BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Uniform Construction Standards for Pole- Top Antennas. ) ) ) ) ) Rulemaking (Filed December 6, 2007) OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON THE WORKSHOP REPORT SUBMITTED MAY 16, 2008 JAMES M. LEHRER ROBERT F. LeMOINE Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Robert.F.LeMoine@sce.com Dated: May 27, 2008 LAW #

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Establish Uniform Construction Standards for Pole- Top Antennas. ) ) ) ) ) Rulemaking (Filed December 6, 2007) OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON THE WORKSHOP REPORT SUBMITTED MAY 16, 2008 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) respectfully files its Opening Comments to the Workshop Report submitted May 16, 2008 by SCE on behalf of the Workshop Participants in this proceeding. In its Opening Comments 1 to the OIR that began this proceeding, SCE expressed support for the opening of a rulemaking to revise GO 95 to add uniform standards for the installation of wireless antennas (not otherwise exempted by Rule 94) between or above supply lines and communication lines at the top of utility poles (Pole-Top Antennas). SCE also expressed its support for the proposed revisions to GO 95 submitted by the GO 95/128 Rules Committee s (Rules 1 OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) TO ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR POLE- TOP ANTENNAS January 14,

3 Committee) in Petition (P) SCE commented that the Rules Committee s proposals appeared to address certain minimum safe construction requirements for workers and they support the Commission s twin goals of ensuring public safety and the reliability of the electric supply system. SCE incorporates its previous comments by reference in this filing. SCE is a long standing member of the Rules Committee and actively participated in the three and one-half days of technical workshops. We note that certain portions of the GO 95 proposed rule changes submitted in P have sustained minor modifications and that other rules, in particular new Case 21 (to Rule 38, Table 2), have incurred substantive revisions during the technical workshops. SCE supports the Commission s adoption of the proposals recommended by the Rules Committee as further modified by parties to this proceeding denoted in Appendix C of the Workshop Report. 3 Additionally, we respectfully remind the Commission that the installation of wireless antennas at the top of utility poles above high voltage electric supply lines is a new phenomenon, and, as such, the proposed rules for such installation are unique. These proposed GO 95 rules are untested, and will almost certainly require pole owning supply utilities to craft and enforce supplemental standards due in part to the non-standard pole-top antenna designs employed by the wireless carriers and due in large part to the variety of construction methods and arrangements of supply lines and equipment. In these comments, SCE will compare the Workshop Report versions of the Rules Committee s Proposed Rule Changes 4 with the Final Versions of GO 95 Rules. 5 We will also 2 PETITION TO ADOPT NEW GENERAL ORDER 95 RULES FOR ANTENNAS CONSTRUCTED ABOVE SUPPLY AND COMMUNICATION LINES July 25, SUBMISSION OF POLE-TOP ANTENNAS WORKSHOP REPORT BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U-338-E) ON BEHALF OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS May 15, 2008 (Workshop Report). 4 See Workshop Report at pp See Workshop Report at pp

4 comment on the possible impact upon utility worker and public safety, and the need for supplemental internal standards. II. PROPOSED POLE-TOP ANTENNA RULES A. GO 95, Rule 94 (Antennas) Section 94.3 (General Requirements): SCE supports the addition of new subsection C and a new fine print note, in that these provisions require that the material strengths and safety factors of support elements and pole top extensions meet the same requirements as those for Supply utilities constructing at the top of a joint-use utility pole. 6 SCE continues to support the Rules Committee version, which added a new Section 94.4 titled Material Strengths, however, we have concluded the goal of including such provision (e.g. worker safety and electric system reliability) is still served. SCE believes wireless carriers intending to install pole-top antennas should be capable of determining and integrating the necessary material strength requirements into their installations. Additionally, SCE respectfully reminds the Commission that the proposed requirements in this Rule 94 are untested. Further, the proposed requirements do not establish or attempt to establish a standardized design or methodology for installing pole-top antennas. It is SCE s understanding that every wireless carrier intending to install an antenna above high voltage lines will seek and obtain advance approval of each design as part of the mutual agreement process prior to installation. Section 94.4 (Clearances): SCE supports the Rules Committee s versions to this section and approves the editorial revisions made to subsections A G during the workshops. 6 See Workshop Report, Attachment D at p

5 SCE notes that original subsections A and B were modified by the Rules Committee to clarify the applicability to antennas and support elements installed below lines. We also note that new subsections C and D remain unaltered and cite the appropriate cases in Rule 38 in consideration of antenna installed at pole-top above supply and communication lines respectively. SCE does not object to the editorial revision to subsection F resulting from the workshops, however, we call attention to the fact that a horizontal clearance between antennas affixed between supply lines and the centerline of the pole is not specified. SCE believes this lack of specificity implies such installations will not only occur by mutual agreement, but that supply utilities will also dictate this horizontal clearance on either a case-by-case basis and/or as a supplemental internal requirement to ensure worker safety and accessibility to supply lines and equipment above the antenna. Section 94.5 (Marking): S CE notes that the Rules Committee did not recommend revisions to this section. However, at this time we urge that Commission consider also amending Appendix H 7 in the manner described in Attachment 1 hereto, for the following reasons: 1) The Recitals offer no useful information; 2) Section 1, 2 and 3 of the Settlement Agreement contain the only pertinent information relative to Exhibits A, B and C; 3) Sections 4-16 and the signature page offer no inherently useful information with respect to Exhibits A, B and C and are immaterial to safety standards as cited in Rule 94. Section 94.6 (Climbing Space): SCE supports the addition of this section to Rule 94 as recommended by the Rules Committee. Notably, identical scenarios are expressed for antenna installation at pole-top above supply lines and above communication lines. We support the longstanding GO 95 rules pertaining to climbing space and believe the requirements in this section (94.6) will help to ensure that poles supporting pole-top antennas retain the necessary climbing 7 The language from Appendix H was adopted wholesale from a settlement agreement. These proposed changes merely adopt the operative language from the settlement agreement while eliminating extraneous text that does not need to be a part of the Commission s general orders. SCE does not believe that its suggested changes in Attachment 1 hereto will be contested. 4

6 space, thus allowing electric supply utility workers and other qualified electrical workers to ascend and descend the poles safely. Section 94.7 (Stepping): SCE supports the addition of this section to Rule 94 as recommended by the Rules Committee and as further modified during the workshops. Section 94.8 (Risers and Vertical Runs): SCE supports the addition of this section as recommended by the Rules Committee and as further modified during the workshops. SCE believes the requirements in this section are significant and crucial to worker safety as well as to electric system and wireless network reliability. Subsection A requires that antenna cables and ground wires passing supply lines and/or equipment (to a point between or above lines) be suitably covered throughout their length; occur on a single pole; be installed outside the climbing space; and that the construction and maintenance meet the same requirements established for supply risers and vertical runs in GO 95 Rules 54.6-D 1, 2, 3, and 5. Subsection A(1) also requires cable runs associated with pole-top antennas (which extend to another pole or building) be bonded to existing communication cables in compliance with GO 95 Rule 83.4 and that the suitable protective covering of antenna cables and ground wires extend below existing communication guard arms. SCE supports the addition of Subsection B as recommended by the Rules Committee and as revised during the workshops. We note that the voltage ranges expressed in B(2) and B(3) are now better aligned with Columns E, F, and G of new Case 21. Most notably, the Rules Committee s proposal which required suitable protective covering for antenna cables to extend 7-feet above 0 22,500 Volt supply lines was modified during the technical workshop to allow this suitable protective covering to extend 6-feet above 0-35,000 Volt supply lines. This revision is in keeping with modifications to new Case 21 as agreed upon during the workshops and as discussed further in these comments. SCE believes that because the clearances in B (1), (2), and (3) are expressed as minimums, supply utilities have the authority to require wireless carriers to increase the length of the cable 5

7 coverings when the minimum vertical clearance between a pole-top antenna and the supply lines below is increased, or whenever the supply utility considers it necessary. SCE supports the addition of Subsection C as recommended by the Rules Committee as well as the editorial revisions made during the workshops Section 94.9 (De-energizing): Although no modifications were proposed by the Rules Committee or recommended during the comment period before the noticed workshops, SCE requests the Commission consider amending Appendix H in the manner described in Attachment 1 hereto, for the following reasons: 1) The Recitals offer no useful information and are unrelated to safety requirements; 2) Section 1, 2 and 3 of the Settlement Agreement contain the only pertinent information relative to Exhibits A, B, and C; 3) Sections 4-16 and the signature page offer no inherently useful information with respect to Exhibits A, B, and C and they are immaterial to safety standards as cited in Rule 94. Exceptions: SCE continues to support these exceptions and notes that no modifications were proposed by the Rules Committee, recommended during the comment period before the noticed workshops, nor were any revisions discussed among the attendees during the noticed workshops. New Figure 94.1: SCE supports the Rules Committee s recommendation to add new Figures 94-3, 94-,4 and to Rule 94 as supplements to Figures 94-1 and However, SCE prefers the replacement of these five graphic depictions with new Figure 94-1 as developed during the workshops and presented in the Workshop Report. 9 We note that Appendix-G of GO 95 includes a similar illustrative diagram (Figure 84) and that new Figure 94-1 also depicts certain minimum vertical and horizontal clearances and includes tabular references to the corresponding rules. SCE believes that new Figure 94-1 is not intended as a design or installation diagram, because neither the Rules Committee nor workshop attendees attempted to standardize or limit 8 P , Appendix B at pp See Workshop Report at pp. 32 and 42. 6

8 pole-top antenna installations to one or two types or configurations. For this reason, it is our position that SCE, like other supply utilities, will by necessity craft and enforce internal standards as a supplement to these proposed pole-top antenna requirements to help ensure all appropriate worker safety and system reliability measures have been addressed in advance of construction and maintenance. B. GO 95, Rule 91.3 (Stepping) Exception to Section B (Location of Steps): SCE supports the addition of a new exception as recommended by the Rules Committee and agrees with the editorial revisions made during the workshops. It is SCE s understanding that the Rules Committee proposed this revision on the basis that the placement of pole steps above the uppermost communication line, where only one supply utility s lines remain, is already allowed by this rule. Further, in some instances, the placement of such steps, if required, could under certain circumstances create an impediment to workers ascending and/or descending the pole, thus creating an unsafe condition. SCE notes that because the placement of pole steps is optional, it will be incumbent upon supply utilities to address the circumstances in which to use pole steps in their internal standards. Further, the application of these internal standards will rely on several factors, including but not limited to: 1) the location and condition of the pole; 2) the size and number of risers (within the supply space) supporting a pole-top antenna risers; and 3) the riser installation method. C. GO 95, Rule 92.1 (Vertical Clearances) Section F-2 (Between Conductors, Cables, Messengers and Miscellaneous Equipment): SCE supports the modifications recommended by the Rules Committee and agrees with the editorial revisions made during the workshops on the basis that the proposed final version reconciles a long standing interpretive dispute and more clearly segregates antennas and antenna equipment from other telecommunication equipment for the purposes of determining minimum vertical clearances from supply conductors. 7

9 Specifically, the interpretive dispute concerns the proper vertical clearances between communication equipment (cable terminals / metal boxes, et. al.) and supply lines when the communication equipment is mounted less than 8 inches (measured horizontally) from the centerline of the pole, or, mounted 8 inches or more (measured horizontally) from the centerline of the pole. After lengthy technical discussions, the Rules Committee concluded that this rule originated from the days of open wire communication networks, where unprotected copper wires (conductors), suspended on insulators and mounted on crossarms, was the predominant style of communication construction, and, that over the years, insulated, copper-paired cables and fiberoptic cables have replaced these open-wire communication circuits so that today, the use of metallic terminals and boxes associated with open-wire communication has all but disappeared. With that in mind, the Rule Committee determined that there is no longer any need to establish two distinct vertical clearances from supply lines based solely on the proximity of a piece of communication equipment s horizontal proximity to the centerline of the supporting utility pole and thus, subsection F(2) should also be revised to clarify that the vertical clearances between Antennas 10 and supply or communication lines are established in other GO 95 rules. Further, SCE has identified a minor editorial discrepancy between the Rules Committee s Strikeout / Underline and Proposed Final versions of this rule. 11 We also note that this editorial discrepancy appears in the Workshop Report at pages 34 and 44. Therefore, SCE asks the Commission to adopt the modified version (below) that includes the words Rule 38 in the fourth line of the first paragraph Vertical Clearances F. Between Conductors, Cables, Messengers and Miscellaneous Equipment) (2) Cable Terminals or Metal Boxes: On jointly used poles, all parts of metal communication cable terminals, metal boxes or similar equipment shall maintain vertical clearances from conductors not less than those specified in Rule 38, Table 2, Col. C, Cases 8 to 13 inclusive. 10 Defined in GO 95, Rule 20 (Antennas). 11 P , see Appendix A at p. 18, and Appendix B at p

10 Exception: The minimum vertical distance between all parts of such metal terminals, boxes or similar equipment which are 8 inches or more from the center line of pole and are supported by cable and/or messenger alone can be reduced to not less than 1 inch by mutual agreement between the affected owners (see Rule 38, Table 2, Case 8, Column C). For clearance between street light drop wires and cables, other conductors, and metal boxes see Rules 58.5 B3 and 92.1 F5. For clearances between Antennas and supply or communication lines see Rule 38, Table 2, Case 21 and Rule D. GO 95, Rule 38, Table 2 New Case 21: SCE approves of the creation of New Case 21 for Rule 38 as proposed by the Rules Committee and also supports the significant revisions made to Columns E, F, and G as well as the editorial and substantive edits made to the footnotes during the workshops and agreed upon by attending parties. Aside from the re-ordering of footnotes, the most obvious revisions are to Columns E, F, and G, where the workshop attendees agreed: 1) The original minimum vertical clearance of 96-inches between Antennas (and associated elements) on the same support structure installed above supply lines of 750 7,500 Volts would be reduced to 72-inches; 2) The original minimum vertical clearance of 96-inches between Antennas (and associated elements) on the same support structure installed above supply lines of 7,500 20,000 Volts would be reduced to 72-inches; and 3) The original minimum vertical clearance of 120-inches between Antennas (and associated elements) on the same support structure installed above supply lines of 20,000 35,000 Volts would be reduced to 72-inches. SCE observes that minimum vertical clearances proposed by the Rules Committee in Columns A, B, C, D and H remain unchanged by the workshop attendees. We also note that the 72- inch minimum vertical clearances between Antennas (and associated elements) installed above 750 9

11 35,000 Volt supply lines closely resembles the vertical clearance requirements for communication conductors (of different ownership) installed on the same pole, whether above (or below) supply lines in ,000 voltage range. After viewing several presentations during the initial workshop and consulting internally, attending parties concluded and agreed that this 72-inch minimum vertical clearance strikes the appropriate balance between worker safety, electric system reliability, and the desire to create a more robust wireless network. Again, SCE respectfully points out that these clearances, like the other proposed pole-top antennas rules, are for practical intents and purposes, untested. It should also be noted that each of the four Distributed Antenna System companies attending the workshops admitted that their individual pole-top installations would vary, depending on the company. Since matters of design are derived from certain construction rules and not specifically addressed in GO 95 requirements for supply and telecommunication companies, the Rules Committee and workshop parties agreed not to limit or prescribe a certain type, style, or number of allowable pole-top antenna installations for wireless carriers. For these and other reasons, it is our position that SCE, like other supply utilities, must by necessity craft and enforce internal standards as a supplement to the proposed pole-top antenna vertical clearance requirements to help ensure all appropriate worker safety and system reliability measures have been addressed in advance of construction and maintenance. With respect to the footnotes in new Case 21, we agreed to and continue to support the proposed revisions recommended by the attending parties in the Workshop Report. 12 SCE believes the proposed footnotes add the necessary degree of clarity in light of the associated clearance requirements in Rule 94 and as further cited in new Figure We also note that there are no footnoted exceptions listed for Columns E, F, and G because the parties attending the workshops agreed that the 72-inch vertical clearance requirement encompasses supply utility workspace, and 12 See Workshop Report at p

12 thus, both antennas and support elements must not encroach into the workspace so that supply utility workers and qualified electrical workers performing installation and maintenance activities, whether on supply lines or on pole-top antennas, will have a clearly identifiable, safe workspace. III. SUMMARY SCE supports the proposed revisions to the four GO 95 rules submitted by the GO 95/128 Rules Committee in Petition (P) , as modified during the technical workshops, and as presented in the Workshop Report. SCE also recommends the Commission approve an editorial revision to the proposed Final Version of GO 95 Rule 92.1-F(2) presented in the Workshop Report as well as certain revisions to Appendix H of GO 95. It is SCE s position that the proposed Final Versions 13 of General Order 95 Rules 38; 91.3; 92.1; and 94 as presented in the Workshop Report establish basic minimum requirements for constructing wireless antennas between and above supply lines and above communication lines on jointly used utility poles. Additionally, because the newly proposed minimum requirements are untested and pole-top antenna designs vary from carrier to carrier, SCE expects it and other supply utilities will supplement the proposed GO 95 rules with additional internal standards. SCE also expects to work closely with wireless carriers to help ensure all approved antenna sites are safely constructed and maintained so safeguard worker and public safety, and to preserve electric system reliability. SCE believes that aside from Exhibits A, B, and C, most of the content of GO 95 Appendix H, which is twice cited in GO 95 Rule 94, is superfluous and offers no inherently useful information pertaining to worker or public safety. At this time, SCE urges the Commission to also consider the revisions to Appendix H detailed in Attachment 1 to these comments. 13 Attachment C, Final Versions of GO 95 Rules Developed in R Workshops. 11

13 IV. CONCLUSION SCE appreciates the opportunity to submit these Opening Comments on the Workshop Report submitted May 16, 2008 in this proceeding. SCE recommends that the revisions to GO 95 be adopted by the Commission in the form presented in the Workshop Report with the two additional minor modifications identified in these comments (an editorial revision to GO 95, Rule 92.1-F(2) and the revisions to Appendix H of General Order 95 identified in Attachment 1 hereto). Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. LEHRER ROBERT F. LeMOINE /s/ Robert F. LeMoine By: Robert F. LeMoine Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Robert.F.LeMoine@sce.com May 27,

14 ATTACHMENT 1 Proposed Revisions to General Order 95, Appendix - H Original Version (published August 2007) Appendix H SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMONG AT&T CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CLEARLINX NETWORK CORPORATION, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA DISTRICT 9, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION, CROWN CASTLE USA INC., INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1245, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, NEXTG A 1

15 NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA INC., OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., dba T-MOBILE, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, SPRINT NEXTEL, VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC., VERIZON WIRELESS AND WILLIAM ADAMS In accordance with Rule 51.1 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, AT&T California, California Cable & Telecommunications Association, Clearlinx Network Corporation, Communications Workers of America District 9, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, Crown Castle USA, Inc., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, NextG Networks of California Inc., Omnipoint Communications, Inc., dba T-Mobile, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Sprint Nextel, Verizon California Inc., Verizon Wireless and William Adams (collectively, the Settling Parties ) hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to resolve all issues among the Settling Parties in Rulemaking (R.) , Order Investigation Rulemaking to consider uniform rules for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used poles. RECITALS 1. On February 24, 2005, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking in R to consider a new rule to GO 95 to establish uniform construction standards for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used utility poles. 2. Evidentiary hearings were conducted in the proceeding on February 7-9, 2006, during which the Commission heard testimony from nine witnesses and received 22 exhibits into evidence. 3. Opening and reply briefs were filed on March 13 and 28, 2006, respectively, A 2

16 at which time the matter was submitted for Commission decision. 4. On April 25, 2006, the Assigned Administrative Law Judge, ALJ Walker, issued his Proposed Decision ( the PD ). Opening and Reply Comments on the PD were filed on May 15 and 22, 2006, respectively. ALJ Walker has issued two revised versions of his Proposed Decision, which adopted Proposal 1 in its entirety, including the provisions of Rule 94.6 and On July 18, 2006, several parties in the proceeding submitted a joint petition to set aside submission of the proceeding pursuant to Rule 84 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The petition requested the Commission set aside the submission of the proceeding temporarily to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions. On July 20, 2006, Assigned Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown and Administrative Law Judge Michelle Cooke ruled that the parties shall submit any settlement on or before August 10, Pursuant to Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, on July 28, 2006, the Settling Parties served notice of a settlement conference to be held telephonically on August 4, On August 4, 2006, the settlement conference was held as scheduled. Following the settlement conference, the Settling Parties continued settlement discussions, resulting in this Agreement. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT In order to resolve disputed issues of fact and law and settle on a mutually acceptable outcome to the proceeding with due regard for public and worker safety concerns, and subject to the Recitals and reservations set forth in this Agreement, the Settling Parties hereby agree that this Agreement resolves all disputed issues relating to Rule 94.6 and Rule 94.7 raised in this proceeding. The Agreement is presented to the Commission pursuant to Rule 51 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Settling Parties agree that, in the event any party, as a joint owner, A 3

17 lessee or licensee ( Antenna Owner/Operator ) seeks to install or causes the installation of an Antenna (as defined in General Order (GO) 95 Rule 20.0) on a joint use utility pole, it is agreed that: 1. Markings Related to the FCC s MPE Limits. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall provide, and update as necessary, accurate information regarding compliance with the Federal Communications Commission s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits as set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for each particular Antenna installation. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall communicate such information through the use of a pole mounted marking as described in Exhibit A (Additional Marking Requirements) and in writing to the other utilities and/or companies with facilities affixed to the pole in accordance with Paragraph 4 of this Agreement. 2. Means of De-energizing Antennas. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall not install an Antenna on a joint use pole that emits RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. or effect a change to an existing Antenna site that will cause that Antenna to emit RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. except by providing to any other utility or company with facilities attached to the affected pole, a locally verifiable means to deenergize said Antenna. The protocols set forth in Exhibit B shall apply to non-emergency or routine working conditions. The protocols set forth in Exhibit C shall apply to emergency working conditions. 3. Exemption. The provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to Antennas that are exempt from the provisions of General Order 95, Rule Adoption of Operating Procedures. The Settling Parties further agree to memorialize the agreements set forth in Section 1 and 2 of this Agreement (including the procedures and protocols to be adopted thereunder) in separate, private agreements with affected utilities, companies or municipalities or in the Northern California Joint Pole Association s Operating Routine. Such agreements and procedures shall be adopted in a timely manner and Settling Parties agree to execute any and all supplementary documents and take all actions which may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms A 4

18 and intent of this Agreement. 5. Commission Approval of Settlement and Modification of Rule 94. The Settling Parties shall jointly request Commission approval of this Agreement and that the Commission adopt Rule 94, as that rule is set forth in Exhibit 1 of the Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker (mailed April 25, 2006), with the exception of provisions 94.6 and 94.7, which the parties stipulate should be removed from the rule. The Settling Parties additionally agree to actively support prompt approval of the Agreement and adoption of the modified Rule 94. Active support may include briefing, comments on the proposed decision, written and oral testimony, if testimony is required, appearance at hearings, and other means as needed to obtain the approvals sought. The Settling Parties further agree to participate jointly in briefings to Commissioners and their advisors, either in-person or by telephone, as needed regarding the Agreement and the issues compromised and resolved by it. 6. This Agreement is contingent upon (1) the Commission approving the terms and conditions herein as reasonable, and adopting it unconditionally and without modification, and (2) the Commission adopting the modified Rule 94 as provided in Paragraph 5, above. Upon satisfaction of these contingencies, the Settling Parties agree to waive any and all rights to challenge and/or appeal in any state or federal forum the Commission s decision in this proceeding. 7. The Settling Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of the implementation, interpretation or alleged breach of this Agreement. In the event such negotiations are unsuccessful, the Settling Parties may seek appropriate relief from the Commission. Such proceeding before the Commission will be limited to determining whether there has been a breach of this Agreement and ordering appropriate relief. In the event any of the Settling Parties do not reach agreement on the protocols described in this Agreement, the Commission may mediate a resolution between those Settling Parties. Nothing herein is intended to expand or restrict the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Settling Parties retain all of their rights with respect thereto. 8. The Settling Parties agree that this Agreement represents a compromise of positions, without agreement or endorsement of disputed facts and law presented by the Settling Parties in the proceeding. A 5

19 9. This Agreement and the covenants and agreements contained herein shall be binding on, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. The Settling Parties further agree and acknowledge that this Agreement and the covenants and agreements contained herein shall remain binding on the Settling Parties, notwithstanding the expiration of the term of any contract, lease or license relating to the use of a joint use pole. 10. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding and agreement of the Settling Parties with respect to the matters described herein, and, except as described herein, supersedes and cancels any and all prior oral or written agreements, principles, negotiations, statements, representations or understandings among the Settling Parties relating to the use of joint use poles. 11. The Settling Parties have bargained earnestly and in good faith to achieve this Agreement. The Settling Parties intend the Agreement to be interpreted and treated as a unified, interrelated agreement. 12. Each of the Settling Parties hereto and their respective counsel and advocates have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Settling Parties agree that no provision of this Agreement shall be construed against any Party because that Party or its counsel or advocate drafted the provision. 13. Each of the Settling Parties represents that it is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement, and each person signing on behalf of an entity represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign on behalf of that entity. 14. This document may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 15. This Agreement shall become effective among the Settling Parties on the date the last Party executes the Agreement as indicated below. 16. In witness whereof, intending to be legally bound, the Settling Parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement on behalf of the Settling Parties they represent: A 6

20 [NOTE: No proposed revisions to Exhibits A, B and C.] A 7

21 Strikeout / Underline Appendix H SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AMONG AT&T CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CLEARLINX NETWORK CORPORATION, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA DISTRICT 9, CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION, CROWN CASTLE USA INC., INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1245, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, NEXTG NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA INC., OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., dba T-MOBILE, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, SPRINT NEXTEL, VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC., VERIZON WIRELESS AND WILLIAM ADAMS In accordance with Rule 51.1 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, AT&T California, California Cable & Telecommunications Association, Clearlinx Network Corporation, Communications Workers of America District 9, Consumer Protection and Safety Division, Crown Castle USA, Inc., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, NextG Networks of California Inc., Omnipoint Communications, Inc., dba T-Mobile, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Sprint Nextel, Verizon California Inc., Verizon Wireless and William Adams (collectively, the Settling Parties ) hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to resolve all issues among the Settling Parties in Rulemaking (R.) , Order Investigation Rulemaking to consider uniform rules for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used poles. A 8

22 RECITALS 1. On February 24, 2005, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking in R to consider a new rule to GO 95 to establish uniform construction standards for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used utility poles. 2. Evidentiary hearings were conducted in the proceeding on February 7-9, 2006, during which the Commission heard testimony from nine witnesses and received 22 exhibits into evidence. 3. Opening and reply briefs were filed on March 13 and 28, 2006, respectively, at which time the matter was submitted for Commission decision. 4. On April 25, 2006, the Assigned Administrative Law Judge, ALJ Walker, issued his Proposed Decision ( the PD ). Opening and Reply Comments on the PD were filed on May 15 and 22, 2006, respectively. ALJ Walker has issued two revised versions of his Proposed Decision, which adopted Proposal 1 in its entirety, including the provisions of Rule 94.6 and On July 18, 2006, several parties in the proceeding submitted a joint petition to set aside submission of the proceeding pursuant to Rule 84 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The petition requested the Commission set aside the submission of the proceeding temporarily to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions. On July 20, 2006, Assigned Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown and Administrative Law Judge Michelle Cooke ruled that the parties shall submit any settlement on or before August 10, Pursuant to Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, on July 28, 2006, the Settling Parties served notice of a settlement conference to be held telephonically on August 4, On August 4, 2006, the settlement conference was held as scheduled. Following the settlement conference, the Settling Parties continued settlement discussions, resulting in this Agreement. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A 9

23 In order to resolve disputed issues of fact and law and settle on a mutually acceptable outcome to the proceeding with due regard for public and worker safety concerns, and subject to the Recitals and reservations set forth in this Agreement, the Settling Parties hereby agree that this Agreement resolves all disputed issues relating to Rule 94.6 and Rule 94.7 raised in this proceeding. The Agreement is presented to the Commission pursuant to Rule 51 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Settling Parties agree that, in In the event any party, as a joint owner, lessee or licensee ( Antenna Owner/Operator ) seeks to install or causes the installation of an Antenna (as defined in General Order (GO) 95 Rule 20.0) on a joint use utility pole, it is agreed that the following requirements shall be met: 1. Markings Related to the FCC s MPE Limits. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall provide, and update as necessary, accurate information regarding compliance with the Federal Communications Commission s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits as set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for each particular Antenna installation. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall communicate such information through the use of a pole mounted marking as described in Exhibit A (Additional Marking Requirements) and in writing to the other utilities and/or companies with facilities affixed to the pole in accordance with Paragraph 4. of this Agreement. 2. Means of De-energizing Antennas. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall not install an Antenna on a joint use pole that emits RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. or effect a change to an existing Antenna site that will cause that Antenna to emit RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. except by providing to any other utility or company with facilities attached to the affected pole, a locally verifiable means to deenergize said Antenna. The protocols set forth in Exhibit B shall apply to non-emergency or routine working conditions. The protocols set forth in Exhibit C shall apply to emergency working conditions. 3. Exemption. These provisions of this Agreement shall not apply to Antennas that are A 10

24 exempt from the provisions of General Order 95, Rule Adoption of Operating Procedures. The Settling Parties further agree to memorialize the agreements set forth in Section 1 and 2 above of this Agreement (including the procedures and protocols to be adopted thereunder) in separate, private agreements with affected utilities, companies or municipalities or in the Northern California Joint Pole Association s Operating Routine. Such agreements and procedures shall be adopted in a timely manner and Settling Parties agree to execute any and all supplementary documents and take all actions which may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the terms and intent listed herein of the Agreement. 5. Commission Approval of Settlement and Modification of Rule 94. The Settling Parties shall jointly request Commission approval of this Agreement and that the Commission adopt Rule 94, as that rule is set forth in Exhibit 1 of the Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker (mailed April 25, 2006), with the exception of provisions 94.6 and 94.7, which the parties stipulate should be removed from the rule. The Settling Parties additionally agree to actively support prompt approval of the Agreement and adoption of the modified Rule 94. Active support may include briefing, comments on the proposed decision, written and oral testimony, if testimony is required, appearance at hearings, and other means as needed to obtain the approvals sought. The Settling Parties further agree to participate jointly in briefings to Commissioners and their advisors, either in-person or by telephone, as needed regarding the Agreement and the issues compromised and resolved by it. 6. This Agreement is contingent upon (1) the Commission approving the terms and conditions herein as reasonable, and adopting it unconditionally and without modification, and (2) the Commission adopting the modified Rule 94 as provided in Paragraph 5, above. Upon satisfaction of these contingencies, the Settling Parties agree to waive any and all rights to challenge and/or appeal in any state or federal forum the Commission s decision in this proceeding. 7. The Settling Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of the implementation, interpretation or alleged breach of this Agreement. In the event such negotiations are unsuccessful, the Settling Parties may seek appropriate relief from the Commission. Such proceeding before the Commission will be limited to A 11

25 determining whether there has been a breach of this Agreement and ordering appropriate relief. In the event any of the Settling Parties do not reach agreement on the protocols described in this Agreement, the Commission may mediate a resolution between those Settling Parties. Nothing herein is intended to expand or restrict the jurisdiction of the Commission and the Settling Parties retain all of their rights with respect thereto. 8. The Settling Parties agree that this Agreement represents a compromise of positions, without agreement or endorsement of disputed facts and law presented by the Settling Parties in the proceeding. 9. This Agreement and the covenants and agreements contained herein shall be binding on, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. The Settling Parties further agree and acknowledge that this Agreement and the covenants and agreements contained herein shall remain binding on the Settling Parties, notwithstanding the expiration of the term of any contract, lease or license relating to the use of a joint use pole. 10. This Agreement embodies the entire understanding and agreement of the Settling Parties with respect to the matters described herein, and, except as described herein, supersedes and cancels any and all prior oral or written agreements, principles, negotiations, statements, representations or understandings among the Settling Parties relating to the use of joint use poles. 11. The Settling Parties have bargained earnestly and in good faith to achieve this Agreement. The Settling Parties intend the Agreement to be interpreted and treated as a unified, interrelated agreement. 12. Each of the Settling Parties hereto and their respective counsel and advocates have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Settling Parties agree that no provision of this Agreement shall be construed against any Party because that Party or its counsel or advocate drafted the provision. 13. Each of the Settling Parties represents that it is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement, and each person signing on behalf of an entity represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign on behalf of that entity. 14. This document may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 15. This Agreement shall become effective among the Settling Parties on the date the last Party executes the Agreement as indicated below. A 12

26 16. In witness whereof, intending to be legally bound, the Settling Parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement on behalf of the Settling Parties they represent: [NOTE: No proposed revisions to Exhibits A, B and C.] Proposed Final Version Appendix H In the event any party, as a joint owner, lessee or licensee ( Antenna Owner/Operator ) seeks to install or causes the installation of an Antenna (as defined in General Order (GO) 95 Rule 20.0) on a joint use utility pole, the following requirements shall be met: 1. Markings Related to the FCC s MPE Limits. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall provide, and update as necessary, A 13

27 accurate information regarding compliance with the Federal Communications Commission s Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits as set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for each particular Antenna installation. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall communicate such information through the use of a pole mounted marking as described in Exhibit A (Additional Marking Requirements) and in writing to the other utilities and/or companies with facilities affixed to the pole in accordance with Paragraph Means of De-energizing Antennas. The Antenna Owner/Operator shall not install an Antenna on a joint use pole that emits RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. or effect a change to an existing Antenna site that will cause that Antenna to emit RF energy in excess of the FCC s General Population/Uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure limits as set forth in 47 C.F.R. except by providing to any other utility or company with facilities attached to the affected pole, a locally verifiable means to deenergize said Antenna. The protocols set forth in Exhibit B shall apply to non-emergency or routine working conditions. The protocols set forth in Exhibit C shall apply to emergency working conditions. 3. Exemption. These provisions shall not apply to Antennas that are exempt from the provisions of General Order 95, Rule 94. [NOTE: No proposed revisions to Exhibits A, B and C.] A 14

28 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 the OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) ON THE WORKSHOP REPORT SUBMITTED MAY 16, 2008 on all parties identified on the attached service list(s). Service was effected by one or more means indicated below. Transmitting the copies via to all parties who have provided an address. First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated. Executed this 27th day of May, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Alejandra Arzola ALEJANDRA ARZOLA PROJECT ANALYST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

29 CPUC - Service Lists - R Page 1 of 4 5/27/2008 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: R CPUC - OIR TO ESTABL FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: MAY 16, 2008 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties BOB RITTER NATASHA ERNST CROWN CASTLE USA, INC. EXTENET SYSTEMS (CALIFORNIA) LLC 2000 CORPORATE DRIVE 1901 S. MEYERS RD., STE. 190 CANONSBURG, PA OAKBROOK TERRACE, IL FOR: CROWN CASTLE FOR: EXTENET SYSTEMS (CALIFORNIA) LLC ROBERT F. LEMOINE RONALD MOORE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY GOLDEN STATE WATER CO/BEAR VALLEY PO BOX EAST FOOTHILL BLVD WALNUT GROVE AVENUE SAN DIMAS, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON JOHN A. PACHECO EDWARD R. MCGAH ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW SEMPRA ENERGY CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS 101 ASH STREET, HQ SAND CANYON AVENUE, E305 SAN DIEGO, CA IRVINE, CA FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. FOR: VERIZON WIRELESS ROBERT C. CAGEN STEPHEN P. BOWEN CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ATTORNEY AT LAW LEGAL DIVISION BOWEN LAW GROUP ROOM MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC FOR: CPSD DAVID MILLER ATTORNEY AT LAW AT&T CALIFORNIA GRANT GUERRA ATTORNEY AT LAW PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

30 CPUC - Service Lists - R Page 2 of 4 5/27/ MARKET STREET, ROOM BEALE ST, RM 3171, B30A SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EARL NICHOLAS SELBY ANITA TAFF-RICE LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS SELBY ATTORNEY AT LAW 418 FLORENCE STREET 1547 PALOS VERDES MALL, SUITE 298 PALO ALTO, CA WALNUT CREEK, CA FOR: SPRINT NEXTEL FOR: EXTENET SYSTEMS LEON N. BLOOMFIELD JEROME F. CANDELARIA WILSON & BLOOMFIELD LLP ATTORNEY AT LAW 1901 HARRISON ST., SUITE 1620 CALIFORNIA CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION OAKLAND, CA ND STREET, NO. 750 FOR: OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS DBA OAKLAND, CA T-MOBILE FOR: CALIFORNIA CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION BARRY F. MCCARTHY NICOLE MASON ATTORNEY AT LAW NEXT G NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. MCCARTHY & BERLIN, LLP 2216 OTOOLE AVE. 100 PARK CENTER PLAZA, SUITE 501 SAN JOSE, CA SAN JOSE, CA FOR: NEXT G NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR: CITY OF ANAHEIM AND NO. CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY WAYNE AMER LANDIS MARTTILA PRESIDENT IBEW 1245 MOUNTAIN UTILITIES 30 ORANGE TREE CIRCLE PO BOX 205 VACAVILLE, CA KIRKWOOD, CA FOR: LANDIS MARTTILA FOR: MOUNTAIN UTILITIES BRUCE MCLAUGHLIN JUSTIN C. WYNNE ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW BRAUN & BLAISING P.C. BRAU & BLAISING, P.C. 915 L STREET, SUITE L STREET, SUITE 1270 SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES FOR: CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION RYAN FLYNN CINDY MANHEIM PACIFICORP AT&T MOBILITY 825 NE MULTNOMAH STREET, STE PO BOX PORTLAND, OR REDMOND, WA FOR: PACIFICORP FOR: AT&T MOBILITY Information Only L. CHARLES KELLER JACQUELINE MCCARTHY WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP PCIA-THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSN N. ST., NW, SUITE MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC ALEXANDRIA, VA FOR: COUNSEL TO PCIA- THE WIRELESS FOR: PCIA-THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSN. ASSN. DON STONEBERGER GREGORY J. KOSIER APS ENERGY SERVICES PORTFOLIO MANAGER SUITE 750 CONSTELLATION NEWENRGY, INC. 400 E. VAN BUREN STRREET 350 SOUTH GRND AVENUE, 38TH FLOOR PHOENIX, AZ LOS ANGELES, CA FOR: APS ENERGY SERVICES FOR: CONSTELLATION NEW ENERGY INC