20020920Cable One's State Table.pdf

POLE ATTACHMENT REGULATION IN THE STATES

State

Statute

Rule/Cases

Comments
Rate (Using
Idaho Power
Data)
ALASKA ALASKA STAT.
§§42.95.311,
42.05.321
(2001)
ALASKA ADMIN. CODE, Title 3
§52.900-940 (2001)
Tracks the FCC formula except in the pole
investment calculation, i.e, there appears to be no
reduction for appurtenances or accumulated
deferred tax.
$4.00
CALIFORNIA CAL PUB UTIL
CODE §767.5
(Deering 2001)
Decision 98-10-058 (Ca
P.U.C. October 22, 1998)
Tracks the FCC formula except in the pole
investment calculation. The appurtenance reduction
is not a fixed percentage, but rather is established on
a case-by-case basis. There is a further reduction
from embedded cost for reimbursed capital costs.
Declined to adopt a separate telecom formula in
1998.
$3.40+
CONNECTICUT CONN. GEN.
STAT. §§16-1,
16-19, 16-332
(2001)
Application of Southern New
England Telephone Co. to
Amend its Rates and Rate
Structure, Conn. PUC LEXIS 5
(Conn. Dep't P.U.C. July 7,
1993)
Departs from the FCC formula only in that the pole
investment calculation uses 90% embedded cost
and 10% marginal cost. An adjudication determined
usable space to be 12.33 feet, as opposed to the
FCC's presumptive 13.5 feet.
$3.72+
DELAWARE DEL. CODE ANN.
Title 26 §§201,
209 (2002)
CODE DEL. REGS. §§10-800-
016 (2002)
Very different formula which allocates the share of
annual per pole costs differently for usable and
common space.

$2.87
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
D.C. CODE ANN.
§34-1208
(2001)
D.C. MUN. REGS. Title 15§16
(1984)
No formula. PSC intervention when parties cannot
reach agreement.

~
IDAHO IDAHO CODE §
61-538 (2001)
~ Proceeding to adopt a formula underway. Rate
calculated using the guidelines from the Benewah
adjudication.
$3.82
ILLINOIS 220 ILL. COMP.
STAT. 5/7-102,
5/10-101 (2001)
ILL. ADMIN. CODE Title 83,
§315-315.70 (2002)
Tracks the FCC formula except that the
appurtenance reduction in the pole investment
calculation is 30%, not 15%, and the presumptive
usable space is 14 ft., not 13.5 ft.
$2.70

State

Statute

Rule/Cases

Comments
Rate (Using
Idaho Power
Data)
KENTUCKY KY. REV. STAT.
ANN.
§278.280(2)
(Michie 2002)
807 KY. ADMIN. REGS. 5:006
(2002); The Adoption of a
Standard Methodology for
Establishing Rates for CATV
Pole Attachments, Case No.
251, 49 P.U.R. 4th 127 (Ky
P.S.C. Sept. 17, 1982)
Tracks the FCC formula except that it weights the
average investment in a bare pole by the number of
users. Thus, the formula produces a different rate
for two-user and three-user poles.
$5.62 (2-
user)
$3.48 (3-
user)
LOUISIANA LA. CONST. ART.
4, §21(b).
Review of LPSC Orders U-
14325, U-14325-A (La. P.S.C.
Dec. 17, 1984); Dealing with
Agreements for Joint
Utilization of Poles and
Facilities by Two or More
Entities, Docket No. U-22833
(Mar. 12, 1999)
Tracks the FCC formula except that two feet of
usable space are allocated to CATV instead of one
foot.
$6.79
MAINE 35-A ME. REV.
STAT. §711
CODE ME. R. § 65-407, ch.880
(1997)
Very different formula which uses a cost allocation
based on attributable percentages of usable and
common space. Produces such high rates that it
has never been used. All cases have been settled
for rates which are much closer to what the FCC
formula would produce.
~
MASSACHUSETTS MASS. GEN.
LAWS ch. 166,
§25(a) (2002)
MASS. REGS. CODE Title 220
§45.00-09 (2002); Cablevision
of Boston, et al. v. Boston
Edison Company, D.T.E. 97-
82 (1998) (Mass. Dept. of
Public Utilities)
Tracks the FCC formula.

$3.40
MICHIGAN MICH. COMP.
LAWS §460.6(g)
(2001)
(regulating
electric poles);
MICH. COMP.
LAWS
§§484.2361
(2001)
(regulating
telecom poles)
Opinion and Order, In re The
Commission's Own Motion to
Examine Setting Just and
Reasonable Rates for
Attachments to Utility Poles,
Ducts, and Conduits Pursuant
to MCL 460.6g; MSA
22.13(6g), Docket No. U-
10831 (Mich. P.S.C. Feb. 11,
1997)
For electric companies the PSC imposes a rate
equal to the weighted average of the rates which
would be charged by Michigan's two largest electric
companies using the FCC formula. The present rate
is $2.74. For telephone companies the FCC formula
is followed.

$3.40+

State

Statute

Rule/Cases

Comments
Rate (Using
Idaho Power
Data)
NEW JERSEY N.J. STAT. ANN.
§§48:5A-20,
48:5A-21 (2001)
N.J. ADMIN CODE Title 14: 18-
2.9 (2001); In re West Jersey
Telephone Co., 77 P.U.R. 4th
89 (NJ B.P.C. Sept. 2, 1986)
Tracks the FCC formula. $3.40
NEW YORK N.Y. PUB. SERV.
LAW §119-a
(2002)
Case 95-C-0341, Opinion No.
97-10 (June 17, 1997); Case
01-E-0026, 2002 N.Y. PUC
LEXIS 14 (Jan. 15, 2002)
Modified formula in 1997 to track FCC formula.
Declined to adopt a separate telecom formula in
2002.

$3.40
OHIO OHIO REV. CODE
ANN.
§§4905.71,
4905.72
(Anderson
2002)
Ohio Edison Co., et al., Case
No. 81-1171-EL-AIR (Ohio
P.U.C. Nov. 3, 1982); In re the
Commission Order
Investigation for the Existing
Local Exchange Competition
Guidelines, Case No.'s 99-
998-TP-COI; 99-563-TO-COI
(Ohio P.S.C. Mar. 1, 2001)
Tracks FCC formula. Rulemaking pending looking
toward possible use of FCC telecom formula as a
second formula.

$3.40
OREGON OR. REV. STAT.
§757.270-290,
759.650-675
(2001)
OR. ADMIN. R. 860-028-0110
(2001)
Tracks the FCC formula except that the ground
clearance and safety space assumptions result in
usable space on a 37.5 foot pole being 9.83 feet
instead of 13.5 feet.

$4.67
UTAH UTAH CODE
ANN. §54-4-13
(2001)
UTAH ADMIN. CODE R.746-
345(1-4) (2002)
No formula. The PUC intervenes when parties
cannot reach agreement.
~
VERMONT VT. STAT. ANN.
Title 30,
§§2515, 2525-
2525 (2001)
VERMONT PUBLIC SERVICE
BOARD RULES §§3.700-711
Pole Attachments (2001)
Tracks the FCC formula except that it assumes a
pole height of 40 feet and usable space of 16 feet,
and it assigns two feet of space to CATV or any
attacher which offers telephone service. The latter
factor has the effect of doubling the rate.
$2.87 $5.74
(for a
provider of
telephone
service)
WASHINGTON WASH. REV.
CODE
§§80.54.010-
070 (2002)
~ No formula, but the statute sets a range of
reasonable compensation with a maximum which
approximates the FCC formula for determining a
maximum rate.

~

147494_1.DOC