20251022Comments_8.pdf

From: Kate Haas <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:48 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Cc: Danny Pate <[e-mail]>
Subject:Additional Public Comment- Pole Attachment Rulemaking
Hello,
Please see the attached public comment from Danny Pate at Fatbeam. He wasn't able to
make the public hearing and is submitting this in lieu of testimony.
Best,
Kate
Kate Haas
Kestrel West
202.256.2613
kate _ kestrelwest.com
1

•
•0Go*
• •• ,•
fat bea m
fiber
2065 w.riverstone drive ste.202
coeur d'alene,id 83814
509 344 1008
Commissioners,
I'm sorry that I couldn't attend last week's negotiated rulemaking meeting and testify in person.
We appreciate the Public Utilities Commission taking the time to consider the rules and hear
from all stakeholders. Please accept these comments as written testimony in lieu of attending.
Here are a few additional points I would like to share:
1. 31.27.01.003: During testimony, attachers suggested that the Commission consider an
aggregation mechanism that better reflects business practices. The suggestion would
replace this language: "Multiple pole attachment requests from an attaching entity
during any 30-day period will be counted toward the number of pole attachment
requests in the table above this." Fatbeam supports this suggestion and views it as
compromise language that will ease the burden on attachers while also providing
utilities a level of certainty.
2. 31.27.01.003: Our company attaches to poles from multiple utilities across the West and
encourages the Commission to use calendar days consistently through the permit
timelines. As I have previously stated, the modifications are an improvement but still
don't reflect best practices. The time from permit submission to a decision point needs
to be shorter. For fiber companies, the most important thing is a decision on the permit
and time to market. We need to know what the make-ready costs are and whether we
are going to get a timely permit or should deploy our capital elsewhere. We don't need
all the work to be complete, but we do need a decision that drives time to market and
overall financials. We encourage you to adjust the timelines so that permitting decisions
are made and communicated before all the make-ready work is complete. Fiber is a very
competitive industry, and the timelines need to reflect the realities of the industry.
3. 31.27.01.020: Exceptions—The listed reasons for denial are overly broad and give too
much control to one party. The purpose of rules is to add clarity, and the exceptions are
vague. If the Commission is interested in exceptions to the timeline, there are areas of
agreement, including allowing additional time during a wildfire or other force majeure
event outside of either party's control and allowing additional time for pole attachments
2

� goo•
so go
• �•o•
fat .ea m
2065 w.Riverstone drive ste. 105
Coeur d'Alene,id 83814
o 509 344 1008
f 509 344 1009
in high-risk wildfire areas. When there is another extenuating circumstance, the
Commission could step in as the referee.
4. 31.27.01.030: Safety violations— Pole attachments are governed by contracts between
the parties. As with any other contract, remedies for violations are included in those
contracts. By including the safety violations in the rule, the government is stepping into
contracts and is attempting to change the terms of existing contract. Every contract
Fatbeam has includes remedies for violations.
In addition to the specific items enumerated above, we want to provide some additional
information on BEAD Funding. As you know, the Office of Broadband oversees the Idaho
Broadband Advisory Board and the distribution of BEAD funding. They have made
provisional awards to 23 companies. Of those awards, Idaho has a relatively small
distribution of fiber, with 42% of awards for fiber projects.
In addition to fiber, 18% of awards are for fixed wireless, 17% are for mixed technologies,
and 22% are for low-Earth orbit satellite. In fact, SpaceX received the single largest award of
$34,696,500 to serve 23,000 locations. We'd also encourage you to talk with the Office of
Broadband and look at their GIS mapping of where these projects are expected to deploy.
The projects are spread across the state, in different utility service territories, and designed
to serve underserved areas. So no single utility will be deluged with applications.
With respect and appreciation,
Danny Pate
Z�)a47 /22&
Chief Operating Officer
Fatbeam Fiber
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3

From: Epley, Jessica <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 8:28 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: RUL-U-25-01
Secretary:
Please find the attached for filing in the above referenced docket.
Sincerely,
Jessica Epley
VP—Regulatory& External Affairs
(M)—[phone] 1 [e-mail]
Ziply
t.U';r
www.ziplyfiber.com
4

October 21, 2025
Sent via electronic mail to [e-mail]
Idaho Public Utility Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Re: In the Matter of RUL-U-25-01/Docket 31-2701-2501 (New Chapter) Rules Governing
Pole Attachments
Idaho Public Utility Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's ("IPUC")
proposed pole attachment rules. From the perspective of an attacher committed to timely, safe,
and cost-effective broadband deployment, several provisions in the IPUC proposal are insufficient,
ambiguous, or ripe for abuse. Most notably, the IPUC draft weakens enforceable timelines through
broad "good and sufficient cause" deviations, excludes self-help/contractor rights that keep
projects on schedule, introduces pre-application notice burdens, and embeds penalty and
creditworthiness concepts that can be leveraged to deter access. These differences would slow
broadband investment, increase costs and uncertainty, and expose attachers to avoidable
operational and dispute risks.
Key Differences in Regulatory Requirements and Obligations
The IPUC timelines diverge from the federal framework in ways that reduce predictability for
attachers. While IPUC provides nominal intervals for completeness review, survey, and make-
ready estimates, it allows multiple layers of extensions and broad deviations that are not narrowly
cabined. By contrast, federal rules pair specific, phase-by-phase deadlines with limited tolling and
clear self-help remedies that keep projects moving if the pole owner misses a deadline. Under
IPUC, attachers lose this crucial leverage.
The IPUC draft requires attachers to provide "advanced written notice" 60 days prior to submitting
Large or above-Large orders and 15 days prior to Mid-Sized orders associated with a single
deployment. This new procedural burden creates delay at the outset and invites process disputes
before an application is even filed.
Access denial provisions in the IPUC draft include broadly framed denial categories "standardized
credit requirements" and "uncured violations" of an agreement or the rules as bases for denial. As
5

drafted, these terms are open-ended financial preconditions allowing pole owners to erect
discretionary financial hurdles that are difficult to challenge and can be used to delay or block
deployment.
The IPUC make-ready section permits deviations from stated time limits "for good and sufficient
cause," including permitting delays, lack of coordination between attachers, the pole owner's
capacity constraints, engineering complexity, contractor availability, and safety risks. This list is so
expansive that it swallows the deadlines. By contrast, Federal rules allow limited tolling and,
critically, empower attachers to proceed with approved contractors (including one-touch make-
ready in communications space) when deadlines are missed. The IPUC draft provides no
comparable self-help mechanism; at most, it contemplates the parties "meet and select a mutually
acceptable third party" if timeframes cannot be met, giving the pole owner de facto veto power ripe
for abuse with no mechanisms for attacher recourse.
The IPUC proposal imposes a fixed $500 per-attachment penalty for"unauthorized attachments,"
paid to the pole owner, and authorizes removal at the attacher's expense without considering the
content of the underlying agreements that should be required in advance of attachments inclusive
of adjudicated relief in the event of deviation. The IPUC penalty is both rigid and potentially
punitive, exclusive of attacher due process or a distinction between technical/administrative and
material violations.
The IPUC definitional scope of"pole" is restricted to distribution poles at or below 34.5 kV,
including transmission poles with underbuild rather than all utility poles within the state. By
contrast, both Oregon and Washington rules encompass the broad spectrum of utility poles in use
across their states. This narrower scope risks leaving deployment gaps along routes that rely on
poles outside the IPUC definition, creating fragmented and inefficient build plans.
The IPUC draft sends disputes to general state procedural rules, without adopting the federal
complaint shot-clock discipline or the FCC's robust remedial framework (including refunds,
damages, and targeted relief). This omission will lengthen dispute resolution, erode schedule
certainty, and increase carrying costs for attachers.
Ambiguities and Unclear Provisions that Negatively Impact Attachers
The "good and sufficient cause" standard for deviating from deadlines is broad and non-
exhaustive. Terms such as "pole owner capacity to process requests," "engineering complexity,"
and "lack of qualified contractors" are undefined and subjective. Without objective criteria, pole
owners will routinely extend schedules without penalty. Federal rules constrain tolling and pair it
with attacher self-help to prevent open-ended deferrals.
"Coordination between attaching entities" is referenced as an attacher responsibility without clarity
on scope, process, timelines, or dispute backstops. If attachers must secure cooperation from
existing attachers before schedules advance, an absent or unresponsive third party could delay
projects indefinitely. Federal rules assign coordination obligations within a structured, time-bound
process and, again, allow self-help if deadlines are missed.
The requirement to "meet and select a mutually acceptable third party" if the pole owner cannot
6

meet timeframes lacks a tie-breaking mechanism or default pathway. If no mutual agreement is
reached, schedules stall again without penalty. Federal rules avoid this impasse by allowing
attachers to proceed with pre-approved contractor lists, including one-touch make-ready where
applicable.
"Standardized credit requirements" are not defined and may vary by pole owner. The lack of
transparency around what constitutes acceptable credit support permits inconsistent and
potentially discriminatory application. This are merely a delay-inducing preconditions that are not
necessary, objective, and non-discriminatory.
"Unauthorized attachments" are not clearly distinguished from administrative non-compliance
(e.g., missing a record of a permit) versus truly unpermitted construction. A blanket $500-per-
attachment penalty without a cure period, notice, or variance for de minimis or pole owner—caused
record errors invites over-penalization. Given the unilateral nature of this provision, it is certain that
it will become a shield deployed by utilities to stifle broadband deployment. By contrast, Federal
practice typically relies on contractually negotiated remedies and adjudicative proportionality
rather than fixed penalties to ensure a balanced response with oversight to allegations of
unauthorized activities.
The timelines table references "Multiple pole attachment requests from an attaching entity during
any 30-day period" being aggregated, but it is unclear how separate projects, contractors, or
subsidiaries are treated in practice. The definition of"a single attaching entity" to include "multiple
subsidiaries from the same parent company" could unjustifiably combine distinct builds, forcing
longer timelines and higher costs. Idaho encompasses 83,569 square miles. Under this regime, a
project in Northern Idaho would be dependent upon a project in Southeastern Idaho irrevocably
tying the two projects fate together simply because the operators have a common parent.
Practical Implications and Challenges Unique to the IPUC Rules
As drafted the practical implications of these rules will be in contravention to the very reason the
Legislature ordered the Commission to adopt them. Project schedules will be less reliable. The
combination of pre-application notice requirements, broad deviation standards, and lack of self-
help make-ready rights will extend end-to-end build cycles. Lost construction seasons and
contractor stand-by costs will rise in response to the emboldened authority utilities will hold to
exercise over would be attachers.
Capital efficiency will suffer. Financing and deployment plans rely on predictable timelines. Open-
ended deviations and subjectivity around "capacity" or"complexity" will increase risk pricing and
slow broadband expansion into high-cost or rural areas. Third-party dependencies will become a
greater bottleneck than they are today. Requiring attache r-to-attache r"coordination" without
remedies encourages stalemates, particularly with legacy attachers who may use these rules to
chill market competition presented by new market entrants.
Administrative and legal costs will increase further detouring broadband deployment in Idaho. The
absence of a federal-style complaint shot clock and limited targeted remedies will push routine
scheduling disputes into longer state procedures, increasing legal spend and diverting resources
from construction.

Exposure to penalties and removals will grow stifling investment. A rigid $500-per-attachment
penalty regime without due process encourages overuse of punitive remedies for recordkeeping or
ministerial issues. The threat of removal at the attacher's expense, without clear notice-and-cure
protections, intensifies operational risk.
Market entry could be chilled by discretionary credit requirements. Undefined "standardized credit
requirements" can be used to deter new entrants or smaller providers, in tension with non-
discriminatory access principles.
Recommendations
• Eliminate pre-application notice requirements. Begin timelines at application submission,
as under federal practice.
• Narrow and define permissible tolling. Limit any deadline deviations to objective, verifiable
causes, with transparent documentation and short, defined extensions (modeled on 47
CFR 1.1403(a)):
A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier
with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or
controlled by it, on rates, terms, and conditions that are just and reasonable. A
denial of access must be based on insufficient capacity, safety, reliability, or
generally applicable engineering purposes, and must be in writing with a specific
explanation supported by evidence.
• Clarify access denials. Remove discretionary creditworthiness as a basis for denial, or
constrain it with objective, non-discriminatory, and publicly posted criteria. Require
detailed, timely, written denials tied to enumerated, safety/engineering-based rationales.
Ensure that access denials are supported with credible evidence (modeled on 47 CFR
1.1403(b) and 1.1407):
If access is denied, the utility shall provide a written explanation by the applicable
processing deadline, detailing the specific capacity, safety, reliability, or
engineering bases for the denial and all supporting information sufficient for the
requesting attacher to understand and respond.
• Timelines and phase milestones with limited tolling (modeled on 47 CFR 1.1411):
The utility shall adhere to defined, sequential deadlines for: (1) application
completeness review; (2) survey; (3) detailed make-ready estimate; (4) attacher
acceptance and payment; and (5) completion of make-ready. Tolling is permitted
only for documented events outside the utility's control, and only for the minimum
period reasonably necessary. When a deadline is tolled, the utility must notify the
attacher, identify the affected facilities, state the reason for tolling, and provide a
good-faith new completion date.
• Adopt Self-help and approved contractor lists (modeled on 47 CFR 1.1411(i)-Q)):
If the utility fails to meet any applicable deadline for survey or make-ready, the
requesting attacher may employ a contractor from the utility's approved list to
8

complete the overdue work. The utility shall maintain and publish a list of
contractors it authorizes to perform surveys and make-ready in the communications
space, and shall not unreasonably withhold or delay approval of qualified
contractors.
• Where deadlines are missed, allow attachers to use pre-approved contractors to complete
survey and make-ready, including one-touch make-ready in the communications space
with appropriate safety and notice safeguards (modeled on 47 CFR 1.1412):
A requesting attacher may elect to perform simple make-ready in the
communications space using a utility-approved contractor pursuant to an advance-
notice process that protects safety and service continuity. The requesting attacher
shall provide prior written notice to the utility and existing attachers identifying the
affected facilities and the work to be performed, and shall provide post-completion
notice with as-built documentation. Existing attachers shall promptly inspect and, if
necessary, may exercise self-help to correct any damage or code non-compliance
attributable to the work.
• Create coordination obligations among attachers (modeled on 47 CFR 1.1411 and
1.1412):
The utility shall coordinate with existing attachers and the requesting attacher to
sequence make-ready efficiently. If an existing attacher fails to respond or
cooperate within the applicable notice period, the requesting attacher may proceed
with approved contractors under the self-help or one-touch make-ready processes
described above, consistent with safety and engineering standards.
• Right-size enforcement provisions. Replace fixed penalties with a notice-and-cure
framework and proportional remedies tied to materiality and demonstrated harm. Reserve
removal for persistent, material safety violations after notice and cure (modeled on 47 CFR
1.1401 et seq. remedial principles):
Prior to assessing any charge or removing facilities for an alleged unauthorized
attachment or rule violation, the utility shall provide written notice describing the
issue with reasonable specificity and a cure period commensurate with the nature
of the issue. Immediate action is permitted only to address documented, imminent
threats to safety or reliability.
• Clarify coordination obligations. Define responsibilities, timelines, and default pathways if
existing attachers fail to respond, including escalation to self-help after reasonable notice.
• Strengthen dispute resolution. Adopt a firm complaint shot clock and interim relief options
that keep projects on track while issues are resolved (modeled on 47 CFR Subpart J
procedures):
The Commission shall provide an expedited complaint process with firm decision
timeframes and the ability to order targeted interim relief to preserve project
schedules where the complainant demonstrates likelihood of success on the merits
and irreparable harm absent relief.
We appreciate the Commission's focus on establishing a clear pole attachment framework. As
9

drafted, the IPUC rules would significantly undercut the certainty, speed, and fairness that the
federal rules provide to attachers. With targeted revisions to incorporate federal-style deadlines,
self-help options, calibrated enforcement, and objective denial standards, the rules can better
support Idaho's broadband objectives while maintaining safety and reliability. We stand ready to
work with stakeholders on practical language that delivers predictable, timely access and
accelerates investment across the state.
Sincerely,
qqlll--
Jessica Epley
VP- Regulatory& External Affairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10

To: Stephen Goodson <[e-mail]>; secretary
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Cherp, Guy(CCI-Central Region) <[e-mail]>; Stull, Michael(CEI-Atlanta)
<[e-mail]>; Camuglia, Kristen (CEI-California)
<[e-mail]>; Jacob Miller<[e-mail]>; Ron Williams
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed Rules Governing Pole Attachments (Docket No. 31-2701-2501)
Ms. Barrios-Sanchez,
Attached you will find comments from Cox regarding the proposed rules governing pole
attachments (Docket No. 31-2701-2501.) If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to reach out.
Regards,
Craig
Craig Stevens I Director of Government Affairs
Cox Communications 1 1700 Vegas Dr. I Las Vegas, NV 89106
[e-mail] I (o) 702.545.1008 1 (c) 702.321.9485
cox
Bringing us closer
11

October 21, 2025
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074
11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Attn: Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen Goodson
Policy Analyst
Email: [e-mail]
Subject: Proposed Rules Governing Pole Attachments (Docket No. 31-2701-2501)
Dear Commissioners,
On behalf of Cox Communications (Cox) and as a member of the Idaho Cable Broadband Association,we
submit these comments regarding the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's (IPUC) proposed rules
governing pole attachments as part of Docket No. 31-2701-2501. First, we would like to express our
appreciation for the IPUC staff's efforts in guiding stakeholders through constructive negotiations. We
also commend the utility representatives for their collaborative approach throughout this process.
The Idaho Legislature's passage of HB 180A reflects a clear intent to accelerate broadband deployment
and close the digital divide by ensuring timely, efficient, and fair access to utility poles for broadband and
cable providers. While we recognize the progress made, Cox has significant concerns about several
elements of the proposed rules, which we believe do not fully reflect the legislative intent behind House
Bill 180A.
Make Ready Work—Section 030
The language in Section 030 introduces broad exceptions that risk undermining the timelines established
elsewhere in the rule.Allowing utilities to delay processing pole attachment requests due to staffing or
coordination issues could perpetuate the very delays the legislation seeks to resolve. We urge the
Commission to require utilities to proactively address capacity challenges, such as hiring additional
personnel or engaging third-party contractors, rather than permitting exceptions that bypass established
deadlines.
Denial of Access—Section 020.01(c)
This provision enables a utility to block access to its entire service area based on a single alleged
violation, even if disputed. Standard pole attachment agreements already include mechanisms for
addressing and curing violations. Halting broadband deployment across multiple communities due to a
single unresolved issue is unreasonable and introduces unnecessary regulatory intervention, contrary to
12

the principles of market-driven solutions and reduced government interference championed by
Governor Little.
Aggregation of Requests
Aggregating multiple pole attachment requests within a 30-day period may result in extended review
and completion timelines, impeding broadband expansion efforts. We recommend that each request, or
logical group of requests, be evaluated independently to ensure timely consideration and action.
These proposed rules have significant implications for Idaho's ability to expand broadband access and
close the digital divide.We encourage the Commission to consider recent FCC rulemakings, which
emphasize streamlined processes,transparency, and dispute resolution, as models for effective
regulatory frameworks.
Cox respectfully urges the Commission to reconsider these aspects of the proposed rules to better align
with legislative intent and Idaho's stated broadband deployment goals. We remain committed to
working collaboratively with the Commission and all stakeholders to ensure Idaho's regulatory
framework supports innovation, investment, and connectivity for all communities.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Guy Chirp
Market Vice President
Cox Communications
Michael Stull
Senior Corporate Counsel
Cox Enterprises, Inc.
Kristen Camuglia
Regulatory Affairs Director
Cox Communications
Craig Stevens
Government Affairs Director
Cox Communications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13

From:Jenna Alsayegh <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 11:45 AM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject: USTelecom letter re: RUL-U-25-01
Good morning,
USTelecom would like to submit the attached letter on the draft pole attachments rules in
RUL-U-25-01.
Thankyou,
Jenna Alsayegh
Assistant Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Partnerships
USTelecom—The Broadband Association
[phone]
USTELECOM THE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION
14

DBA SSOCIATION
October 22, 2025
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Re: Draft Pole Attachment Rules, RUL-U-25-01
Dear Commission Secretary:
USTelecom—The Broadband Association ("USTelecom") hereby submits these
comments on the PUC's recently proposed rules in the above-referenced docket.'
USTelecom is the premier trade association representing service providers and
suppliers for the communications industry. USTelecom members provide a full array of
services, including broadband,voice, data, and video over wireline and wireless networks.
Its broad membership ranges from international publicly traded corporations to local and
regional companies and cooperatives, serving consumers and businesses across the
country, including in Idaho. Our member companies include both pole owners and
attachers seeking to deploy broadband as quickly and efficiently as possible across the
country. As such, USTelecom brings a critical perspective to pole attachment policy and
regulation as all stakeholders work toward the shared goal of connecting all communities
to high-speed broadband.2
We submit these comments to draw the PUC's attention to two issues. First,
USTelecom urges the PUC to take a more balanced approach to addressing the important
issue of unauthorized attachments, including by (1) adding both a cure period and a
dispute resolution period to its proposed rule and (2) clarifying the penalties that apply
when an attacher has a pole attachment agreement with the pole owner. Section 006 of
the proposed rules provides that "[f]or attachments made without a pole attachment
agreement, unauthorized attachments may be fined" $500 per attachment, paid to the
pole owner, and that "[f]or attachments made without a pole attachment [agreement],
pole owners may remove unauthorized or abandoned attachments at the attaching entity's
' Idaho Public Utilities Commission,Proposed Rule 31.27.01—Rules Governing Pole Attachments(October
2025),available at https://lf-puc.idaho.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=151907&dbid=0&repo=PUC-PROD.
2 Idaho H.B. 180,Sec. 1 (2025)("It is the intent of the Legislature to promote reliable broadband and wireless
connectivity in Idaho. Connectivity is essential to public safety and a modern economy.... This legislation is
intended to reduce delays and increase deployment.").
601 New Jersey Avenue NW,Suite 600•Washington,DC 20001
15

expense." As the Federal Communications Commission has long acknowledged,
however, "utilities may deem attachments to be unauthorized because of poor record
keeping or changes in pole ownership, rather than because of the attacher's failure to
follow proper protocol."' Therefore, a reasonable unauthorized attachments regime
should include not only remedies for the pole owner but also protections for attachers that
operate in good faith.'
In particular, as the Oregon PUC has done, the Idaho PUC should adopt
requirements that (1)the pole owner's recovery is limited to five times the annual rental
rate where an attacher has a pole attachment agreement with the pole owner,to reflect a
reasonable period of back rent that may be due, (2) the pole owner provide specific notice
of an alleged violation before seeking relief against the attacher, (3) the attacher have the
opportunity to avoid sanctions by taking corrective action or disputing the allegation within
a specified time period, and (4)there is an opportunity for resolution of factual disputes,
including settlement conferences before an alternative dispute resolution forum, before
any action is taken against an attacher that timely challenges the factual predicate of the
pole owner's claim.
Without such protections, pole owners could demand penalties and remove
needed broadband facilities based solely on their unsubstantiated and disputed say-so
that unauthorized attachments have occurred. Such an unbalanced regulation could
significantly increase attachers' deployment costs from the resulting penalties and the
need to redeploy facilities that pole owners remove despite their lawful presence on the
pole owner's poles.
Second, the PUC should eliminate areas of ambiguity in the draft regulations that
could unintentionally undermine deployment and lead to disputes between pole owners
and attachers. Section 003,for example, could be read to require attachers to undergo a
complete application process prior to overlashing, which would deny Idahoans the
prompt, efficient, and cost-effective deployment that overlashing can provide. Section
004(b) could be misread to provide pole owners a right to deny access—and stop
deployment in its tracks—based on an unsupported and unproven allegation that an
attaching entity has breached a pole attachment agreement or the PUC's rules. And
Section 005(b) could be misinterpreted to give pole owners the right to stop deployment by
simply refusing to agree that any third party is qualified to perform make-ready work on its
poles—even though Section 005(b) is designed to ensure deployment when pole owners
are unable to meet make-ready deadlines. These and other ambiguities and gaps in the
proposed regulations could stymie deployment in Idaho and increase its costs, contraryto
the PUC's goals.
s Federal Communications Commission,Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,WC Docket No.
07-245 et at., FCC 11-50¶ 114(rel.Apr.7,2011)("2011 Order").
4 Cf.2011 Order,pars. 114-118.
601 New Jersey Avenue NW,Suite 600•Washington,DC 20001
16

USTelecom appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rules and
urges the PUC to take a balanced approach that reflects the needs of both attachers and
pole owners seeking to connect America.
Sincerely,
/s/Nirali Patel
Nirali Patel
SVP, Reg. & Legal Affairs and General Counsel
USTelecom -The Broadband Association
601 New Jersey Avenue NW,Suite 600•Washington,DC 20001
17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Colton, Todd <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, October 21, 2025 4:23 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Subject:Avista's Comments in Case No. RUL-U-25-01 are attached.
Dear Commission Secretary,
Please find Avista Corporation's written comments in the above-mentioned rulemaking
attached for filing.
Best regards,
Todd
Todd Colton, Senior Counsel
1411 E Mission Ave MSC-08, Spokane, WA, 99202
P 509.495.2344 1 C 509.828.3806
www.myavista.com F100
Kww wAark below
Call be(me you dig.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are
intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient, or if this message has been
addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then
delete this message and any attachments.
18

October 21, 2025
Via: Electronic Filing
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W.Chinden Blvd.,Bldg. 81n
Suite 201-A(83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Avista Corporation's Comments on Draft Pole Attachment Rules RUL-U-25-01
Dear Commission Secretary:
Avista Corporation("Avista")appreciates the opportunity to participate in the negotiated rule making process
to address the challenges of broadband deployment utilizing utility infrastructure and respectfully submits the
following practical considerations regarding the same:
Unlike the Attachers, the Utilities do not share in the financial incentives from the so-called `historic
investment in broadband deployment,'yet are expected by Attachers to simply meet the moment on the back
of the Utilities'customers. The Idaho Cable Broadband Association(ICBA)stated as much,on page 5 of its
written comments filed August 27,2025,where it said that"utilities should hire and train adequate staff...or
retain and train outside contractors"and recover those expenses"in utility rates...in the utility's next general
rate case". Avista's initial estimates indicate that it would need deferred accounting support(especially if
Sections .004 and .005 are removed or significantly modified in favor of Attachers from the negotiated
Proposed Rule 31.27.01 as filed on September 3, 2025) to fund approximately $2.5-$3MM of increased
annual, fully loaded labor costs. Attachers want all of the financial benefit but none of the financial burden.
Avista suggests the rule make clear that all costs associated with pole attachments must be borne exclusively
by Attachers.
• Attachers are not,as far as Avista can tell,required to use these historic investment dollars to improve their
processes, the quality of their designs,the quality of their contractors,or their willingness to cooperate and
work with other attachers on the same poles. Attachers have shared no plans to address their own process
weaknesses in general or in the proposed rule. Rather, they have only expressed a desire to go bigger and
faster,without any guard rails. In fact, Attachers would rather remove Utilities from the process altogether.
The ICBA advocates for this in its"Self Help"section, on page 7 of its written comments filed August 27,
2025,where it states that Attachers ought to be able to"immediately exercise self-help...to include...work
in and above the communications space",if a Utility cannot meet a deadline. The fact is that the only forces
prohibiting Attachers from working together to self-help make-ready in their communications space are
market forces—because their competitive interests are not served by cooperation and no rule or set of
timelines require them to cooperate. As for working above the communications space, i.e., the electrical
space, in no event should Attachers be permitted to work there.
• Utilities spend significant amounts of time and money correcting Attachers'design mistakes,build mistakes,
as well as the use of unqualified and unvetted contractors, in order to ensure that buildouts are done safely
and per engineering standards and specifications. These failures have a cascading effect on process delays
and, in some instances,lead to actual physical harm in the field. In addition,Attachers may notify the Utility
of a medium or large, proposed buildout request and may file applications for that request, but then the
Attachers slow walk those applications,delay making the attachments for months after make-ready estimates
are provided (causing the estimates to become stale and requiring re-estimations), or sometimes abandon
them altogether,again,all presumably due to market forces. Whatever the reason,these actions literally pull
1
19

October 21,2025
Avista Written Comments On
Draft Pole Attachment Rule RUL-U-25-01
Utility resources from other Attachers' applications. Unfortunately,neither the Attachers'comments nor the
proposed rules address these realities on the ground, which without question disrupts the Utility's ability to
efficiently process application requests from all Attachers.
• Utilities are not staffed to police and enforce every contract violation,safety violation or process delay caused
by Attachers across their service territories. Of course, doing so would ultimately pull resources from
processing Attachers' applications.The following are a few examples of the violations and delays caused by
Attachers:
o Certain attachers have placed hundreds of attachments without filing a single application and some
have placed attachments without receiving approval on their filed applications,which causes delays
in processing other Attachers applications.
o Certain attachers, typically the largest and most sophisticated, repeatedly fail to pay rent for the
attachments they have—some for years at a time—amounting to millions in unpaid rent.
o Certain attachers have multiple safety violations to remedy,yet requests to correct go unanswered
or uncured—some for years at a time. In fact, due to limited time and resources to patrol
infrastructure across large and sometimes difficult to access service territories, many safety
violations may not be discovered for years at a time.
o Certain attachers fail to cooperate with other attachers on the pole to move their attachments up or
down, etc. Failure to cooperate with their competitors is a leading cause of delay in the
attachment build out process. Yet the proposed rules do not address this or any other Attacher-
caused delay.
o Certain attachers fail to move their attachments off of old poles and on to new poles resulting in
hundreds of redundant stub poles,which increase maintenance costs,constitute customer eye sores,
and may violate property rights or Franchise requirements along with being potential safety
hazards—some for years at a time.
• Several commentors, both in written comments filed with the Commission and in oral testimony at the
Commission's open hearing on October 17, 2025, have suggested that a solution to these challenges may
simply be for Utilities to fully enforce their contracts up to and including removal (where such remedy is
available and particularly in the context of safety violations)of the offending Attacher's attachments.Perhaps
Utilities have been somewhat too lenient enforcing their pole attachment agreements, and while a shift to
stricter enforcement may become our reality in the future there are some practical concerns if so,for example:
o Litigation (between Attachers and Utilities) and its costs, which are borne by the customers, will
likely increase.
o Complaints (from Attachers and Utilities) filed with the Commission to resolve pole attachment
disputes will likely increase.
o Complaints(by Customers losing broadband service as a result of attachment removals due to Utility
contract enforcement)filed with the Commission will likely increase,and the enforcing Utility,not
the offending Attacher,will get blamed by the Customer and the Attacher.
o It may also be worth noting that the Federal Communications Commission(FCC),which Attachers
seem to want this Commission to become, had to establish a Rapid Broadband Assessment Team
(RBAT) and an Accelerated Docket to manage the tidal wave of disputes generated by its hyper-
regulation.
Based on the above practical considerations and realities in the field, Avista urges the Commission to either
adopt the negotiated Proposed Rule 31.27.01 as filed on September 3,2025,or, in the alternative,to modify the Rule
as appropriate to address the concerns raised by Avista above, in order to ensure the safe,affordable,and reliable use
of utility infrastructure by Attachers.
Sincerely,
esse Butler
Manager,Joint Use
Avista Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
20

From: Loy, Rick(PacifiCorp) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 2:21 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Cc:Alder, Mark(PacifiCorp) <[e-mail]>
Subject: ID Case No. RUL-U-25-01 - Rocky Mountain Power's Comments - Pole
Attachment Rules
Please find attached Rocky Mountain Power's Comments - Pole Attachment Rules in Case
No. RUL-U-25-01.
Please let me know if you have any problems opening the file.
Respectfully,
Rick Loy
Sr. Regulatory Operations Coord.
Phone: [phone] Email: rick.loy(a)pacificorp.com
14
PACIFICORP
21

October 22, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd
Building 8 Suite 201A
Boise, ID 83714
RE: CASE NO. RUL-U-25-01
PROPOSED RULE -31.27.01 —RULES GOVERNING POLE ATTACHMENTS
Attention: Commission Secretary
PacifiCorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain Power" or "the Company")
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule 31.27.01 - Rules Governing Pole
Attachments ("Proposed Rule") as published in the Administrative Bulletin Volume 25-10 and
posted under Case No. RUL-U-25-01 on October 3, 2025.
Background
On April 14, 2025 Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 180 ("HB 180") and the law became
effective on July 1, 2025. On August 5, 2025, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") opened Case No. RUL-U-25-01 for the purposes of rulemaking as required by
HB 180. Administrative Bulletin Volume 25-8 was published on August 6, 2025 and included a
Notice of Intent to Promulgate Rules and provided a notice of a negotiated rulemaking meeting to
be held on August 12, 2025. On August 8, 2025 the Idaho Public Utilities Commission Staff
("Staff') posted, under Case No. RUL-U-25-01, three different proposed versions of the rule: 1)
Staff s proposed rule, 2) Idaho Power Company, Rocky Mountain Power, and Avista Utilities' (
together "Joint Utilities") proposed rule, and 3) Idaho Cable and Broadband Association's
("ICBA")proposed rule.
On August 12, 2025, Staff,the Joint Utilities, and ICBA met for a negotiated rulemaking meeting.
A summary of that meeting was posted under RUL-U-25-01 on August 15, 2025. Subsequently,
on August 20,2025, a draft rule was sent to Staff where the Joint Utilities and ICBA were not able
to come to agreement on every issue raised during negotiated rulemaking. On October 1,2025,the
Commission published the Proposed Rule in the Administrative Bulletin Volume 25-10. On
October 16, 2025, a public hearing was held at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Rocky Mountain Power's Position
Rocky Mountain Power has been engaged with this negotiated rulemaking from the beginning.
The Proposed Rule is a compromise between utilities and pole attaching entities. Rocky Mountain
22

Power is generally supportive of the Proposed Rule. Any alterations to the Proposed Rule, as
contemplated during the October 16 hearing, could have unintended consequences compromising
the safety and reliability of Idaho's electrical and broadband infrastructure. With this in mind,
Rocky Mountain Power provides the following comments based on its experience operating in six
states with approximately 1,147,212 distribution poles.
• Safety: An electric utility has a duty to place, maintain and operate its facilities in
compliance with safety rules and regulations, including wildfire regulations.
o Work performed on a utility pole is inherently dangerous,because of the amount of
infrastructure involved, the type of equipment being worked on, and the
involvement of multiple parties accessing common infrastructure. Due to the
complexity and risks of the work being performed, workers must first meet OSHA
and other certification requirements before being allowed to work on the pole
attachments.
o As discussed in the October 16th public hearing,there is already an existing backlog
of safety violations created by the existing attachers.New applications often require
modifications to the existing pole. Cooperation between existing attachers,the new
attaching entity, and the pole owner is essential to correct the safety violations in
the most cost effective and efficient manner. Allowing new attachments without
requiring coordination with existing attachers, risks worker safety and the
reliability of both the electric grid and internet provider networks.
• A successful broadband deployment has a robust planning stage: Rocky Mountain Power
understands the positive impacts high-speed internet offers the citizens of Idaho and
appreciates that attaching entities want to get their services to the citizens as fast as
possible. In order to achieve this, there are several things attaching entities can do upfront
to attach as efficiently as possible.
o With diligent pre-planning and proactive discussions, many project delays can be
mitigated and accounted for, including:
■ Project costs and necessary materials identified and procured.
■ Special terms and conditions can be negotiated in advance.
■ Areas of concern are identified and can be discussed with the applicable
parties in advance.
■ Applications can be submitted accurately and in line with the deployment
schedule.
o Using these tools, it is within an applicant's control to deploy their project in a safe
and efficient manner, saving both operators and rate payers expense by avoiding
conflicting or duplicative work, delays created by unauthorized construction, and
return trips to correct safety conditions created by new construction.
o Utilities are mandated to provide nondiscriminatory access to their distribution
infrastructure. Applications must be processed in the order they are received.
Unresponsive existing attachers; permitted attachers who do not notify the pole
owner when their construction is complete; and unauthorized attachers--e.g.,
applicants who attach ahead of a permit—all cause confusion and uncertainty for
the pole owner. This in turn causes delays as the pole owner must pause processing
applications to try and untangle the order of events and validate who had permission
23

to do what. Pole attachment rules designed to allow applicants to deploy as fast as
possible end up having the opposite effect.
• Collaboration must be encouraged: Collaboration between all the operators in a particular
market is critical to delivering an on-time broadband deployment. This includes not only
the pole owner and applicant,but cooperation between existing attacher(s)and applicant(s)
as well.
o It is very common for established communications companies, i.e. existing
attachers, to delay broadband deployments by not being responsive. For example,
a pole has two existing attachers, one of which is out of compliance. The only way
to correct the existing violation is to replace the existing pole with a new, taller
pole.An application to place a new attachment is submitted by a third entity,which
will also require a taller pole. The cost estimate to replace the existing pole with a
taller pole, will be split between the two entities. Work cannot be scheduled until
all parties have approved the make-ready costs. This delays an applicant's
deployment because the applicant, along with the pole owner, must wait for the
allotted response time to expire before the existing attacher can be found non-
responsive.
o Forcing new entrants to a market to bear the cost of all make-ready work to avoid
delays is anti-competitive.
o Cooperation between all operators reduces administrative burden and disputes and
provides an environment primed for faster broadband deployments.
Rocky Mountain Power would again like to thank the Commission for this opportunity to provide
these comments based on its experience working with pole attachments over the years. As an
administrative note, the Company noticed that Rule 20(03) of the Proposed Rule, refers to
timelines contained in Section 004. The Company believes that the rule should be referring to
Section 010,not 004.
Informal questions regarding these comments may be directed to Mark Alder, Regulatory Affairs
Manager at(801) 220-2313.
Sincerely,
A gtza'D
Joelle Steward
Senior Vice President, Regulation
Enclosure
Cc: Taylor Thomas
Donn English
Stephen Goodson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24

From:Jacob Miller<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:11 PM
To: Stephen Goodson <[e-mail]>; secretary
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Ron Williams <[e-mail]>; Josh Scholer
<[e-mail]>
Subject: ICBA Written Comments & Redline re:Case No. RUL-U-25-01 - Pole Attachment
Rules
Dear Ms. Barrios-Sanchez and Mr. Goodson:
Please find attached written comments regarding Case No. RUL-U-25-02 Pole Attachment
Rules, submitted on behalf of the Idaho Cable Broadband Association, which represents
Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, and Cable One, Inc.(d.b.a.
"Sparklight")throughout Idaho.
Thankyou,
Jacob Miller
Lobbyist
C: 208.559.2961
P: 208.388.4076
E: jmiller hawleytroxell.com
hawleytroxell.com
Win f
LexMundi Bringing the best together*"
This e-mail message from the law firm of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP is intended
only for named recipients. It contains information that may be confidential, privileged,
attorney work product, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you
have received this message in error, are not a named recipient, or are not the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to a named recipient, be advised that any
review, disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message or its
contents is strictly prohibited.Please notify us immediately at 208.344.6000 if you have
25

received this message in error, and delete the message.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
26

ik, IC A
IDAHO CABLE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION
October 22, 2025
Stephen Goodson
Policy Analyst
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Monica Barrios-Sanchez
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd. Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, ID 83714
Re: Proposed Docket No. 31-2701-2501:Rules Governing Pole Attachments
Dear Mr. Goodson and Ms. Barrios-Sanchez:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further written comment on behalf of the Idaho
Cable Broadband Association regarding Docket No. 31-2701-2501. While we provided detailed
comment on the record at the October 16, 2025, hearing, we are providing this written letter to
again briefly summarize our concerns. House Bill 180 ("H 180") empowered the Commission to
promulgate certain rules relating to timing requirements for pole attachments. The express intent
of H 180 is to "promote reliable broadband and wireless connectivity in Idaho' and to "reduce
delays and increase deployment" of broadband and wireless connectivity throughout the state. As
outlined below, we believe that the proposed rules, in part, do not reflect that legislative intent:
I. Denial of Access (Proposed Rule 020): Utilities should only be allowed to deny access to a
pole,on a non-discriminatory basis,for insufficient capacity or for reasons of safety,reliability,
generally applicable engineering purposes that cannot be remedied through reasonable make-
ready, and force majeure-related events. However, language in the draft rule would allow
utilities the ability to unilaterally deny an attacher access to their entire system of poles across
Idaho based on alleged violations of pole attachment agreements that the attacher may not
have caused or have control over. It would also allow a utility to deny access to an attacher
for failure to meet credit requirements or demonstrate financial health — both of which are
undefined — and have no bearing on whether or not an attachment can be safely made.
P.O Box 380, Boise ID, 83701 [phone]
27
59382.0001.4903-2152-5364.1

October 22, 2025
Page 2
Additionally, section 020.02.c allows the same broad denial to pole access across the utility's
zone of operation based on an alleged uncured violation by an attaching entity. These proposed
rules offer a subjective and unilateral off-ramp for utilities, which clearly does not reflect or
advance the legislative intent of H 180.
This rule section should be revised to ensure firm and enforceable procedural timelines with
objective criteria for denial of access. In particular, should the Commission wish to keep the
denial of access due to uncured violations, ICBA would request that the pole access denial be
limited to the zip code where the utility is alleging that uncured violation exists.
2. Exemptions for Make-Ready Work (Rule 030): Proposed Rule 030 grants utilities broad
discretion to deviate from make-ready timelines under a non-exhaustive list of what constitutes
"good and sufficient cause." Many listed justifications—such as capacity, engineering
complexity, or lack of qualified contractors—fall solely within a utility's responsibility.
Consistent with H 180's legislative intent, exemptions should be limited to permitting delays
beyond the control of either parry, failures to coordinate (with notice and ability to cure), and
stop work orders related to wildfire or other force majeure safety risks.
3. Aggregation of Attachment Requests (Rule 010): The proposed delay or reset of timelines
for multiple work orders within thirty (30) days is unnecessary and inefficient. This language
should be revised to allow utilities to adjust timelines only when additional requests push the
total number of poles that an attacher requests access to in a single calendar month into the
next order size category.
4. Proposed Order Sizes (Rule 010): The proposed order sizes are significantly more restrictive
and burdensome than current FCC timelines. While of course we agree that Idaho—not the
FCC—should regulate local broadband and fiber deployment,there is a meaningful difference
between retaining state primacy and imposing more restrictive regulatory requirements than
currently required by the federal government. Throughout Governor Little's administration,
state agencies have been directed not to adopt rules more burdensome than federal ones absent
a compelling reason. To our knowledge, no such reason has been presented throughout this
rulemaking. Aligning Idaho's order sizes with the FCC's well-vetted standards meets the
Governor's directive, supports a business-friendly regulatory environment, and advances H
180's legislative intent. Alternatively, if order sizes are not increased, the timeframes to
process such small application sizes must be reduced to compensate for that disparity.
We understand utilities' concerns about capacity and their ability to meet legislative requirements.
However,those policy decisions rest with the legislature. The Commission's final rules should not
create loopholes or language that undermine the legislature's directive.
28
593 82.0001.4903-2152-5364.1

October 22, 2025
Page 3
Cognizant of the Commission's tight rulemaking timeline, we have also attached separately a
document reflecting our suggested edits to the proposed rule to be adopted at the pending rule
stage.
Sincerely,
IDAHO CABLE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION
RAA4 � v4p�
Ronald L. Williams
Executive Director
Hawley, Troxell,Ennis &Hawley
29
59382.0001.4903-2152-5364.1

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Docket No. 31-2701-2501
Rules Governing Pole Attachments Proposed Rulemaking
DATED this 29th day of August,2025.
31.27.01 —RULES GOVERNING POLE ATTACHMENTS
000. LEGAL AUTHORITY.
Section 61-538,Idaho Code. ( )
1. SCOPE.
These rules apply to all pole attachments by a provider of telecommunications service,broadband,or cable services
company. ( )
2. DEFINITIONS.
As used in these rules: ( )
1. Application. The application request as required by an agreement between the pole owner and
attaching entity. ( )
2. Attaching Entity.A provider of telecommunications,broadband,or cable services with or seeking
pole attachments.A single attaching entity shall include multiple subsidiaries from the same parent company.( )
3. Commission.The Idaho Public Utilities Commission. ( )
4. Coordination Between Attaching Entities. A requesting attaching entity's communication or
coordination with other attaching entities for completion of make-ready work. ( )
5. Make-Ready Work.Work required to prepare a pole for a new or modified attachment,including
rearrangements or pole replacements. ( )
6. Permit.A written or electronic authorization from the pole owner to install a pole attachment.
7. Pole.A utility pole used for electric distribution at or below thirty-four point 5 kilovolt(34.5 kV),
which includes transmission poles where existing distribution is under built. ( )
8. Pole Owner.A public utility that owns or controls poles used for attachments. ( )
9. Unauthorized Attachment.A pole attachment installed without the pole owner's authorization.
003.—009. (RESERVED)
30

010. TIMELINES FOR PERMITTING PROCESS.
Pole Attachment Timelines
Pole Access Phase Regular Orders Mid-Sized Orders Large Orders
Under 480-300 pole 484-301 -a0�3,000 pole a�3,001 -4-006,000 pole
attachment requests attachment requests attachment requests
Application Completeness 10 business days 10 business days 10 business days
Review
Application re-review 8 business days 10 business days 15 business days
Survey/Review on Merits 45 calendar days 60 calendar days 90 calendar days
Make-Ready Estimate 14 calendar days 14 calendar days 29 calendar days
after survey after survey after survey
Communications Space 30 calendar days after 75 calendar days after 120 calendar days after
Make-Ready attaching entity payment of attaching entity payment of attaching entity payment of
make-ready estimate make-ready estimate make-ready estimate
Above Comms Make- 90 calendar days after 135 calendar days after 180 calendar days after
Ready(Electric Space) attaching entity payment of attaching entity payment of attaching entity payment of
make-ready estimate make-ready estimate make-ready estimate
N4ultiple pole attaohment Fequests from a-a attaehing entity "r-ing any 30 day pefied Will be WtMted towafd t
atffnber-of pale, requests in the table above.
An a#aehing efi4ity shall provide a pole owner-advanced vaitten netiee a4 least 60 Elays pfier to submitting a Lafge
of above large ardef and shall provide aEWaneedwr-44en notiee at least f4fleen (15) days prior-to s4mitting a Mid-
Sized order- asseeiated with a single aetwefk deployment. The natiee -;hall inedude the attaehing eft4ity's eeft4a
A me-P-A ffind-eenfer-within thifty(3 0)ealeadar days for bar-ge or-above large orders a-ad within ten(10)days for-Mid-
Sized er-der-s; -assee-6-ated- a single network deplayment to negotiate in good faiah the,mew.hiffinies a-ad timing
011.MULTIPLE POLE ATTACHMENT REQUESTS WITHIN THIRTY(30)DAYS.Multiple pole attachment
requests from an attaching entity during a calendar month that result in the total number of requests falling within a
higher size category shall make all such requests within the calendar month subject to the deadlines prescribed for the
higher category.
012.ATTACHING ENTITIES TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE.An attaching entity shall provide a pole
owner advanced written notice at least 60 days prior to submitting a Large or above large order and shall provide
31

advanced written notice at least fifteen(15)days prior to submitting a Mid-Sized order associated with a single-
network deployment.The notice shall include the attaching entity's contact information,description of the proposed
denloilment area anticipated route and build—it nde and a re nest for a meat and annfar Within thi 2Q)
calendar days for Large or above large orders and within ten(10)days for Mid-Sized orders associated with a single-
network deployment to negotiate in good faith the mechanics and timing b y which such orders will be processed.
01473.-019. (RESERVED)
020.NON-DISCRIMINATORY ACCESS TO POLES-DENIAL OF ACCESS.
01. Owner/Provider Agreement to Access.A pole owner shall provide nondiscriminatory access to
any pole,duct,conduit,owned or controlled by it to any provider of telecommunications service,broadband,or cable
services company.A pole owner may require an attaching entity to execute a pole attachment agreement consistent the
duties to provide non-discriminatory access as set forth by Section 030 and upon just and reasonable rates,terms,
and conditions,if the pole owner requires all other attaching parties to execute such an agreement. ( )
02. Denial to Access.Notwithstanding Subsection 020.01 above,a pole owner may deny access on a non-
discriminatory basis where there is:
a. Insufficient capacity(space and/or load on a pole); ( )
b. For reasons of safety,reliability,generally applicable engineering purposes,or force maieure events.-
reliability,or-generally appheable engine
03. Documentation to Support Denial.If access is not granted within the timelines contained in
Section 004,the utility must confirm the denial in writing by the applicable deadline.The pole owner's denial of access
shall include all relevant documentation and information supporting its denial,and if it is unclear,shall explain
how such documentation and information relate to a denial of access for reasons stated above. ( )
021.-029. (RESERVED)
030.MAKE-READY WORK.
01. Time Limits Infeasible.Pole owners may deviate from the deadlines established in this chapter for make-
ready work only for good and sufficient cause.-To the extent pole owners need additional time c make Fe,,l..
wer4te
Owner-_fiaf d-e-viations to make ready deadlines for-good and siaffieieat eattse that r-eader-s it infeasible fer-
to G plore Make early,.'ithii,the time limits s eeif e.l;,,this seetie,;
02. Good and Sufficient Cause.Good and sufficient cause includes only stop work orders for wildfire or
other force maieure-related safety risks.,b t s Net l: :.e
A-. Pe ittiegdelays; \
h. Laslc of atien h-et;A�eee attaehiagentities; \
Dole ownef eapaeit.,to preeess requests to ettaeh; ( )
Engineering eemple*ity;
( )
T aek of qualified,. „t...,.eter-s to~e f f,.m, a fk; e / \
e. Stop wer4E orders for-wildfire of ether-sa€edyrisks. \/ \
32

03. Determination and Notification.Each pole owner shall promptly determine if make-ready work or
attachment cannot be completed_a*4 ilf itdeviationes from the timeframes in Section 010 are necessary,the pole owner
shall notify the new attaching entity and affected existing attaching entities with: ( )
a. Identification of the affected poles; ( )
b. An explanation of the reason for the deviation;and ( )
C. An estimated new completion date. ( )
4. Resume Routine Operations.The pole owner shall deviate from the time limits specified in this rule
for a period no longer than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to complete make-ready on the
affected poles and shall resume make-ready when it returns to routine operations. ( )
5. Selection of a Mutually Acceptable Third Party. If a pole owner cannot meet the timeframes for
attachment established by this rule,the pole owner shall notify the attaching entity immediately and schedule a meeting with
the attaching entity within 15 days Ito select a mutually acceptable third party for make-ready work.Any third
party must meet the pole owner's safety and qualification requirements.
031.—039. (RESERVED)
040. ENFORCEMENT AND UNAUTHORIZED ATTACHMENTS.
For attachments made without a pole attachment agreement:
1. Fine. Unauthorized attachments may be fined five hundred dollars($500)per attachment,paid to
pole owner. ( )
2. Removal. Pole owners may remove unauthorized or abandoned attachments at the attaching
entity's expense. ( )
041.—049. (RESERVED)
50. TIME FOR DECISION—APPLICABLE RULES OF PROCEDURE UNDER SECTION 61-538(3),
IDAHO CODE.
Whenever a public utility and any provider of telecommunications service, broadband, or cable services companies are
unable to agree upon pole attachments as regulated by the Commission under Section 61-538,Idaho Code,the Commission
will follow the timeframes set forth in IDAPA 31.01.01.151 and the procedural rules adopted in IDAP A
31.01.01.152. ( )
0. —999. (RESERVED)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33

From: Gust, Stacy<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:14 PM
To: secretary<[e-mail]>
Cc: Lance, Lisa <[e-mail]>; Anderson, Grant
<[e-mail]>; Apperson, Austen <[e-mail]>;
Hilton, Julia <[e-mail]>
Subject: RUL-U-25-01 - Draft Pole Attachment Rules - Idaho Power Company's Comments
Ms. Barrios-Sanchez,
Please find attached for electronic filing Idaho Power Company's Comments in regard to
the above matter.
If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact me.
Thankyou.
Stacy Gust
Regulatory Administrative Assistant
Idaho Power I Regulatory Affairs
Office 208-388-5749
[e-mail]
IDAHO POWER LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt
from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained
herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this
transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its
entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thankyou.
34

0IQAHO POWER,
Julia Hilton
Vice President, General Counsel
jhilton(a�idahopower.com
October 22, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg 8,
Suite 201-A(83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Draft Pole Attachment Rules RUL-U-25-01
Attention Filing Center:
Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company") respectfully submits these
comments in response to the Idaho Public Utility Commission ("Commission") request for
comments on Staff's Proposed Rule in RUL-U-25-01. Idaho Power appreciated
participating in the public hearing on RUL-U-25-01 on October 16, 2025, and the
opportunity to further clarify its concerns regarding the pole attachment draft rules. Idaho
Power requests that the Commission give additional consideration to the two areas the
pole attaching entities and utilities could not align: timing and safety violations.
Under the newly enacted legislation, the Commission "shall establish rules, subject to
legislative approval, relating to the timing of the permitting process for pole attachments."
Idaho Code § 61-538(5). We believe the Commission has authority to address both of
the outstanding issues under this authority because safety considerations are necessarily
intertwined with timing.
Suggested Options for Timeframes:
As mentioned in our testimony, Idaho Power continues to have concerns with the
proposed timing in the draft rules for pole attachments. The timing concerns directly
correlate with the Company needing adequate time to ensure proposed attachments will
adhere to necessary safety standards. As mentioned by Representative Vander Woude,
the state of Idaho anticipates an increase in pole attachment applications due to funding
allocations from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment ("BEAD"). Idaho Power
1221 W. Idaho St(83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
35

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 22, 2025
Page 2
remains concerned it may not be able to safely and thoroughly complete the necessary
make-ready construction under the timelines proposed in the draft rules.
While the Idaho Cable & Broadband Association ("ICBA") represents that not having the
qualified personnel and essential materials required for utility construction in the proposed
timelines is not something that should preclude the draft rule's timeframes, they also
represent that pole attachment rates in Idaho are high. It's important to note that pole
attachment rates in FCC-regulated jurisdictions are generally lower because they do not
fully reflect or recover the actual costs utilities incur to accommodate attaching entities.
Idaho Power finds it unlikely that attaching entities would be willing to incur the additional
cost of the Company staffing up to process these applications in the timelines proposed.
However, Idaho Power does not believe that ownership of infrastructure used for service
to Idaho Power Customers should be the basis of penalizing utility customers with any
additional costs stemming from broadband attaching entities using a utility's
infrastructure. It is the Public Utility Commission's legislatively authorized responsibility
to protect customers, and it is difficult to reconcile that protection with non-customer
entities impacting rates due to use of a utility's infrastructure.
Idaho Power respectfully requests the Commission take one of two suggested
approaches below.
1) Keep the current language in the draft rule under sections .003 and .005 allowing
for utilities to request additional time for make-ready work for "good and sufficient
cause" as currently outlined in the draft rule.
(or)
2) Modify the Timeline for Permitting Process in .003 to read:
Idaho Power Page 2 of 6
36

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 22, 2025
Page 3
003. TIMELINES FOR PERMITTING PROCESS
Pole Attachment Timelines
Pole Access Regular Orders Mid-Sized Orders Large Orders
Phase Under 100 101 —500 501 —
pole pole 1,5000
attachment attachment pole
requests requests attachment
requests
Application 10 business 10 business 10 business
Completeness days days days
Review
Application re- 8 business 10 business 15 business
review days days days
Survey/Review 604-5 calendar 7560 11590
on Merits days calendar calendar
days days
Make-Ready 204-4 calendar 204-4 40-1
Estimate days after calendar calendar
survey days after days after
survey survey
Communications 30 calendar 75 calendar 120
Space Make- days after days after calendar
Ready attaching attaching days after
entity entity attaching
payment of payment of entity
make-ready make- payment of
estimate ready make-
estimate ready
estimate
Above Comms 12090 17535 230U0
Make-Ready calendar days calendar calendar
(Electric Space) after days after days after
attaching attaching attaching
entity entity entity
payment of payment of payment of
make-ready make- make-
estimate ready ready
estimate estimate
Idaho Power Page 3 of 6
37

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 22, 2025
Page 4
Modify the language in Section .005 for Make-Ready Work to read:
005. MAKE- READY WORK
a) To the extent pole owners need additional time for make- ready work to allow
for deviations to make- ready deadlines for circumstances beyond the utility's
control "Aed and S iffi^ion+ nay ise that renders it infeasible for the pole owner to
complete make- ready within the time limits specified in this section.
Circumstances beyond the utility+ee's control Geed and SUffi^ion+ Eause include,
but ar6s not limited to permitting delays, lack of coordination between attaching
entities, work moratoriums, pole owner noponity to process requests to attadi
spar ineerino nomplexity, !aGk of qualified nontrrontors to perform work or Stop
o �
work orders for wildfire, or other safety risks. Each pole owner shall determine if
make-ready work or attachment cannot be completed and if it deviates from the
timeframes in Section 4, the pole owner shall notify the new attaching entity and
affected existing attaching entities with (1) identification of the affected poles, (2)
an explanation of the reason for the deviation, and (3) an estimated new
completion date. The pole owner shall deviate from the time limits specified in
this rule for a period no longer than is reasonably necessary under the
circumstances to complete make- ready on the affected poles and shall resume
make- ready when it returns to routine operations.
b) if a pole owner Gannot meet the timeframes for attaGhment established by t
rule the pole owner and attaching entity shell meet and selent a mutually
ally
aGGeptable third party for make ready work. Any third party must meet the p
owner' SsaTand nualifiEa ion requirement
During the public hearing, the Idaho Cable & Broadband Association raised concerns
regarding the language "good and sufficient cause." Many of the items listed in that
section are outside of a utility's control, and our proposed changes to this section highlight
those items that a utility cannot control. It does not make sense to hold utilities to
timeframes that require other parties to take actions. If utilities are not allowed to request
deviations from make-ready work timeframes, additional time needs to be given in the
proposed draft timelines.
Finally, regarding additional edits to proposed rule section .003 Timelines for Permitting
Process, Idaho Power strongly opposes any changes to the language regarding multiple
pole attachment requests from any attaching entity during any 30-day period being
counted toward the total number of pole attachment requests for the timelines. Each pole
attaching entity has one contract with the Company for pole attachments and much of the
work to process an application falls to the same team at Idaho Power, regardless of the
region in which the work occurs. The attaching entity submits new applications for each
Idaho Power Page 4 of 6
38

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 22, 2025
Page 5
attachment, but they continue to fall under the attaching entity's contract. Imposing any
sort of "zone" or regional approach will simply add an additional level of administrative
burden and could easily result in manipulating the system to fit the request into the shorter
"Regular Order" timeframes as opposed to the "Large Order" timeframes. The
Commission experienced a similar phenomenon with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978 ("PURPA"). In that instance, Idaho found large-scale renewable
developments were splitting themselves into smaller portions to meet PURPA's size
requirements and by following the "one-mile rule" separating Qualified Facilities
developers could secure preferable contract rates. In this example, large renewable
facilities were disaggregating to get better rates. In the case of pole attachments, Idaho
Power is concerned with attempts to disaggregate applications to require the utilities meet
accelerated timeframes.
Safety Concerns:
Idaho Power disagrees with the statement that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission does
not have authority to address safety as a part of the "timing of the permitting process for
pole attachments" in Idaho Code § 61-538(5). The Commission has broad authority to
address safety under Idaho Code § 61-515 more specifically the authority to consider
safety concerns and existing violations when determining appropriate timeframes for a
pole attachment. If an attaching entity has existing violations or if make ready work is
complicated by, or not feasible due to an existing violation, the timeframe will be impacted.
The Commission does have the authority to address "unauthorized attachments" which
is the fundamental first step in determining who falls under the permitting process
timelines.
Idaho Power was concerned by the comment that utilities can simply use contract terms
to remove attachments that are in violation. The Company does not have unilateral
authority to remove unsafe attachments. Idaho Power also does not have the staff to
"cure" the 15,000 outstanding violations for the attaching entities. If Idaho Power were to
implement this suggestion, the Commission workload may also be impacted as
complaints from customers to the Commission would increase when broadband
customers lose service due to a utility removing an attaching entity's line, or as disputes
regarding terms of the agreement between the utilities and broadband companies are
brought to the Commission.
As noted in our testimony, the attaching entities are most motivated to work with the utility
when they seek to attach to a utility's poles. If the Commission is concerned with imposing
a penalty to address on-going safety violations or unauthorized attachments, the
Commission could simply provide that an attaching entity is ineligible to submit an
application for a new pole attachment until all existing safety violations are addressed.
Idaho Power Page 5 of 6
39

Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
October 22, 2025
Page 6
We thank you again for your attention to this matter and are happy to answer any
additional questions the Commission may have.
Sincerely,
Julia Hilton
JH:sg
Idaho Power Page 6 of 6
40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------