Pole Owners, Riders Disagree on Maine Database Cost Split
Maine ISPs balked at a pole owners’ plan to have attachers cover 80% of the costs of a state database for pole attachments, in reply comments Friday at the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Connecticut needn’t move forward with a proposed single-visit pole transfer (SVT) framework, industry said in Thursday comments at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Maine is considering Alden One, a joint use software system developed by pole owners Versant and Central Maine Power (CMP) that would provide a centralized database for pole attachments. In comments last month (docket 2021-00321), the pole-owning utilities suggested an 80/20 cost split between attachers and owners (see 2207250051).
Pole owners' cost proposal "would lead to double-recovery, be unprecedented, and unfairly be assessed to broadband providers that are already substantially deployed,” Comcast, Charter Communications and two other cable companies replied. The operators didn’t disagree that communications attachers would benefit but said pole owners would benefit more, and “the costs of purchasing, integrating, and implementing such a system would already be recovered in the pole attachment rent.”
The proposed 80/20 split is “backward” and defies reality, said Crown Castle and other pole riders. "In addition to the fact that most of the functions that the system will perform are activities assigned to the pole owners, the modernization and automation of the pole attachment management system will eliminate antiquated recordkeeping and application-processing functions, and thereby create efficiencies and savings to the owners. Also, the system will benefit from the continual crowdsourcing of the data through surveys conducted and paid for by requesting attachers.”
Don't ask energy ratepayers to pay for Alden One "because the purpose of the database is to facilitate and accommodate pole attachments by third parties," with no benefits for utility customers, said the Maine Office of the Public Advocate. "It does seem reasonable to assume that Alden One services will reduce operating costs otherwise incurred by a [transmission and distribution] utility,” said OPA on the proposed 80/20 split. “But those costs should be recovered from pole attachers.”
Meanwhile, Connecticut’s PURA is considering a framework that “attempts to consolidate pole attachment transfers from an old pole to a new pole and to remove the old pole in one visit,” and “reduce the backlog of delayed double pole removals,” said a July 15 notice in docket 21-07-29. PURA sought comment including on how a July 6 decision, which set a process for removing structurally compromised poles (see 2207060022), affected the SVT proposal.
Pole stakeholders are making progress reducing double poles without an SVT framework, said separate comments from the New England Cable and Telecommunications Association (NECTA), Frontier Communications and Eversource Energy. "Participants in the monthly double pole meetings should continue their current work to drive down the number of pending transfers,” said NECTA. But if PURA wants to continue with the SVT plan, it should have a working group develop a pilot program, the cable group said.
“Frontier would caution against disrupting the existing workflow with a new SVT process,” said Frontier. "Pole owners and attachers have been working diligently to address the double pole backlog; increasing internal and external resources, meeting on a regular basis, working with municipal officials and even private citizens to work through the issues." Frontier agreed PURA should start with a pilot if it moves forward.
The July 6 unsafe poles decision won’t “have an effect on the timely removal of double poles and will not affect the possibility of developing a single visit transfer process as outlined in the SVT Framework,” NECTA said. NECTA agreed with Eversource that the SVT process should apply to simple transfers in the communications gain but said it shouldn’t apply to streetlights, traffic signals, power supplies or risers.
Few "qualified make-ready contractors" and "yet unknown impacts" of the unsafe poles decision make an SVT framework's success hazy, cautioned Crown Castle and Netspeed in similar, separate comments. They agreed with NECTA that a working group should handle SVT framework implementation.
The July 6 decision and proposed SVT framework “are likely to have some overlapping requirements that will need to be synthesized,” said Eversource. United Illuminating said last month’s decision won't affect timely removal of double poles -- and may enhance the SVT process -- because it "would expedite simple transfers and pole removals.”