Utilities, ISPs Battle Over Proposed Pole Attachment Revisions
Utility companies, ISPs and advocacy groups sparred over the FCC's proposed revisions to its pole attachment and replacement rules, in comments posted Wednesday in docket 17-84. The FCC should abandon its Further NPRM, adopted in December with a related order and declaratory ruling and instead encourage greater communication between pole owners and attackers, some said (see 2312130044). Others sought greater oversight of the process and urged quick action.
The Edison Electric Institute, which petitioned the FCC for partial consideration of its order, warned the proposed changes will "frustrate electric companies' ability to manage workflow, and fuel disputes, without expediting the process as a whole" (see 2401290074). "Standardizing deadlines for large pole attachment applications is impractical and there is no incentive for electric companies to delay processing pole attachment applications," EEI said. USTelecom agreed, saying adding timelines to larger orders, restricting application processing rules and new self-help requirements would "complicate and, ultimately, slow the deployment the commission seeks to expedite." USTelecom cautioned the changes would "undermine the coordination that is essential to large orders, divert resources from needed make-ready work, and let a single large deployment project slow the many smaller, and equally important, deployment projects of other broadband providers."
It's "more critical than ever for the commission to pave the way for efficient network deployments by adopting necessary reforms to its pole attachment rules," said ACA Connects. Any new rules should "improve attachers’ ability to invoke self-help by fostering improved communication between a utility and attacher applicant," the group said.
Don't "throw away the single best tool" for addressing the "unprecedented demand for space on electric utility poles," said Southern Company, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, Entergy, Duke Energy, American Electric Power Service and Ameren Services Company in joint comments. The proposed timelines in the FNPRM "fail to account for, or even recognize, the degree to which high-volume applications burden pole owners and overwhelm contractor resources," the coalition said. Instead, the FCC should expand its “good faith negotiation" requirement.
"Existing make-ready deadlines already place excessive strains on utility resources which new deadlines for extremely large orders will only exacerbate," said the Coalition of Concerned Utilities, which included Arizona Public Service Company, Evergy, Eversource Energy, FirstEnergy Cor., Hawaiian Electric, Minnesota Power, NorthWestern Energy, PPL Electric Utilities and Xcel Energy. The group opposed establishing make-ready deadlines for attachment requests exceeding 3,000 poles and said existing attachers should be responsible for removing unused attachments to "make room for new attachers and to reduce pole loads."
NCTA urged that the FCC adopt a "self-help remedy" when a utility misses the applicable timeline for pole attachment application reviews, an idea the Utilities Technology Council echoed in its comments. NCTA said that projects are "very often delayed as soon as an application is submitted, and especially during the survey and make-ready estimate stage of the application process." The Communications Workers of America disagreed, saying it was "concerned that telecommunications providers would use such a rule to avoid compliance with collectively bargained contracts that require such work be done by in-house workforce."
The FCC should "consider any and all measures to accelerate the pole attachment process," said Crown Castle Fiber. It also backed use of self-help, saying it would allow attachers to "complete the work the utility cannot and get a jump-start on the make-ready process" if a utility can't complete a survey. Crown Castle also urged the commission to "prohibit utilities from limiting both the number of poles that may be included in an application and the number of applications per month."
The "absence of clarification around pole replacement cost allocations remains problematic," said the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition. Pole replacement costs should be "shared equitably between both the owner and attacher," SHLB said. It added that new cost allocation standards should "encourage efficiency." Incompas welcomed the proposal expediting orders for more than 3,000, or five percent, of a utility's poles in a state. The group backed giving utilities an additional 90 days for make-ready work.