Telecom and Electric Companies Disagree on Pa. Adopting FCC Pole Attachment Rule Changes
Pennsylvania should quickly adopt the FCC’s December changes to pole attachment rules, Verizon and wireless companies said in comments posted Tuesday at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Some additional work may be needed to adapt the FCC’s rapid-response team, they acknowledged in docket L-2018-3002672. However, energy companies disagreed with the Pennsylvania PUC adopting either the team or a rule requiring reports on pole inspection.
It's the first time the Pennsylvania PUC has had to consider adopting FCC changes to pole attachment rules since the state reverse-preempted the federal agency in 2020. The PUC mirrored FCC rules at the time and established a process for weighing the adoption of federal changes. The PUC last month said that the FCC’s two December changes “may not take effect” in Pennsylvania and sought comments on proceeding (see 2407310036). One FCC change required pole owners to provide attachers with cyclical pole inspection reports within 10 business days of making written requests. Another created an FCC rapid-response team that would speed resolution of pole attachment disputes and avoid delaying broadband deployment.
Don’t “set a precedent of allowing a second bite at the apple every time the FCC changes its rules,” warned Verizon. Broadband companies have stressed that conforming with FCC rules helps maintain a stable regulatory environment that promotes investment, it said. While Verizon doesn't always agree with the FCC, the PUC shouldn't "permit every argument fully decided by the FCC to be rehashed by parochial interests here in Pennsylvania in an attempt to get a better result for themselves.”
Verizon continued: “There is nothing specific to Pennsylvania that would differentiate the cyclical pole inspection report rule here from the rule that will apply in all of the other states that are still subject to the FCC regulations.” The carrier also supported having a Pennsylvania rapid-response team, though it said the PUC might want to clarify how to adjust the FCC concept for the PUC’s procedures and bureaus.
When the Pennsylvania commission “adopted a process to mirror future FCC rule changes, it explained that it would deviate from mirroring only for ‘federal regulatory changes that may have Pennsylvania-specific impacts and may need to be investigated further before becoming effective in the Commonwealth,’” said CTIA: The pole inspection reporting rule raises no state-specific issues. As for copying the FCC's rapid-response team, "CTIA continues to favor a policy of automatic adoption, but defers to the [PUC's] expertise regarding its resources and maintaining clarity in its dispute resolution rules." The PUC knows best how it can ensure its dispute resolution process promotes broadband deployment, the wireless industry group said.
The reporting rule “is straightforward, presents no Pennsylvania-specific issues, and should be simple to implement without additional comment,” commented Crown Castle. “Permitting comment on this issue would only invite pole owners and attachers to rehash arguments that have already been presented to the FCC.”
However, Crown Castle supported pausing before adopting the rapid-response team rule. The PUC should collect comments from stakeholders on how the state can adapt the rule for Pennsylvania, it said. "Speeding the pole attachment dispute resolution process is vital -- particularly as the federal government invests historic sums in broadband deployment with the goal of connecting all Americans, which will necessitate additional wireline and wireless attachments to existing utility poles -- and the [PUC] should endeavor to take comment and determine how to update its process on an accelerated basis.”
Electric companies urged the PUC not to adopt either FCC change to pole attachment rules. “The regulatory paradigm that governs pole attachments in most FirstEnergy territories is informed by FCC regulations which change regularly and continue to impose more and more obligations on pole owners while containing virtually no guardrails for attacher behavior,” the utility complained.
Information from the inspection reports isn’t “likely to be timely or relevant so as to meaningfully assist a prospective third-party attacher,” and content from the reports differs from company to company, the Energy Association of Pennsylvania (EAP) said: In Pennsylvania, electric distribution companies' cycle for inspecting poles may be up to 12 years. The reports “may cause confusion for third-party attachers, and will inevitably add to the number of disputes,” adding time and cost to make ready, said EAP.
FirstEnergy said the reporting rule “is particularly problematic" because it "requires the provision of information that is useless, confusing and outdated to attachers at the expense of critical internal pole owner resources.” That could hinder broadband deployment, it said. "A more cynical, but likely, result of the mandate to provide pole inspection reports is that they will be used by attaching entities to argue about how much they should pay for make-ready work."
Current PUC procedures should "be sufficient to accomplish results within the amounts of time envisioned by the new FCC rules” on rapid response, FirstEnergy argued: Pennsylvania’s rules may even be faster. EAP agreed existing state rules and procedures “are adequate and provide for due process and timely resolution.” Such a team could delay dispute resolution "by adding a preliminary evaluation,” it said. Also, EAP raised concerns about making electric ratepayers pay for the broadband-focused team.