑479.15; 160A‑621; 160A‑651):

    • Explicitly include owners/operators of broadband services, franchised video programming services, telephone/telegraph lines, and wireless facilities in the definition of “public service corporation” for purposes of relocation/ removal authority provisions.

  • Section 7 — Effective date:

    • The act becomes effective when it becomes law.

Who is affected

  • Utility and communications facility owners/operators (electric, telecom, broadband providers, video franchises, wireless infrastructure owners).
  • State agencies (especially DOT) and cities that order relocations for road or other public projects.
  • Public authorities that regulate/own transportation facilities.
  • Local governments (cities with ≥5,000 population are generally required to reimburse).

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Fiscal: Shifts relocation cost burden from private utilities to the State or municipalities in covered circumstances, potentially increasing state/local project budgets. In federal‑aid interstate projects, much of the State’s outlay may be eligible for federal reimbursement under the Federal‑Aid Highway program.
  • Operational: Utilities still required to perform relocation work upon notice; reimbursement process will require valuation of increased facility value and salvage.
  • Broadband and wireless providers gain explicit reimbursement protections; this may reduce financial barriers to relocations and affect timing of infrastructure projects.
  • Small cities (<5,000) are largely exempt from the city‑reimbursement requirement unless relocations are tied to exclusively federally funded road projects.

Legal references

  • Federal rules referenced: 23 U.S.C. § 123 and 23 C.F.R. § 645.105 (relocation/adjustment of utilities on federal‑aid highway projects).
  • North Carolina statutes amended/added: G.S. 136‑18(10), 136‑19.5(c1), 160A‑296.2, 160A‑479.15, 160A‑621, 160A‑651.

If you want, I can draft a one‑page explainer for municipal finance officers or a checklist for utilities on claims and documentation needed to obtain reimbursements under the bill.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.