Mich. Utilities Oppose Pole Attachments Update

has worked remarkably well,” with no disputes between pole owners and attachers in 14 years, commented Indiana Michigan Power: Don’t adopt “rigid, inflexible, burdensome, one-size-fits-all pole attachment regulations.” The utility doesn’t oppose the PSC clarifying jurisdictional issues including that it has authority over wireless attachments, and would support increasing the uniform statewide rate for attachments that was set in 1997. DTE said “ExteNet provides few relevant facts or commitments to serve the people of Michigan, and no demonstrations of actual access concerns or need for the dramatic pole attachment overhaul it seeks.” Consumers Energy agreed. Since Michigan recently adopted a small-cells law, the PSC “should resist the suggestion of” pursuing “policy end goals not provided by the Legislature,” warned the Michigan Electric Cooperative Association. Relying on “tariffs and agreements of individual pole owners is not in compliance with Federal Law,” commented ExteNet, urging the PSC to adopt FCC pole-attachment rules. CTIA said the FCC rules “have proven fair and effective in promoting deployment in both the states in which the FCC maintains jurisdiction over pole attachments (approximately half) and the number of other states that have adopted either the FCC’s rules or ones substantially similar.” While cable companies and pole owners “may be able to coordinate efficient and effective pole access without regulations and specific tariff requirements, the predictability of the approach followed by the FCC and other certified states ensures timely access in addition to equity and non-discrimination among attaching entities,” commented the Michigan Cable Telecommunications Association. Harmonizing with FCC rules would clarify jurisdictional confusion, said Crown Castle. PSC staff said the commission might want to clarify timelines for resolving disputes (see 2106100030).