Pole Attachers Seek to Speed Up Conn. Dispute Process
Companies seeking to attach communications facilities to Connecticut utility poles urged the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority to adopt a fast dispute resolution process. In other comments posted Monday, pole owners asked PURA to protect their due process rights and encourage settlements.
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.
PURA released a straw proposal last month to collect comments on potential dispute resolute frameworks as part of a comprehensive review of Connecticut’s pole-attachment process in docket 19-01-52RE01. PURA also is considering adopting one-touch, make-ready requirements (see 2108120062). A state legislator in October asked the agency not to pursue OTMR.
The dispute resolution plan isn’t ready for prime time, CTIA commented. “The use of inconsistent terminology and terms that have no meaning are indications that the Straw Proposal, in its current state, is far from fully developed and not suitable.” The timeline is "unclear and does not appear well suited to reaching timely resolutions,” and the plan gives insufficient guidance on which disputes can go through an accelerated process, CTIA said. It would be better to mirror FCC pole attachment rules like Pennsylvania and West Virginia did, the association said.
“A 60-day process is simply too long for resolution of discreet pole access complaints,” said the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. NECTA said Maine's process takes seven days, while Vermont's is 30 days. PURA could shorten the FCC-based proposed process by requiring negotiation before submitting a dispute note, NECTA said.
PURA’s plan will “quickly and effectively” resolve attachment issues, disagreed Atlantic Broadband, Crown Castle and NetSpeed in three nearly identical filings: Because the plan is based on the FCC process used in 28 states, it’s “time-tested and provides for a full examination of the contested issue while still adhering to an expedited timeline.”
Frontier Communications sought better understanding of its workload. Attachment application volume "increased dramatically in recent years,” the pole owner said. "Most of the workload for applications falls on pole owners, and thus Frontier has a concern about due process implications if there is a large volume of these disputes and there is not flexibility in the timeframes.” Since most disputes can be settled, it suggested, "prioritize that option before entering a formal process.”
An accelerated dispute process “may not be necessary and may be of limited utility, given the complexity of pole attachment disputes,” said pole-owning utility Eversource. “Even the FCC’s own accelerated dispute resolution processes appear to be rarely, if ever, employed.” If the regulator disagrees, do more to protect due process and encourage informal or alternative dispute resolution, Eversource said: the draft “may favor communications attachers over utility pole owners.” Another electric company, United Illuminating, supported the agency's plan.
PURA’s plan would support broadband, said Deputy Commissioner Victoria Hackett of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Energy and Technology Policy. "The state seeks to make great strides in the coming years to address the digital divide during a time when access to Broadband has become a necessity.” Hackett praised PURA's "dedication to the issue of an accelerated and policy-driven utility pole dispute resolution process in the face of an unprecedented need to deploy equipment onto poles.”