BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA"

Christine Morrison
5 years ago
Views:

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Proceeding to Consider Amendments to the Revised Right-Of-Way Rules Adopted by Decision Rulemaking SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) COMBINED OPENING COMMENTS AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT FRANK MCNULTY GLORIA ING Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Gloria.Ing@sce.com Dated: May 3, 2017

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Proceeding to Consider Amendments to the Revised Right-Of-Way Rules Adopted by Decision Rulemaking SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) COMBINED OPENING COMMENTS AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT Pursuant to the CPUC s direction on page 20 of Rulemaking , which was issued by the Commission on April 3, 2017, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submits the combined opening comments and prehearing conference statement. 1 In terms of a prehearing conference statement, SCE provides the following statement: SCE was an active participation in Rulemaking , which led to the Commission amending the rights-of-way (ROW) rules in Decision No to accommodate Commercial Mobile Radio Service carriers (CMRS). As stated in SCE s Comments on the Proposed Decision of Commissioner Picker on the Order Granting Petition , filed March 9, 2017, SCE believes that workshops are necessary to understand the differences between (1) wireless technologies of CMRS providers as permitted in D , (2) fixed wireless technologies by Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) as permitted in D , (3) wireless attachments by CLECs as being contemplated in the rulemaking, and (4) the necessary and correct pricing model for CLEC wireless attachments, if approved by the Commission. SCE looks forward to participating in R The schedule on page 19 of R indicates that the opening comments and prehearing conference statement should be combined. 1

3 Below are the SCE s responses to the 22 questions identified in the April 3, 2017 rulemaking. The six questions raised in ALJ Kenney s May 1, 2017 ruling setting forth the prehearing conference largely appear to be encompassed in the 22 questions, as indicated by SCE below. 1. The matters set forth in Rule 6.2, including any objections to the preliminary scoping memo regarding the category of this proceeding, need for hearings, issues to be considered, and/or the schedule. Comments that include factual assertions must be verified in accordance with Rule SCE s RESPONSE: SCE has no objections to the preliminary scoping memo regarding the category of this proceeding, need for hearings, issues to be considered, or the schedule. 2. Whether it is in the public interest to apply the Revised ROW Rules adopted by D for CMRS carriers pole attachments to CLECs wireless pole attachments. SCE s RESPONSE: At this time, SCE does not take a position on this issue. SCE is interested in participating in this proceeding and assisting in the development of a robust record to determine whether it is in the public interest to apply Revised ROW Rules adopted by the Commission in D for CMRS carriers pole attachments to CLECs wireless pole attachments. 3. The specific amendments to the Revised ROW Rules that are necessary to provide CLECs with nondiscriminatory access to utility ROW for wireless pole attachments. Such amendments may include, but are not limited to, WIA s proposed amendments in Appendix A of this Order. SCE s RESPONSE: At this time, SCE does not offer any specific amendments to the Revised ROW Rules. 2 Question 1 from the May 1, 2017 ruling appears to be incorporated in Question 1 from the rulemaking. 2

4 4. A list and description all pole attachments covered by WIA s Petition, including (A) all wireline and wireless facilities and equipment; (B) the amount of pole space needed for such attachments; (C) the weight of such attachments; (D) the wind load of such attachments; and (E) the amount of pole space and pole load-bearing capacity (weight and wind load) that will be needed for all elements of a typical CLEC wireless pole installation. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that WIA and CLECs should address item 4 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 5. Whether existing Commission regulations for the design, construction, operation, inspection, and maintenance of CLECs wireless pole attachments, such as GO 95, adequately protect public safety, worker safety, and the reliability of co-located utility pole attachments (e.g., power lines and telephone lines). If not, the party s comments shall provide the following information: a) A detailed explanation regarding why existing regulations do not adequately protect safety and/or reliability. b) Whether the asserted threat to public safety and/or reliability is disproportionately associated with CLEC wireless pole attachments and, if so, why? c) Detailed proposal(s) to mitigate the threat(s), such as the text for a new GO 95 rule. The scope of new regulations, if any, is limited to wireless pole attachments and any other facilities installed on poles due to the presence of wireless pole attachments. SCE s RESPONSE: At this time, SCE is not aware of any supplemental regulations needed for CLECs wireless pole attachments. 6. A list and description of the services that CLECs may offer to the public (including other communications carriers) using pole attachments that are installed pursuant to amended Revised ROW Rules that may be adopted in this proceeding. Such services might include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Fixed wireless, point-to-multipoint service. b) CMRS. c) Wi-Fi service. d) Broadband wireless internet access service. e) Providing other carriers with access to, or interconnection with, wireless facilities and infrastructure. f) Providing backhaul service for other wireless carriers. 3

5 g) Other wireless and wireline services (list and describe). SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLEC s are obliged to address items 6a-g so that parties can discuss in a workshop. Additionally, the term fixed wireless is undefined in the Revised ROW Rules and should be considered in this proceeding. 7. The specific Commission regulatory authority that a CLEC must possess to install wireless pole attachments pursuant to amended Revised ROW Rules that may be adopted in this proceeding, and an explanation as to why such regulatory authority is required. Such regulatory authority might include, for example, the following: a) CPCN to provide full facilities-based competitive local exchange service or limited facilities-based local exchange service. (1) Must a CPCN include explicit authority to install wireless pole attachments? Please explain your response and cite relevant provisions in the California Public Utilities Code, Commission decisions, and other controlling legal authority. b) An up-to-date WIR to provide facilities-based CMRS on file at the Commission. (1) Are there circumstances where a WIR is required in addition to a CPCN? If yes, please explain your response and cite relevant provisions in the California Public Utilities Code, Commission decisions, and other controlling legal authority. SCE s RESPONSE: Regarding 7a and 7b, SCE believes that a CLEC must have CPUC authority to install wireless pole attachments, whether such authority exists via a WIR, CPCN, or some other vehicle. Similar to how the CPUC defined Commercial Mobile Radio Service carriers in Section II of the ROW rules, the CPUC should amend the Revised ROW Rules to provide a definition for CLECs that would set forth the qualifications CLECs need under the ROW rules to seek access to poles in order to install wireless facilities. c) Final environmental impact report, negative declaration, or other document(s) required by CEQA. SCE s RESPONSE: Please refer to Conclusion of Law 40 on page 136 and Section 4 of D , which SCE believes would also be applicable for CLECs. 4

6 8. Whether the per-foot fee for CMRS pole installations should apply identically to CLEC wireless pole installations, including a CLEC s wireline attachments installed on the same pole as the CLEC s wireless pole attachments. Any party that contends the per-pole fee should apply to a CLEC s wireline attachments installed on the same pole as the CLEC s wireless attachments shall address the following matters: a) Why it is reasonable for a CLEC to pay a per-pole fee for wireline attachments on the same pole as the CLECs wireless attachments, when a CMRS carrier is required by the Revised ROW Rules to pay a per-foot fee for all of its pole attachments, including any wireline attachments. b) How to distinguish the elements of a CLEC pole installation that are subject to the per-pole fee adopted by D and the elements that are subject to the per-foot fee adopted by D SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes CLECs should respond to items 8a and 8-b (above) in detail and the issue of the CMRS per-foot fee for wireless attachments must be addressed in a workshop. 9. Whether the per-pole fee that was adopted by D for CLEC pole attachments that are used to provide fixed wireless, point-to-multipoint service should remain in effect, or whether all CLEC wireless pole attachments (including attachments used to provide fixed wireless, point-tomultipoint services) should be subject to the per-foot fee adopted by D SCE s RESPONSE: Similar to Items 6 and 8, SCE believes CLEC s should respond in detail and that Item 9 must be addressed in a workshop. 10. Whether a Commission decision to amend the Revised ROW Rules to apply to CLEC s wireless pole attachments is exempt from the CEQA and, if so, why. Any assertion that CEQA does not apply must cite the relevant statues and/or regulations where the exemption is listed. Conversely, any assertion that CEQA does apply must (A) cite the relevant statues and/or regulations that show this, and (B) list the steps that need to occur under CEQA before the Commission can amend the Revised ROW Rules. SCE s RESPONSE: Please refer to Conclusion of Law 40 on page 136 and Section 4 of D , which SCE believes would also be applicable for CLECs. 3 SCE believes that the reference to D was an error. 5

7 11. Whether a hearing is needed. Any party that requests a hearing must (A) identify the disputed material facts, (B) summarize the evidence that the party intends to offer at a hearing, and (C) provide a schedule for all hearing-related events. 4 SCE s RESPONSE: At this time, SCE does not believe that evidentiary hearings are needed but reserves the right to request hearings if factual disputes exist. 12. A proposed schedule for this proceeding, including all major events contemplated by the party such as additional written comments, workshops, workshop reports, mediation, discovery cutoff, evidentiary hearings and/or briefs, requests for oral argument, etc. 5 SCE s RESPONSE: SCE suggests the attached schedule which is similar to the one included in the ALJ s Ruling issued February 9, 2015 in R be considered for use in this proceeding. Event Public Workshop Schedule Date-Timeframe Scoping Memo Issued Day 0 Any party who plans to participate in the workshops s notice of their planned participation to the service list. Public Workshops - Northern California SED places public workshop notice in the Commission s Daily Calendar. After the initial workshop notice, SED will place. Notice(s) of all additional workshop meetings in the Commission s Daily Calendar. Day 5 Day (Time and Location TBD) Public Workshops Southern California Day (Time and Location TBD) Public Workshops Northern California Day (Time and Location TBD) Workshop Report filed and served. Day 96 4 Question 3 from the May 1, 2017 ruling appears to be incorporated in this Question 11 from the rulemaking. 5 Questions 4 and 5 from the May 1, 2017 ruling appears to be incorporated in this Question 12 from the rulemaking. 6

8 Opening comments on Workshop Report filed and served. Day 116 Reply comments filed and served. Day 126 Deadline for filing motions for evidentiary hearings or alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Any such motion may request hearings or ADR, but not both. Deadline for filing responses to any motions for evidentiary hearings or ADR. Evidentiary hearings or ADR, if needed. Day 131 Day 138 TBD 13. If not included in the response to Item 4, above, a description of all types of pole attachments installed by CLECs for radiofrequency transport services, an explanation of how these attachments differ if at all from the attachments that are the subject of Petition , and a best estimate of the number of California poles that currently have such attachments. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLECs should address item 13 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 14. If not included in the response to Item 5, above, an explanation of whether pole attachments installed by CLCs for radiofrequency transport services present any additional or unique issues pertaining to safety or reliability. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLECs should address item 14 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 15. The estimated number of existing utility poles that will have CLEC wireless pole attachments installed over the next ten years (through 2027) as a result of this rulemaking proceeding. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLECs should address item 15 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 16. The estimated number of existing utility poles that will have to be replaced with larger and/or stronger poles over the next ten years (through 2027), as a result of this rulemaking proceeding, in order to provide sufficient space and/or load-bearing capacity for CLECs wireless pole attachments. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLECs should address item 16 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 7

9 17. The estimated number of new utility poles (not replacement poles) that will be installed over the next ten years (through 2027), as a result of this rulemaking proceeding, by CLECs that have CPCNs to provide facilitiesbased local exchange services. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE believes that CLECs should address item 17 so that parties can discuss in a workshop. 18. Whether there is sufficient space and load-bearing capacity on the existing stock of utility poles to support ubiquitous, competitive, and affordable telecommunications services, including wireline services, wireless services, and broadband. SCE s RESPONSE: In those cases where there is insufficient space or load bearing capacity on existing utility poles for wireline or wireless telecommunication attachments, SCE believes the correct approach is to replace the pole or deny access. 19. Whether the provisions of the ROW Rules that require CLECs, CMRS carriers, and CATV corporations to pay for most, if not all, of the cost of replacing existing poles with stronger and/or larger poles to support additional telecommunications attachments pose a barrier to entry. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE does not believe that replacing existing poles with stronger and/or larger poles to support additional telecommunication attachments (wireline or wireless) poses a barrier to market entry and that it is inappropriate for electric utility ratepayers to subsidize such cost associated with non-utility attachments. 20. Whether the provisions of the ROW Rules that provide access to surplus space on public utility poles (and other public utility ROW) on a first come, first served basis are a barrier to achieving the State s goal of universal access to affordable, high quality broadband telecommunications services. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE does not believe that the first come, first served feature of the Revised ROW Rules is a barrier to achieving the State s goal of universal access to affordable, high quality broadband telecommunications services. These provisions are longstanding and appear to be the fairest method in a competitive market. 8

10 21. Whether urban streetscapes can accommodate more pole attachments, the replacement of existing poles with larger poles, and possibly more poles. SCE s RESPONSE: SCE recognizes there is sensitivity by cities, counties, etc. regarding the replacement of existing poles with larger poles, and that additional, larger poles may impact urban streetscapes with the installation of additional CLEC attachments. However, this matter seems to be best addressed by cities, counties, and incoming CLECs through the city s and county s permitting processes in situations where a CLEC s intended attachment(s) would require larger and/or additional poles. 22. Any other matters that are relevant to the scope, schedule, and/or conduct of this rulemaking proceeding. SCE s RESPONSE: With respect to the recommended workshops and recommended schedule (above), SCE suggests these meetings be facilitated and chaired by the SED s Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, with assistance from co-chairs if/as-needed. Also, these workshops should be publicly noticed in advance of the workshops on the Commission s Daily Calendar and include teleconference capability. Respectfully submitted, FRANK MCNULTY GLORIA ING /s/ Gloria Ing By: Gloria Ing Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Gloria.Ing@sce.com May 3,

11 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Proceeding to Consider Amendments to the Revised Right-Of-Way Rules Adopted by Decision Rulemaking CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) COMBINED OPENING COMMENTS AND PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT on all parties identified on the attached service list for R Service was effected by transmitting copies via to all parties who have provided an address and by placing copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand or by overnight courier to the offices of the Assigned ALJ(s) or other addressee(s). ALJ Timothy Kenney CPUC 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA Executed on May 3, 2017, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Olivia Gutierrez Olivia Gutierrez Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

12 CPUC - Service Lists - R Page 1 of 3 5/3/2017 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: R CPUC - ORDER GRANTIN FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: MAY 1, 2017 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties SUZANNE TOLLER ATTORNEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION (WIA) FORMERLY PCIA Information Only BRUCE SMITH IGOR GRINBERG GRC & REGULATORY SUPPORT REGULATORY AFFAIRS PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ONLY ONLY ONLY, CA ONLY, CA INNA VINOGRADOV ICOMMLAW ONLY ONLY, CA MARIA BROWNE ATTORNEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ONLY ONLY, DC DARAH FRANKLIN GOOGLE INC. D. ZACHARY CHAMP WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION

13 CPUC - Service Lists - R Page 2 of 3 5/3/ MASSACHUSETTS AVE., STE MONTGOMERY STREET, STE. 500 WASHINGTON, DC ALEXANDRIA, VA FOR: WIA (FORMERLY PCIA) GLORIA M. ING KAREN CHUNG SR ATTORNEY MGR - PROJECT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CASE ADMINISTRATION JESUS.G ROMAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VERIZON 8631 RUSH STREET SAND CANYON AVE. D201 ROSEMEAD, CA IRVINE, CA WILLIAM K. SANDERS MARGARET TOBIAS DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TOBIAS LAW OFFICE CITY HALL RM PENNSYLVANIA AVE 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (SAN FRANCISCO) DAVID J. MILLER MICHELLE CHOO AVP - SR. LEGAL COUNSEL ASSISTANT AT&T SERVICES, INC. AT&T SERVICES, INC. 430 BUSH STREET, ROOM BUSH STREET, 3ND FL. NO. 9 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA THOMAS SELHORST JAMES W. TOMLINSON SENIOR PARALEGAL DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP AT&T CALIFORNIA, INC. 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE BUSH STREET, 3RD FL, NO. 14 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA SARAH DEYOUNG ANITA TAFF-RICE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ATTORNEY CALTEL ICOMMLAW 50 CALIFORNIA ST., STE PALOS VERDES, NO. 298 SAN FRANCISCO, CA WALNUT CREEK, CA State Service ALEXANDER J. ABRAMSON AROCLES AGUILAR BROADBAND, POLICY & ANALYSIS BRANCH LEGAL DIVISION AREA ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA

14 CPUC - Service Lists - R Page 3 of 3 5/3/2017 CAMERON REED CAROLINA CONTRERAS COMMUNICATIONS AND WATER POLICY BRANCH OFFICE OF THE SAFETY ADVOCATE AREA AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: ORA FOR: OSA DOROTHY DUDA GLENN SEMOW EXECUTIVE DIVISION BROADBAND, POLICY & ANALYSIS BRANCH ROOM 5116 AREA 3-F 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA MICHAEL C. AMATO MICHAEL MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION BROADBAND, POLICY & ANALYSIS BRANCH ROOM 3211 ROOM 3-F 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA TIMOTHY KENNEY TOVAH TRIMMING DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES LEGAL DIVISION ROOM 5015 ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) REPLY COMMENTS

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Proceeding to Consider Amendments to the Revised Right-Of-Way Rules Adopted by Decision 16-01-046. Rulemaking