20170505Stull Direct.pdf

'r,-i:irtt,-l. ,
"-'L/
L- l lJ L- lJ
i,iJ;.,',','-5 lXli Ii: Lrl+
I
=E(l)
E,
C)
C. Tom Arkoosh, ISB No. 2253
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900
P.O. Box 2900
Boise,ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email : [e-mail]
Attorneys for CoxCom, LLC
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO CONTRUCT SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS FOR WOOD RIVER
VALLEY CUSTOMERS
!-. i'
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. IPC-E-I6-28
COXCOM,LLC, D/B/A COX
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
MICHAEL STULL
I Q. Please state your name.
2 A. Michael Stull.
3 Q. What is your occupation?
4 A. Corporate Counsel, Law and Policy.
5 Q. By whom are you employed?
6 A. Cox Communications.
7 Q. How long have you been employed by Cox?
8 A. llyears.
9 a. What are your duties?
l0 A. Currently, my duties are to manage Cox's portfolio of nearly 250 pole
I I attachment and conduit use agreements.
12 a. What is your experience with the cable television and telecommunications
l3 industry?
14 A. I have served in my current role of Corporate Counsel for approximately
15 one year. In my prior role I was responsible for managing Cox's political and contractual
16 relationships with approximately 40 local government jurisdictions in Arizona. Prior to
17 joining Cox, I was employed with both the competitive division (Advanced
l8 Communications Technology) of a rural Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (Range
19 Telephone) and a Regional Bell Operating Company (US West, later Qwest).
20 a. Please explain to the Commission the benefits and development of the
21 attachment of cable facilities onto utility poles.
STULL, DI - I
CoxCom, LLC, d/b/a Cox
I A. Throughout cable television's early history, companies found it
2 advantageous to attach their wiring to existing utility poles to reach customer homes.
3 The benefits of using existing utility poles was three-fold. First, it eliminated the need to
4 install a separate set of poles in the right of way, reducing deployment costs and making
5 cable television service affordable to the average consumer. Second, existing pole runs
6 already passed by future cable television customer homes, making rapid service
7 deployment a reality. And finally, by consolidating electrical, telephone and cable
8 television cabling and equipment onto one set of poles, it reduced clutter and visual
9 blight.
l0 Although convenient, attachment contracts between cable companies and utility
11 pole owners were notoriously difficult to acquire, and as the cable industry grew, so grew
12 the complexity and costs of these vital attachment contracts.
13 In the mid-1970s, Congress recognized the access and cost challenges cable
14 providers faced in securing attachment contracts and, in 1978, Congress passed and the
l5 President signed into law the Pole Attachment Act of 1978.r This law added section224
16 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and directed the Federal
17 Communications Commission to "regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole
l8 attachments to provide that such rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable, and .
l9 . . adopt procedures necessary and appropriate to hear and resolve complaints conceming
20 such rates, terms, and conditions."2 Congress concluded that "[o]wing to a variety of
2l factors, including environmental or zoning restrictions" and the very significant costs of
I Pole Attachment Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-234, 92 Stat.33 ( 1978)
2 47 u.s.c. $ 224(bXr).
STULL, DI - 2
CoxCom, LLC, d/bla Cox
1 erecting a separate pole network or entrenching cable underground, "there is often no
2 practical alternative [for network deployment] except to utilize available space on
3 existing poles."3
4 While Congress did grant the Federal Communications Commission regulatory
5 authority concerning pole attachment matters, this grant was not exclusive. Under the
6 "reverse preemption" provision found in section 224, states were given the choice to
7 regulate rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments in their respective jurisdictions,
8 and the Commission retains jurisdiction over pole attachments only in states that do not
9 so certify. Idaho has chosen to exercise this "reverse preemption" and to place plenary
10 authority to regulate pole attachment terms and conditions with the Idaho Public Utilities
I I Commission.
12 Pursuant to Idaho's pole attachment statute, Idaho Code section 6l-538, this
l3 Commission governs all the rates, terms, and conditions of the interaction between
14 communication providers such as Cox and regulated utilities, such as Idaho Power. The
l5 statute directs the Commission give consideration to both the needs of our customers and
16 those of the regulated utility.
17 a. How does this proceeding concern Cox and its facilities?
18 A. Currently Cox has fiber optic communications cabling attached to Idaho
l9 Power's distribution poles paralleling Idaho Highway 75 and running along the proposed
20 project route. In this current matter, where Idaho Power is proposing replacing these
2l existing poles with new infrastructure to accommodate badly needed redundant
3 S. Rep. No. 580, 95th Congress, lst Sess. at 13 (1977) (1977 Senate Report), reprinted in 1978
u.s.c.c.A.N. 109.
STULL, DI - 3
CoxCom, LLC, dlbla Cox
I transmission facilities, the Commission is presented with three choices. Each choice has
2 differing repercussions on Cox, our customer base and our future ability to provide
3 reliable telecommunications services to local residents and business customers within our
4 Blaine County service area.
5 Q. Please describe the consequences of each choice upon Cox.
6 A. In the first scenario, the Commission could choose to not grant Idaho
7 Power's request to replace its current pole run. In this instance, the status quo is
8 maintained and Cox remains a tenant on the existing poles we currently occupy. In this
9 instance, Cox, our customers, and Idaho Power rate payers (as far as the current pole run
l0 is concerned) remain financially unaffected.
I I In the second scenario, the Commission could grant Idaho Power's request to
12 install new infrastructure designed to accommodate both Idaho Power's new transmission
13 facilities and Cox's fiber optic facilities. In this instance, Cox would serve as a tenant on
14 these new poles, paying Idaho Power a proportion of the new infrastructure's cost as
l5 determined by established formula. This assures the added cost of accommodating
16 telecommunications cabling on this new infrastructure is properly distributed among the
17 tenants and that Idaho Power's rate payers are protected from a disproportional cost
l8 burden.
19 In the final scenario, the Commission could accommodate Idaho Power's new
20 transmission facilities and restrict facility height to such a level that the new poles would
2l no longer accommodate telecommunications facilities. While, in this scenario, Idaho
22 Power would be protected, Cox would not as we would be required to underground our
STULL, DI - 4
CoxCom, LLC, dlbla Cox
I fiber cabling at significantly added cost while electrical facilities were allowed to remain
2 aerial. Under Idaho state law, intervenor's request for a minimal height facility that will
3 not accommodate Cox facilities would be considered discriminatory use of a right-of-
4 way. The Idaho statutes advance a policy of open, non-discriminatory, cooperative
5 access to public rights-of way in Title 50, Chapter 30. Should any option be selected
6 excluding Cox's facilities, Cox would request the Commission order the Intervenors to
7 reimburse Cox the difference in cost between aerial and underground placement.
8 Q. Which is the best choice for the customers of Cox and Idaho Power
9 Company?
l0 A. If redundant transmission is to be installed, we would request that such
1l facilities be configured to co-locate Idaho Power Company's facilities and Cox's
12 facilities to eliminate redundant cost and aesthetic interference to the extent possible.
13 As previously mentioned, this Commission has plenary authority over the terms
14 and conditions concerning matters involving governance of pole attachment. Cox would
l5 request the Commission use this authority to minimize financial exposure in order to
16 incent the continued deployment of broadband and other critical telecommunications
17 services and to protect Cox and, in turn, our customers from unwarranted and
l8 unnecessaryexpense.
19 a. Does this conclude your testimony?
20 A. Yes.
STULL, DI - 5
CoxCom, LLC,dlblaCox
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
t0
lt
t2
ATTESTATION OF TESTIMONY
STATE OF GEORCIA )
)ss.
County of Fulton )
I, Michael Stull, having been duly sworn to testify truthfully, and based upon my
personal knowledge, state the following:
I am employed by CoxCom, LLC, d/b/a Cox. as the Corporate Counsel, Law and Policy,
and am competent to be a witness in this proceeding.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of [daho that the foregoing pre-
filed testimony is true and correct to the best of my information and belief.
DATED *is^lYday of 20t7.
MichaelStull
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this .-/th day of tAPd t .20t7
t3
l4
r5
r6
t7
t8
t9
20
Resid
My
for Georgia
3ru3 6otd,r,r rra or. 8"64 3 o.t-r I
exprres: 4- t 'l . Zo
2t
)7
23
24
25
26
lANE
STULL, DI . 6
CoxCom, LLC, d/b/a Cox
tsuro
Ia +OT44r
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May,2017, I served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document(s) upon the following person(s), in the manner indicated:
Orieinal and 9 conies to:
Diane M. Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
Electronic copies to:
Donovan E. Walker
Tim Tatum
Idaho Power Company
PO Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
Daphne Huang
Camille Christen
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th St.
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
300 Let'er Buck Road
Hailey,ID 83333
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight CourierX Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
[e-mail]. eov
x
x
x
x
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
dwalker@ idahopower. com
dockets@ idahopower. com
[e-mail]
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
daphne. huang@puc. i daho. gov
cami lle.christen@puc. idaho. gov
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Ovemight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
peter@richardsonadam s. com
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Ovemight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail [e-mail]
STULL, DI - 7
CoxCom, LLC, d/b/a Cox
Kelsey Jae Nunez
Kelsey Jae Nunez LLC
920 N. Clover Dr.
Boise,ID 83703
Zack Waterman
Director, Idaho Siena Club
503 W. Franklin St.
Boise,lD 83702
Michael Heckler
3606 N. Prospect Way
Garden City,ID 83714
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth Street
Boise, lD 83702
Laura Midgley
231 Valley Club Drive
Hailey,ID 83333
Matthew A. Johnson
Wm. F. Gigray
White Peterson Gigray & Nichols, PA
5700 E. Franklin Rd., Suite 200
Nampa,ID 83687
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
ke I sev@ kel sevjgenunez, com
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Ovemight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
zack. waterman@sierrac I ub. org
U.S, Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
michael.p.heckler@ gmail.com
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
botto@idahoconservation. org
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail midgley22 I [e-mail]
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
mjohnson@whitepeterson. com
STULL, DI - 8
CoxCom, LLC, dlbla Cox
x
x
x
x
x
x
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th St.
P.O. Box 7218
Boise,lD 83702 x
C. Tom Arkoosh
U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Overnight Courier
Hand Delivered
Via Facsimile
E-mail
gre g@richardsonadams. com
STULL, DI - 9
CoxCom, LLC, dlblaCox