Pole Replacements Stir Debate as N.Y. PSC Mulls Attachments

Pole owners and attachers squabbled this week over who should pay for replacing poles. The New York Public Service Commission posted comments about the New York Department of Public Service (DPS) staff’s Dec. 18 white paper that recommends one-touch, make-ready for simple attachments and other ways to update pole-attachment rules to speed broadband deployment through infrastructure process updates. Raising safety concerns, electric companies urged the PSC to reject the DPS staff’s recommendation of halting the blanket prohibition of alternative pole-attachment methods.

DPS staff is correct that the PSC shouldn't change New York’s current cost allocation policy for replacements, commented Verizon, which owns and attaches to poles in the state. Current state policy says the attacher pays if a pole needs replacement only to accommodate the proposed new attachment, whereas the owner pays if the pole already needed replacement due to its poor condition. Keeping New York’s policy would be consistent with December’s FCC pole attachment decision, which declined to adopt the cable industry’s proposal to shift costs to pole owners, said Verizon.

New York electric utilities, including Central Hudson Gas & Electric and Consolidated Edison, agreed. "Electric utility customers are already funding an array of policy programs related to the transition to zero emissions fuels, grid resiliency and affordability,” the pole-owning utilities said. “Although the deployment of high-speed broadband to unserved and underserved areas is an admirable policy goal … electric customer funds are not unlimited and there are numerous state and federal funding opportunities available to subsidize costs and reduce barriers to broadband deployment."

Cable attachment requestor Charter Communications countered that the PSC should "prevent utilities from using the pole replacement process to unfairly shift their infrastructure cost burdens onto attachers." The DPS white paper incorrectly “concludes that utilities do not financially benefit when they receive a new pole paid for entirely by an attacher,” commented Charter. But this “prevents any recognition of, or policy response to, the problem that utilities, in the absence of regulatory constraints, face incentives to require attachers to pay the full cost of pole replacements even when the replacement is independently required by the utility’s own needs and performed in part for the utility’s own benefit.”

"Many pole owners do not pay their fair share of pole replacement costs and instead pass the entire cost of replacing a pole on to the most recent attacher,” said Crown Castle, which attaches telecom equipment. "Holding up deployment by denying access to poles until an attacher agrees to pay for the pole replacement is counter to the Commission’s objective of promoting broadband deployment."

The electric utilities resisted a DPS staff recommendation to disallow pole owners from totally blocking alternative attachment methods including boxing and pole-top attachments. "These alternative attachment methods are in many cases inconsistent with pole owners’ existing infrastructure and applicable construction standards,” the Central Hudson group warned. “Mandating that pole owners allow these substandard facilities on their poles will lead to less resilient infrastructure, more customer outages of longer duration and increased safety risks to line workers and the public at large.” Boxing and extension arms "make it more difficult for line workers to access the electric supply space and contribute to imbalanced loading of poles which can lead to more outages,” the utilities said. “A mandate to allow pole top attachments is contradictory to the state’s policy of promoting a more reliable and resilient electric grid.”

But telecom companies supported staff’s proposed policy on alternative methods, which they said are safe. Charter said “fairness dictates that pole owners should bear the burden of demonstrating why those techniques should not be allowed when using them can help avoid the need to replace a pole." Verizon urged the PSC to also allow telecom attachments within a pole’s electrical space. Given increasing congestion in the communications space, it’s unclear why the PSC would rule out any possibly reasonable method, the carrier said.

The electric utilities urged the New York PSC to reject self-help. “Self-help pole attachments risk compromising electric and telecommunications system integrity, pose a risk to worker and public safety and provide unfair competitive advantages to the telecom/broadband entities who do not follow the rules,” they said. Internet provider GoNetSpeed disagreed. "The availability of self-help at any place on the pole will allow requesting parties to get the work done when delays occur, or will provide an incentive for entities who insist on doing the work themselves to get it done on time.”

Unionized telecom workers still oppose one-touch, make-ready, said Communications Workers of America. "Even so-called ‘simple’ pole attachment work is intricate, and all pole attachment has safety implications,” commented CWA. “If done improperly, pole attachments can cause facility damage, service interruption, and hazardous circumstances for workers and the public … Skilled, properly trained, career company employees are in the best position to do make-ready work safely and properly.”

Updating New York pole attachment rules is crucial for broadband expansion, telecom interests said. That is especially so with "millions of dollars in federal broadband funding in the pipeline in the coming months and years,” said Crown Castle. It’s good to try to expand high-speed internet, commented PSEG Long Island, but don’t “undermine” the electric company’s “responsibility to provide safe, adequate and reliable electric service to its customers.”