This bill amends RCW 43.155.160 to require the board, in collaboration with the office, to establish a competitive grant and loan program to promote broadband service in unserved areas. The program authorizes grants and loans to fund acquisition, installation, construction, repairs to middle‑mile and last‑mile broadband infrastructure, and strategic planning. The board will act as fiscal agent, receive and review applications, award funds, publish evaluation criteria and proposed project areas/speeds on a public website, and may maintain separate accounting in the statewide broadband account. The amendment creates detailed procedural rules: publish evaluation criteria at least 60 days before the preapplication window, post proposed geographic service areas and speeds for at least 30 days, publish preapplications within three business days after the preapplication cycle closes, and set an objection period of at least 30 days. Existing providers may file affidavit‑certified objections asserting overbuild or a commitment to complete construction and provide service within 24 months; the board may evaluate objections, demand financial assurances, or refuse funding if an objection is credible. If the board denied funding because of an objection and the objector later fails to meet its commitment, the board is prohibited from denying funding based on that provider’s challenge for the next two grant cycles, unless the failure was beyond the provider’s control. Confidential business and financial information submitted by objecting providers is exempt from public disclosure, and applicants or objecting providers may request a written debriefing conference coordinated by the office. The amendment also sets funding and eligibility rules: the board may adopt rules, consider customer service plans, existing infrastructure use, public safety benefits, affordability, and service quality; it should award funds across regions. Grants or loans to private entities must ensure the asset remains available for public use for at least 15 years. Generally awards may not exceed 50% of project costs, but the board may fund up to 90% in designated distressed areas and in areas identified as Indian country, with per‑project caps of $2,000,000 (or up to $5,000,000 under the 90% exception). Repair‑and‑replace projects (defined as work made necessary by unforeseen events) have separate processes and funding rules, including offsets for federal/state disaster reimbursements, insurance, and litigation recoveries, and may not be used to fund a new provider to overbuild an existing provider. Eligible applicants include local governments, tribes, nonprofits, cooperatives, multiparty public entities, LLCs formed to expand broadband access, and incorporated businesses or partnerships. Some parts of the statutory section are not included in the extracted facts: the text of subsections referenced as (3), (11), and (14) is missing, the full list of priority criteria is cut off, and the specific identity of “the office” is not provided here, so details about those provisions and any additional requirements are unclear from the provided material.

If enacted, the bill creates a competitive grant and loan program run by the board with the office to pay for building, repairing, or planning middle‑ and last‑mile broadband in unserved areas. Eligible applicants (local governments, tribes, nonprofits, co‑ops, certain private entities and partnerships) can receive up to half the project cost (generally) or as much as 90% in distressed areas or Indian country, with most projects capped at $2 million and qualifying exceptions up to $5 million. Private awardees must keep funded infrastructure available for public use for at least 15 years, awards may be reduced by other disaster or insurance reimbursements, and repair‑and‑replace projects follow a separate, expedited process that cannot be used to overbuild existing providers. The law also requires the board to publish evaluation criteria and proposed service areas ahead of preapplications, post preapplications quickly, and allow a 30‑day objection window where incumbent providers can assert they already provide service or will complete it within 24 months; if an incumbent successfully blocks funding but then fails to meet its commitment, that provider generally cannot block funding for the next two cycles. This shifts practical options and risks: applicants gain clearer funding routes but face funding limits and long maintenance obligations, incumbents gain a formal way to defend their markets but risk losing objection rights if they don’t follow through, and the board takes on more administrative duties and recovery rights. Key implementation details—such as the full text of the repair/replace rules and some application requirements and priority criteria—are not included in the provided text.