Industry Supports Conn. Single-Visit Pole Transfer Pilot
Double poles are a decreasing problem in Connecticut, phone and electric companies assured the state Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) in comments received Wednesday. Companies urged PURA to start with a pilot before going full scale with a single-visit transfer (SVT) pole attachment process.
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 may issue a draft decision Nov. 10 on the possible SVT process, said the authority’s docket 21-07-29 schedule as revised Oct. 5. Written exceptions would be due Nov. 17. Commissioners could consider the item at their Nov. 30 meeting. The possible SVT framework “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,” PURA said in July (see 2208150032).
Don't expect to rid the state of double poles, Frontier Communications said in comments. "As a result of the constant level of commerce … and associated technology necessitating pole related activity beyond mere maintenance and replacement, there will always be some not insignificant number of double pole situations in Connecticut." While a double pole “may not look ‘pretty’, that does not mean it is unsafe," Frontier noted. “Double poles are a necessary element of the ongoing operation, maintenance, and upgrade of a modern and dynamic power and telecommunications infrastructure." It would be “prudent” to start with a pilot SVT process, the telco said.
The cable industry gets PURA’s “concern with addressing the double pole backlog and the pace of transfers and pole pulls,” said the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association (NECTA). “However, the pace of transfers has significantly increased, and the increase in pace is being sustained.” Don’t implement an SVT process, said NECTA. “Allow pole owners and attachers to continue driving down the number of pending transfers." If PURA isn’t happy with the pace, do a pilot, it said.
“Statistics show improvement in completing transfers despite the fact that new double pole situations are created as fast as transfers for existing double poles are completed,” said NECTA. Progress is due to NECTA holding monthly meetings with pole owners, attachers and other stakeholders, it said. Communications industry attachers don't cause most double-pole situations, the association added. "The vast majority are from damage to poles, defective poles, electric company, state/municipal projects, or electric customer requests."
"Progress has been made with respect to the double pole backlog,” agreed Eversource Energy. “The record reflects that Eversource removed a total of 9,952 double poles in 2021 for which it was the custodian and is on pace to removing approximately 8,000+ double poles as work continues in 2022." PURA should explore incorporating removal of bare poles into the SVT framework, the utility commented.
Crown Castle agrees with PURA that "the issue of overdue transfer assignments in double pole situations ... persists," the infrastructure company said: But do a pilot "first to assess the challenges such a process will present before launching a large-scale SVPT program." Netspeed filed the same comments.
United Illuminating isn’t against considering SVT “for simple transfers within the communications space” but opposes “its use for pole pulls where it is the custodian,” the utility said. “UI has existing contracts in place with vendors to pull bare poles and it would be inappropriate for the SVT Framework to disturb these existing agreements.” In those situations, pole pulls are taking just one to three weeks, it said. Don’t hold UI responsible for issues occurring only within the pole’s telecom space known as the communications gain, the electric company said. Start with an SVT pilot and make CLECs and ILECs "primarily responsible for the development of a standardized process to prioritize simple transfers within the communications gain.”
The state consumer advocate supports SVT, said Connecticut’s Office of Consumer Counsel. Increased broadband competition “can only occur when timelines are met, pole owners employ necessary resources to address backlogs, and attachers and pole custodians work cooperatively together,” the office said. OCC recommended “cost-allocation determinations require that the pole owners recover SVT process costs from cost-causers.”