EEI, Others Defend FCC Pole Attachment Petition for Reconsideration
The Edison Electric Institute defended its petition for partial reconsideration of a December FCC order modifying pole attachment rules in reply comments posted Monday in docket 17-84 (see 2401290074). The group raised concerns about how the FCC treats grandfathered poles, whether a utility may impose standards exceeding the National Electric Safety Code (NESC), and when a pole owner must provide a copy of its easement to an attacher.
"A grandfathered pole is different than a red-tagged pole because a grandfathered pole is compliant with codes and standards and does not need to be replaced," EEI said. The group argued that make-ready pole replacements shouldn't be required if a utility's internal construction standards exceed the NESC. "The NESC is a floor, and not a ceiling," EEI said, and the FCC has "repeatedly held that electric utilities can enforce reasonable standards exceeding the NESC." EEI also raised concerns about how the commission's cost-allocation rules for grandfathered poles will affect the speed of broadband deployment and urged the commission to clarify that a pole owner is required to provide easement documents "only if it denies an active request ... for access to a specific pole base on its interpretation of the scope of an applicable easement."
A coalition of utilities backed the petition's request to clarify or remove one of its examples of when a pole already requires replacement when an attachment is sought. EEI's petition addressed when "a utility’s previous or contemporaneous change to its internal construction standards necessitates replacement of an existing pole." The Coalition of Concerned Utilities said its member companies "revise their construction standards in order to address the needs of their electric distribution systems, not somehow to game the system." The group includes Arizona Public Service Company, Evergy, Inc., Eversource Energy, FirstEnergy Corp., the Hawaiian Electric Companies, Minnesota Power, NorthWestern Energy, PPL Companies and Xcel Energy.
"Attachers mistakenly argue that every circumstance in which an attacher requests access to a pole where a utility has updated its internal construction standards is automatically a situation that necessitates replacement of a grandfathered pole," said Xcel Energy in separate comments. Pole owners "do not arbitrarily apply their internal construction standards or purposely delay a replacement" to evade rules or require that new attachers cover the cost of a replacement, Xcel said. The company also argued there's "no asymmetry between pole owners and attachers regarding access to easement information," noting that the petition seeks to clarify that pole owners "should not have to provide documents that they do not maintain in the normal course of business."
A grandfathered pole "is a compliant pole," said the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP). Such poles are scheduled for a replacement only when there's a "change to the loading profile," a pole has reached the end of its "useful life," or if there's a "need for a pole with greater vertical or transverse capacity" to meet service needs, AEP said. The company agreed that the NESC "merely serves as a floor when it comes to safety" and "is not a reliability or resiliency code."