Final_Order_No_36917.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 27,2026
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
WIRED OR WIRELESS,INC., ) CASE NO.AVU-E-25-11
Complainant, )
VS. ) ORDER NO. 36917
AVISTA CORPORATION, )
Respondent. )
On July 17, 2025, Wired or Wireless, Inc. ("WOW") filed a formal complaint with the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") against Avista Corporation ("Company")
(collectively, the "Parties"). WOW alleged that the Company billed WOW for pole attachments
located in the State of Idaho in violation of Idaho Code § 61-538, regulations, and orders of the
Commission, as well as federal laws and regulations ("Complaint"). Complaint at 1-2. WOW also
claimed that the Company had violated WOW's right to overlash another cable or wire to its
existing cables and wires and that the Company had failed to maintain accurate records by failing
to conduct periodic pole audits. Id.
On August 28, 2025, the Company filed an Answer to the Complaint denying WOW's
allegations("Answer"). Answer at 1. The Company claimed the Parties' Joint Use Master License
Agreement ("JUMLA") was terminated and that a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
Washington against WOW for breach of contract. Id. at 2. The Company believed that the issues
presented in the Complaint should be heard by the Washington Superior Court and further argued
that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the matter under Idaho Code § 61-538. Id. at 4. The
Company argued that if the Commission did have jurisdiction, it would derive from Idaho Code §
61-514,not Idaho Code § 61-538.Id. at 5. The Company requested the Commission deny WOW's
request for relief and dismiss the Complaint, allowing the Company to further pursue the breach
of contract claims in the Washington Superior Court lawsuit.Id. 18-19.
ORDER NO. 36917 1

On September 29, 2025, WOW filed a Motion Regarding the Procedural Schedule
("Motion"), requesting the Commission set dates for motions for summary judgement, responses
to motions, replies to responses, and oral arguments. Motion at 1-2.
On October 10, 2025, the Company filed a response in opposition to WOW's Motion
("Motion Response"), arguing the Commission should deny WOW's proposed procedural
schedule and resolve the matter based on the existing record, allowing the Parties to continue the
proceedings in the Washington Superior Court. Motion Response at 2.
On November 4,2025,the Commission issued an Interlocutory Order,granting WOW time
to file a responsive pleading, limiting the scope of WOW's reply to the Company's Answer. Order
No. 36827. The Commission also ordered Commission Staff("Staff") to convene a meeting with
the Parties to discuss the issues raised in the Complaint and Answer, and to report to the
Commission regarding any progress made. Id.
On November 25, 2025, WOW responded to the claims and allegations raised by the
Company in its Answer("Response").
On December 31, 2025, Staff filed a Compliance Filing, reporting that no progress was
made towards resolution between the Parties while meeting with Staff. Staff Compliance Filing at
1.
Based on our review of the record, the Commission now issues this Final Order dismissing
the Complaint.
BACKGROUND
UNDISPUTED FACTS
WOW is a telecommunications provider, operating in Hope and Clark Fork, Idaho,with at
least 561 pole attachments on the Company's poles. Complaint at 4, Answer at 9. In 2009, the
Parties signed a JUMLA that governed WOW's pole attachments. Complaint at 6, Answer at 9.
The JUMLA provided terms and conditions governing pole attachment charges and pricing.
Complaint at 6, Answer at 10. The JUMLA classified WOW as a cable television provider,
entitling WOW to the cable rate for its pole attachments. Answer at 1, Response at 13.
The Parties have since terminated the JUMLA and the Company has filed a lawsuit in the
State of Washington alleging WOW is in breach of contract.Answer at 2,Response at 3. In March
2025, WOW filed a request for the Rapid Broadband Assessment Team ("RBAT") with the
ORDER NO. 36917 2

Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to review the issues. Answer at 5, Response at 2-
3. The FCC declined to initiate an assessment. Id.
DISPUTED FACTS
While the Parties agreed that WOW has at least 561 pole attachments on the Company's
poles,the Company claimed that a 2023 pole audit it performed counted 702 attachments. Answer
at 2. Additionally, the Parties provided conflicting interpretations of the language of the JUMLA.
Specifically, WOW argued that the pole attachment rates charged by the Company should comply
with FCC formulas and all other applicable laws and regulations. Complaint at 6. WOW also
claimed that beginning in 2019,the Company used incorrect rate calculations, denied overlashing,
placed stop-work orders, and failed to maintain accurate pole audits.Id.
The Company argued that the allegations listed in WOW's Complaint were false. Answer
at 1. The Company believed WOW made misrepresentations to the Company at the time the
JUMLA was negotiated by stating that it was a cable provider and entitled to the cable pole
attachment rate, when it was actually a telecommunications provider. Id. The Company claimed
that despite WOW's admission in the Complaint that it owes at least $20.84 per pole attachment,
WOW has made no payments to the Company since 2022.Id.
JURISDICTION
IDAHO CODE § 61-53 8
WOW claimed that the Commission had jurisdiction over the matters raised in the
Complaint pursuant to Idaho Code§ 61-538,as updated and in effect as of July 1,2025. Complaint
at 2. Specifically, WOW argued that the Commission had jurisdiction to set the rates between the
Parties for pole attachments in the State of Idaho per Idaho Code § 61-538(3):
Whenever a public utility and a provider of a telecommunications service
or broadband . . . services company are unable to agree on the rates, terms, or
conditions for pole attachments or the terms, conditions, or cost of production of
space needed for pole attachments,then the commission shall establish and regulate
the rates, terms, and conditions [for such attachments].
Id. at 2-3.
Additionally, WOW argued that because the Commission has substantive rulemaking
authority under Idaho Code § 61-538(5), the Commission may implement the rules of the FCC
where Idaho's substantive rules concerning pole attachments are lacking. Id. at 3. WOW further
ORDER NO. 36917 3

argued that because the Commission had jurisdiction to implement FCC rules pursuant to Idaho
Code § 61-538(5), any violations of federal laws and FCC rules and regulation should be
considered violations of Idaho Code § 61-538.Id.
WOW argued that because the FCC's RBAT declined to commence the RBAT process in
this matter, Idaho had reverse preemption jurisdiction over the issues through the Commission.
Response at 3. WOW requested that the Commission decide this matter or inform the FCC that
the State of Idaho had no jurisdiction over this dispute. Id.
WOW believed that the United States Congress intended for telecommunications
companies like WOW to have federal protections for pole attachments and that either the
Commission or the FCC was required to exercise jurisdiction over the Complaint. Id. at 9. WOW
argued that if the Commission did not take jurisdiction over the Complaint, there would be a
regulatory gap prior to the update of Idaho Code § 61-538 on July 1, 2025, offering no protection
for telecommunication providers like WOW. Id.
WOW believed that if the Commission did not exercise jurisdiction over the Complaint,
the Commission would be required to rescind its FCC certification under 47 U.S.C. § 224(c)(2)-
(3) to regulate pole attachments and remand jurisdiction of pole attachments in Idaho back to the
FCC to regulate.Id. at 11.WOW argued that the FCC's certification of the Commission to regulate
pole attachments exists independently of Idaho Code § 61-538, giving the Commission exclusive
jurisdiction over pole attachments in Idaho.Id. at 12.
WOW argued that while the Commission has jurisdiction over the Complaint, it should
follow FCC policies. Id. WOW believed that Idaho enacted Idaho Code § 61-538 in response to
the United States Congress's 1978 enactment of 47 U.S.C. § 224, and therefore the Commission
should construe Idaho Code § 61-538 consistent with the FCC's interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 224.
Id. at 17. WOW further argued that it is presumed that the Commission applies FCC rules and
precedent when adjudicating pole attachment disputes because Idaho has not yet adopted detailed
rules and regulations implementing the state's regulatory authority over pole attachments but is
still recognized by the FCC as a certified state regulator.Id. at 18.
The Company disagreed with WOW that the Commission had jurisdiction over this matter
under Idaho Code §61-538. Answer at 3. The Company argued that prior to July 1, 2025, Idaho
Code § 61-538 only applied to "cable services" companies and did not include "a provider of a
ORDER NO. 36917 4

telecommunications service or broadband" as the law does currently. Id. Additionally, the
Company argued that the Commission's authority to set rates for pole attachments upon
presentation of a dispute under Idaho Code § 61-538 is a "prospective power," not a "retroactive
power."Id.
IDAHO CODE § 61-514
The Company believed that the Commission's jurisdiction over this matter comes not from
Idaho Code § 61-538, but from Idaho Code § 61-514. Answer at 6. Specifically, the Company
cited:
Whenever the commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon
complaint of a public utility affected, shall find that public convenience and
necessity require the use by one (1)public utility of the conduits, subways, tracks,
wires,poles,pipes or other equipment...and that such public utilities have failed to
agree upon such use or the terms and conditions or compensation for the same, the
commission may by order direct that such use be permitted, and prescribe a
reasonable compensation and reasonable terms and conditions for the joint use.
Idaho Code § 61-514.
WOW denied the Company's claim that jurisdiction lies with the Commission under Idaho
Code§ 61-514.Response at 5.WOW argued that Idaho Code§ 61-514 addressed situations where
two public utilities cannot agree on price,terms, or conditions when the utilities must share assets.
Id. WOW argued that it is not a public utility as defined by Idaho Code § 61-129 because the
services WOW offers,voice over internet protocol(`°VOIP")and broadband internet access, do not
involve circuit-switched telecommunications transmission. Id. at 6-7. WOW further argued that
while federal and some state regulators have been increasing recognition and regulation of internet
protocol("IP")based telecommunications services,it would be inconsistent with Idaho law for the
Commission to do so.Id. at 7-8.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
RATE CALCULATIONS
WOW alleged that the Company was required under the JUMLA to comply with FCC
formulas and regulations when calculating rates. Complaint at 6. WOW claimed that the Company
incorrectly calculated the pole attachment rate under the JUMLA and the FCC's rate calculation
rule,by failing to account for multiple entities attaching to the Company's 561 poles at issue from
ORDER NO. 36917 5

2023 to 2024. Id. WOW claimed that the miscalculation led to WOW being overcharged by
322.5%.Id. at 7.
The Company stated that the JUMLA did not require "the rates charged by Avista . . . to
comply with FCC formulas and all other applicable law and regulations," and instead stated
a. Licensee's installations shall be in accordance with all state and local laws,rules
and regulations, including without limitation the National Electrical Safety
Code,and with Licensor's specifications and guidelines as they may from time
to time be prescribed by Licensor.
b. The Parties agree to take all reasonable actions as may be appropriate or
required to comply with all laws, rules, and regulations applicable to them
jointly or severally by reason of the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement.
c. This Agreement will in all respects be interpreted, construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington,except that the laws of the
State in which an Attachment is located will apply in the case of any action for
unlawful or forcible detainer,ejectment,or similar action to remove Licensee's
Attachments from Licensor's Poles or Ducts.
Answer at 9.
The Company denied WOW's allegations and believed that it did use the correct formula,
including the appropriate average number of attaching entities in its calculation, but that WOW's
math was incorrect. Id. at 10. The Company believed that WOW used the FCC's current telecom
rate formula in its calculation which included a rate multiplier of 0.31 when there are two attaching
entities. Id. The Company stated that it used the FCC old rate calculation formula which does not
include the cost discount. Id. The Company believed that the old FCC rate formula results in a
more equitable allocation of costs for both its customers and attaching entities and prevents cost
shifting to utility customers.Id. at 12.
Additionally, the Company argued that if the Commission did have the jurisdiction to set
pole attachment rates retroactively, the rate charged by the Company met the "reasonable
compensation" requirement of Idaho Code § 61-514 because it was calculated using the FCC's
old telecommunication rate formula, which was approved and utilized for many years. Id. at 4.
WOW believed that whether the Company used the old or the new FCC rate formula in its
calculations was irrelevant because WOW's attachments were categorized as cable television
attachments under the JUMLA. Response at 13. WOW stated that it advised the Company that it
ORDER NO. 36917 6

would provide internet access using infrastructure previously owned by cable television companies
via e-mail correspondence in September 2009.Id. at Exhibit 1. WOW believed that the Company
knowingly executed the JUMLA providing WOW cable television pole attachment rates instead
of insisting on treating WOW as a telecommunications carrier.Id.
WOW argued that if the Company were allowed to impose telecommunications pole
attachment rates, it would be a material modification to the JUMLA and would be invalid without
mutual assent.Id. at 15.WOW noted that while the JUMLA is governed by Washington law,Idaho
law is consistent in that a meeting of the minds is required to modify the JUMLA, even if one parry
acts under a mistake of facts.Id. at 16.
OVERLASHING
WOW stated that the FCC's rule, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1416(a)1, prohibits a public utility from
requiring prior approval for a party already attached to a pole to overlash another cable or wire to
existing cable or wire. Complaint at 7. WOW claimed that the Company denied WOW the right
to overlash existing facilities, imposed fees, and issued stop-work orders to prohibit it from
overlashing without justification. Id. WOW stated that the JUMLA allowed the Company to
require approval for third-party overlashing but was silent concerning WOW's right to overlash.
Id. WOW believed that the Company was in violation of 47 C.F.R. §1.1416(a) and the JUMLA by
denying WOW the right to overlash on already existing facilities. Id.
The Company stated that while FCC rules do prohibit a utility from requiring approval to
overlash, the rules also allow a utility to require advanced notice of overlash2. Answer at 13-14.
The Company also argued that while the FCC may have these rules, they do not apply in Idaho as
Idaho does not have rules addressing overlashing.Id. at 14.The Company also believed that WOW
' "A utility shall not require prior approval for . . . [a]n existing attacher that overlashes its existing wires on a pole;
or[f]or third party overlashing of an existing attachment that is conducted with the permission of an existing attacher."
47 C.F.R. § 1.1416(a)(1)-(2).
2 "A utility may require no more than 15 days' advance notice of planned overlashing. If a utility requires advance
notice for overlashing, then the utility must provide existing attachers with advance written notice of the notice
requirement or include the notice requirement in the attachment agreement with the existing attacher.If after receiving
advance notice,the utility determines that an overlash would create a capacity,safety,reliability,or engineering issue,
it must provide specific documentation of the issue to the party seeking to overlash within the 15 day advance notice
period and the party seeking to overlash must address any identified issues before continuing with the overlash either
by modifying its proposal or by explaining why,in the party's view,a modification is unnecessary. A utility may not
charge a fee to the party seeking to overlash for the utility's review of the proposed overlash."47 C.F.R. § 1.1416(c).
ORDER NO. 36917 7

failed to address WOW's obligations under Section 2.2a of Exhibit G to the JUMLA, requiring
WOW to make written application to the Company if it wanted to attach to the Company's facilities
or to alter the location of overlash and attachments. Id.
The Company stated that with regard to stop-work orders, they were issued in both April
2023 due to non-compliance with the JUMLA when the Company discovered WOW had replaced
cable without notification to the Company, and again in February and May of 2024 due to non-
payment.Id. The Company claimed that all stop-work orders were in accordance with the JUMLA.
Id. at 15. The Company also believed that WOW was incorrect in the Complaint when it stated the
JUMLA was silent as to WOW's right to overlash and believed that the JUMLA adequately stated
that WOW may overlash only upon written application to the Company.Id.
WOW denied the Company's assertion that that WOW had no authority to overlash without
the Company's prior approval under the JUMLA. Response at 19. WOW argued that the JUMLA
requirements concerning overlashing violated FCC rules and regulations and undermined federal
policy goals.Id. at 18-19. WOW believed that the Commission should apply the FCC's standards
addressing overlashing to ensure consistency with federal policy. Id. at 19.
POLE AUDITS
WOW claimed that from the time the JUMLA was executed in 2009, the Company failed
to maintain accurate pole attachment records or request annual reports from WOW concerning the
number of poles used by WOW. Complaint at 8. WOW believed that the Company's failure to
conduct pole audits led to the Company's claims that WOW had unauthorized pole attachments.
Id.
The Company disagreed with WOW's claims that the Company was responsible for
tracking the number of WOW's pole attachments through pole audits.Answer at 15. The Company
argued that Section 3.6.a(1) of the JUMLA provided that it was WOW's obligation to report its
current number of pole attachments by May 1 of each year.Id.
REQUESTED RELIEF
DAMAGES—WOW
WOW claimed that its customer base in Hope/Clark Fork, Idaho, dropped from 400 to less
than 45 due to the dispute between WOW and the Company. Complaint at 8. WOW claimed that
the loss in customer base impeded WOW's ability to upgrade fiber in the area. Id. WOW also
ORDER NO. 36917 8

claimed that the inability to upgrade prohibited WOW from competing with a government-funded
competitor and led to WOW missing the opportunity to serve 1,500 additional customers. Id.
WOW believed that the Company's actions were also harmful to Idaho residents. Id. at 9. WOW
claimed that if it had been able to serve broadband connections in the area, the funds that went to
the government-funded competitor could have been awarded in other Idaho markets, therefore
expanding broadband services to other areas in rural Idaho. Id.
The Company denied that the alleged loss of customers by WOW was due to the
Company's actions. Answer at 16. The Company also argued that all of WOW's claims were
alleged violations of FCC rules and regulations that have not been adopted by the Commission or
Idaho legislature. Id. at 17.
DAMAGES—The Company
The Company alleged that WOW owes $431,937.04 in unpaid invoices. Answer at 2. The
Company claimed that, by WOW's own admission, WOW owed at least $21.84 per pole
attachment in annual rent but has made no payment since 2022. Id. The Company stated that, in
an attempt to reach a settlement, the Company offered multiple compromises to WOW, but all
were declined or ignored. Id. at 17-18. The Company also stated that any recovery in this matter
will be a dollar-for-dollar credit to the Company's revenue requirement. Id. at 18.
WOW argued that it was not in violation of the JUMLA by withholding payment for pole
attachments because the JUMLA does not address what duties WOW has with respect to payments
if there is a billing dispute. Response at 21. WOW also claimed that it was the Company's
unilateral decision to modify the JUMLA without negotiation, leading to the billing dispute. Id. at
20-21.
PENALTIES
WOW believed that the Company's alleged violation of Idaho Code § 61-538, via alleged
violations of federal laws and FCC rules and regulations, allowed the Commission to impose
penalties on the Company under Idaho Code § 61-706 and 707. Complaint at 4.
WOW believed that that the Commission should impose a $2,000 penalty against the
Company for each of the 561 pole attachments that WOW believed were billed incorrectly,totaling
$1,122,000 annually. Id. at 9. Additionally, WOW believed that a monthly $2,000 penalty should
be imposed for each month the Company failed to conduct an accurate pole audit, and that a daily
ORDER NO. 36917 9

$2,000 penalty should be imposed for each day WOW was prevented from overlashing.Id. WOW
recommended that the Commission use FCC standards to require the Company to charge the
penalties to the Company's shareholders rather than its customers, as a way to encourage the
Company to adhere with pole attachment laws and regulations.Id. at 10.
The Company believed that WOW's request for penalties under Idaho Code § 61-701, et
seq. was done in bad faith. Answer at 7. The Company believed that WOW failed to cite any
violation by the Company of the Constitution of the State of Idaho, public utilities laws, or any
failure by the Company to adhere with an order or requirement of the Commission, as required by
Idaho Code § 61-706.Id. at 6-7.
RELIEF REQUESTED—WOW
WOW requested the Commission issue an Order:
A. Directing the Company recalculate pole attachment rates for 561 poles using the FCC
formula;
B. Requiring the Company to refund overcharges from the date of WOW's initial demand to
the Company (2019) or as far back in time as permitted by Idaho law, plus interest, per 47 C.F.R.
§ 1.1410(c);
C. Ordering the Company to lift stop-work orders and allow WOW to overlash existing
facilities without prior approval or fees, per 47 C.F.R § 1.1416(a);
D. Mandating the Company maintain accurate pole attachment records and reconcile
discrepancies with WOW's 2023 audit;
E. Prohibiting the Company from imposing penalties, canceling contracts, or pursuing
lawsuits related to this dispute until resolved;
F. Facilitating Commission supervised mediation to resolve any remaining or future disputes
within 60 days, aligning with FCC's Accelerated Docket principles (47 C.F.R. § 1.736); and
G. Imposing penalties on the Company for violations,per 47 C.F.R. § 1.1413 and Idaho Code
§ 61-6173 and § 61-701, et seq.
s WOW seeks penalties pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617. The Complaint's request for relief contains the first and
only reference to Idaho Code§ 61-617,and it is unclear which provision WOW intends to invoke.Idaho Code§ 61-
617 addresses the procedure for securing the attendance of a witness at a hearing before the Commission.By contrast,
Idaho Code§ 61-617A sets forth the procedure for awarding costs to intervenors.
ORDER NO. 36917 10

RELIEF REQUESTED—The Company
The Company requested the Commission:
A. Deny WOW's requests for relief;
B. Dismiss WOW's Complaint; and
C. Award the Company other relief as the Commission deems necessary.Id.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has authority to adjudicate complaints alleging acts or omissions by
public utilities that violate the law or Commission order or rule.Idaho Code §§ 61-612, -618. The
Commission addresses informal and formal complaints through the process outlined in its
administrative rules and does not provide preferential treatment to any party participating in the
process. IDAPA 31.01.01.054 and .057.02. After review of the pleadings, applicable law, and the
record here, the Commission finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in the
Complaint under either Idaho Code § 61-538 or Idaho Code § 61-514.
Specifically, Idaho Code § 61-538 authorizes the Commission to assist in fixing rates,
terms, or conditions for pole attachments when the relevant parties are unable to reach agreement.
Prior to July 1, 2025, the statute applied only to disputes between a public utility and a cable
television company. Effective July 1, 2025, the Idaho Legislature amended the statute to include
disputes involving a provider of telecommunication services or broadband.
The Commission lacks jurisdiction under both the former and amended(post July 1, 2025)
versions of Idaho Code § 61-538. Under the former version, the Commission's authority was
limited to disputes between a public utility and a cable television company. The record reflects
that WOW is a telecommunications carrier providing broadband service, as acknowledged in its
pleadings and as established by its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Certificate
No. 532. Although WOW asserts that its pole attachments were billed at cable television rates
under the Parties' JUMLA, application of the statute examines the nature of the entity, not the
billing classification of its attachments. Because WOW was not operating in Idaho as a cable
television provider prior to July 1, 2025,Idaho Code § 61-538 is inapplicable.
Under the amended version of Idaho Code § 61-538,the Commission's role is also limited
and inapplicable in the context WOW suggests. The statute permits Commission involvement only
ORDER NO. 36917 11

when parties are unable to agree on rates or terms during the formation of a new pole attachment
agreement. Here, the Parties successfully negotiated and executed the JUMLA in 2009,
establishing mutually agreed upon rates and terms. The Complaint does not seek to establish new
rates or terms but instead asks the Commission to interpret and enforce an existing agreement and
to adjudicate alleged contractual breaches.Idaho Code § 61-538 does not permit the Commission
to review, interpret, or enforce existing contracts where a meeting of the minds has occurred. As
affirmed by the Supreme Court of Idaho, the interpretation and enforcement of contractual rights
are matters that generally fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Commission. Afton
Energy, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., I I I Idaho 925, 928, 729 P.2d 400, 403 (1986) (internal citations
omitted).
Accordingly,the Commission concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint under
Idaho Code § 61-538.
Idaho Code § 61-514 authorizes the Commission, after notice and hearing, to order the
joint use of one public utility's facilities by another public utility when public convenience and
necessity requires such use and the parties cannot agree on terms. Under those circumstances, the
Commission may set reasonable terms, conditions, and compensation for such use.
The Commission finds that Idaho Code § 61-514 is not applicable to the issues raised in
the Complaint.The statute is intended to address circumstances involving access to facilities where
no agreement exists, not to settle disputes arising from the interpretation of existing contracts,
including billing disputes or alleged breaches of contract. The record reflects that the parties have
an existing agreement governing joint use of facilities.
Further,Idaho Code§ 61-514 applies only to joint use between public utilities.Idaho Code
§ 61-129 defines a "public utility" as an entity subject to regulation under Title 61. WOW has
stated that it provides VoIP and broadband internet access services and does not provide circuit-
switched telecommunications transmission.Based on the record,the Commission finds that WOW
does not qualify as a public utility as defined in Idaho Code § 61-129. The Commission lacks
jurisdiction under Idaho Code § 61-514 to adjudicate the claims raised in the Complaint.
Even if the Commission had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint, the
Commission finds that it lacks statutory authority to impose the penalties or grant the relief
requested.
ORDER NO. 36917 12

The Commission's enforcement authority under Idaho Code §§ 61-701 through 61-706 is
limited to violations of the Idaho Constitution, Idaho statutes governing public utilities, or
Commission orders, rules, or requirements. The Complaint alleges violations of federal law,
including FCC rules and regulations and 47 U.S.C. § 224, and seeks to have those alleged
violations enforced through Idaho Code § 61-538.
Idaho Code § 61-538(5) does not grant the Commission general substantive rulemaking
authority to adopt or incorporate FCC pole attachment rules. The statute authorizes the
Commission, subject to legislative approval, to establish rules relating only to the timing of the
permitting process for pole attachments. This authority is narrow in scope and does not extend to
adopting federal rate, enforcement, or penalty frameworks.
The Commission further notes legislative testimony confirming that the intent of Idaho
Code § 61-538(5) was to facilitate efficient pole attachment permitting to support broadband
deployment and the timely distribution of grant funding, and that any expansion of the
Commission's authority beyond that scope would require additional legislative action.
The Commission has limited jurisdiction and possesses only the authority expressly
granted by the Idaho Legislature.Absent explicit statutory authorization,the Commission may not
adjudicate federal pole attachment claims, impose penalties for alleged violations of federal law,
or otherwise grant the relief requested in the Complaint.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that it lacks jurisdiction under Idaho
Public Utilities law to consider the issues raised in the Complaint and lacks statutory authority to
grant the requested relief. Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint filed by WOW against the Company is
dismissed for the reasons set forth above.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one(21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
ORDER NO. 36917 13

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 27ffi day of
January 2026.
G
P
E WARD LOD E, "SIDENT
R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
DAYN H RDIE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
M&YcJ BTmKs3SAchez
Commission Secretary
I:\Legal\ELEC TRIC\A V U-E-25-11_WOW\orders\A V UE2511_final_em.docx
ORDER NO. 36917 14