Ky. PSC Warned Not to Let Attachers Replace Poles
AT&T and other pole owners raised safety concerns when the Kentucky Public Service Commission proposed self-help for pole replacements. The PSC received comments Tuesday in docket 2023-00416 concerning May 15 draft emergency amendments. These included a proposal that would remove a prohibition on self-help for replacements. Only cable companies, which seek to attach equipment to others’ poles, supported the change.
The Kentucky legislature directed that the PSC quickly update rules (807 KAR 5:015), streamlining the pole attachment process for broadband providers (see 2404050004). In comments last month, the Kentucky Broadband and Cable Association pressed the PSC for methods of speeding up ISP access (see 2404220039).
But AT&T balked at possibly ending an exclusion for pole replacements from self-help remedies available to attachers. "AT&T opposes this rule modification because of its possible deleterious effects on the overall safety and reliability of power and communications networks,” the carrier commented. “It is far from clear that attaching entities will have anything but their own interests in mind when replacing poles and corners may be cut. Using approved contractors will not necessarily ensure that the replacement poles will meet utility network design requirements.”
The PSC heard similar concerns from electric cooperatives that also own poles. Co-ops wish to "remain capable of providing safe, reliable and affordable electric service to their local communities while utilizing existing infrastructure to promote the responsible proliferation of broadband,” a group of Kentucky co-ops said. “More than perhaps any other single proposed amendment, the Commission’s proposal to strike a prohibition against self-help pole replacements upsets that delicate balance, and it would make Kentucky the lone state in the country allowing third-party attachers to replace the backbone of the electric grid: utility poles. Not even the FCC permits this activity.” Pole replacement is “a uniquely and inherently dangerous activity,” added the co-ops: Allowing attachers to do it could lead to power outages or deaths.
The co-ops said they would have concerns even if the PSC required that attachers use a utility’s contractors for replacing poles. “Not all of a utility’s contractors are qualified and approved to replace poles; and even among approved contractors, not all of the contractor’s construction crews have the proper training and qualifications to replace poles on the utility’s system." Besides, the co-ops said, the true contributor to backlog is “the attachers, whether due to their indecision, ever-shifting priorities, failure to pay, or other reasons.”
"Pole replacements must remain with the pole owner,” a group of small rural telcos agreed. Just because a pole owner has approved a contractor doesn't mean the contractor can be "blindly trusted to perform all tasks that pole owners may require and to perform such activities without any pole owner supervision,” the telcos said. “Pole replacement is not simple and by its nature can impose a host of safety issues for which the pole owner remains responsible. Self-help for pole replacements ignores the complexity of such work and introduces unjustified liability for pole owners and the increased potential for injuries.”
Self-help would introduce "a significant and unnecessary risk to the safety and reliability of electric distribution facilities,” agreed Louisville Gas & Electric, Kentucky Utilities Company and Kentucky Power Company in joint comments. “Even the FCC -- notoriously unsympathetic to safety and reliability concerns -- has seen clear to exclude pole replacements from the scope of self-help." Nobody claims replacements are delaying deployment in Kentucky, they added. Duke Energy opposed the change, too. “Permitting self-help for pole replacements would create innumerable safety, reliability, and engineering issues.”
Pole attachers supported self-help for pole replacements, however. The state cable association noted, "Self-help would ... only come into play where a utility failed to meet its regulatory obligations."