The CPUC has ongoing proceedings on a number of issues relating to access to the poles and, because of the PG-E`s declaration of insolvency and the previous criminal conviction, federal judges will have much to say about this. California`s legislative and civil courts are also implicated because of dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in damage caused by fires caused by power lines. This is not the time to attract even more players to this chaos. Crown Castle did not want to pay and be responsible for the entire communication area in Poland, and if they did, it is not clear that they would have the same obligation as AT-T and other established companies to lease land to other telecommunications companies. Crown Castle and PG-E found themselves at a dead end. To resolve it, Crown Castle asked the CPUC to intervene and resolve the dispute. Yesterday`s ruling by ALJ Patricia Miles states that PG-E is meeting its obligations by proposing to lease cultivated land to pylons and that Crown Castle has no special right to buy it on foot. The ALJ report outlines a proposal for commissioners to adopt a formal decision requiring joint cluster organisations to obtain prior authorisation for the terms of the pole annex agreements. If the commissioners follow this path, it will be a long and controversial process. Not all utilities that own and/or adhere to poles are subject to the jurisdiction of the CPUC. An association of the stadtwerke opposed a draft ALJ decision and indicated that the CPUC had no authority over them and should not try to tell them how to manage their own poles. Supply hub associations that manage the sharing of towers by electricity providers – private and municipal – and telecommunications companies of all kinds should be regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, according to a ruling by an administrative judge (ALJ). The verdict focuses on a close dispute between two companies: big picture, there is little more than advice for CPUC commissioners.
But that`s bad advice. Yesterday`s shutdown confirmed the current practice of PG-E and provided some clarity on the already terribly complex problem of how supply routes are shared and managed in California. But by threatening to extend THE CPUC`s surveillance to the common federations of poles, the verdict adds a layer of unnecessary and unwelcome uncertainty. There is no doubt that there will again be disputes like this. For this reason, if LAJPA continues to facilitate sales and purchase transactions with utility companies among its members, the Commission should require the NCJPA to proceed (before transposition) with the review and approval of the Commission… its agreements, forms, procedures and manuals relating to the transfer, sale, rental, allocation, mortgage or responsibility of the public supply hubs. These transactions, carried out by ACAJPA on behalf of its members, are clearly within the Commission`s jurisdiction. The judgment concerns a dispute between Pacific Gas and Electric, which has hubs throughout Northern California, and Crown Castle, an independent and competitive telecommunications company that owns and leases fiber optic lines and builds and operates cellular sites. PG-E has proposed to lease space to Crown Castle on its pylon, as required by the CPUC. Crown Castle said it would prefer to buy a foot on the PG-E bars so that it can deal with its fiber optic network construction business without worrying about making an owner happy. AT-T and other well-established telephone companies are buying space on the PG-E poles, but they are buying the entire communication area, which can be several pole-space metres.