Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FILED OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/28/21 04:59 PM

Order Instituting Investigation into the Creation ) of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of ) Investigation No. 17-06-027 Utility Poles and Conduit in California. ) ______) ) And Related Matter. ) R. 17-06-028

REPLY COMMENTS OF RACE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (U-7060-C)

ON “ONE-TOUCH MAKE-READY” REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA

Raul Alcaraz, CEO and President Carlos Alcantar, CTO Race Telecommunications, Inc. 1325 Howard Avenue, #604 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel. 415-376-3111 [email protected] [email protected]

Rachelle Chong Law Offices of Rachelle Chong 345 W. Portal Avenue, Ste. 110 San Francisco, CA 94127 Tel. (415) 735-0378 [email protected]

April 28, 2021

1 / 7 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REPLY COMMENTS OF RACE TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (U-7060-C)

ON “ONE-TOUCH MAKE-READY” REQUIREMENTS IN CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Requesting Comments on “One-Touch Make-Ready” Requirements in California (“ALJ Ruling”), dated March 9, 2021 in the above- referenced proceeding, Race Telecommunications, Inc. (“Race”) hereby files Reply Comments. On April 14, 2021, the Assigned Administrative Law Judge granted Race’s Motion for Party Status.

A. Introduction Race observes that the Opening Comments on the ALJ’s Ruling expressed overall broad support for the California Public Utility Commission’s (“CPUC” or “Commission”) proposal to integrate the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) one-touch make-ready (“OTMR”) and self-help procedures (collectively the “OTMR Rules”) into the Commission’s proposed Right-of-Way (“ROW”) rules. Race strongly believes that this support by a broad array of broadband providers1 shows the need for and the wisdom of the proposed ROW rules in the Staff Proposal. The record also reflected that there are without question issues with delay and cumbersome procedures n the current system. If indeed broadband to unserved and underserved

1 There was very broad support for the proposed OTMR ROW rules: Joint ILECs, Google Fiber, CTIA, Verizon Wireless, California Cable and Telecommunications Association (“CCTA”), Crown Castle Fiber LLC (“Crown Castle”), and Sonic Telecom, LLC (“Sonic”). Race was also heartened to see measured support from Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) and San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”), with some caveats, for the various benefits the proposed OTMR process in the Staff Proposal has for utilities. PG&E Comments, at 1. SDG&E Comments, at 6.

2 / 7 rural areas is the State’s priority to ensure Digital Access, Digital Equity and Social Justice, Race urges the Commission to adopt the ROW rules without delay, and without additional workshops that are unnecessary in light of the OTMR rules use for a number of years since 2018. There is no question that the OTMR have resulted in faster deployment of broadband across the nation. As it turns out, given that broadband has become an essential service like electricity and water during the pandemic and for economic prosperity for the 21st Century, it is in the public interest for these rules to adopted without any further delay or workshops.

B. OTMR Will Not Pose Safety Risks Race first rebuts unfounded safety issues as to the OTMR processes alleged by Communications Workers of America, District 9 (“CWA”) Coalition of California Utility Employees (“CUE”), the Safety and Enforcement Division (“SED”), and SDG&E. CWA/CUE make various allegations about safety issues that would be caused by “unskilled” attachment work and “contractors without training or experience to complete the work properly.”2 The Safety and Enforcement Division (“SED”) of the Commission also urges the CPUC to not adopt the federal Self-Help Make Ready (SHMR) and OTMR requirements ”without sufficient evidence to indicate the attachments can be installed safely and in full compliance with Commission requirements.” Later, SED alleges that “[s]ince these processes may be performed by unlicensed contractors and potentially without utility supervision, SHMR and OTMR could increase the risk of public exposure to safety hazards.”3 SDG&E alleges that allowing new attachers to proceed with OTMR on electric facilities could compromise safety.4 In fact, OTMR requires make-ready in the pole’s communications space to be performed by contractors approved by pole owners.5 Such pole owners have a strong interest in protecting the pole integrity and the pole attachments. It goes without saying that a pole is a very valuable asset, and the pole owner is only going to approve contractors who are qualified to conduct make-ready and will comply with all safety rules. Also, Race notes that under OTMR, the new attacher is liable for damages to the pole, so the new attacher is equally motivated to ensure the

2 CWA/CUE Comments, at pp. 3-4. 3 SED Comments, at p. 2. 4 SDG&E Comments, at p. 3. 5 See 47 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.14.12. See also ALJ Ruling, Attachment A, at IV.H.5.

3 / 7 contractor is qualified and skilled to perform any make-ready operations. Further OTMR has been implemented nationally by the FCC since 2018 and no significant safety issues have arisen.

C. Race Urges Reasonable Time Deadlines Even on Large Orders

In the Opening Comments of SDG&E, it argues to revise the threshold number of poles after which OTMR negotiations would begin. SDG&E urges the Staff Proposal’s recommendation of 3,000 poles be move down to 500.6 PG&E similarly argues for the classification of large orders to “be classified as the lesser of 500 poles or 5 miles of conduit.”7 SCE also is critical of the Staff Proposal and asks for flexibility to allow utility longer response times.8 As to Section D.5 of the Staff Proposal, Race strongly urges the Commission to keep the large order threshold at 3,000 poles in order to keep the workflows going, but most importantly, as Race originally requested in its Opening Comments, to place a time frame (60-75 days) on even the large orders.9 Absent a firm time deadline, these large orders will end up last in line for attention. Currently the Staff Proposal lacked a deadline, and this omission defeats the purpose and spirit of the OTMR and SHMR rules.

D. Further Delay to Issue Additional Proposals Are Unnecessary and Will Continue to Delay Critically Needed Broadband Services in the State

SED opposes the adoption of the SHMR or OTMR procedures, urging additional Commission evaluation of technical, safety and regulatory challenges, barriers and opportunities of the Staff Proposal, and “[m]ore analysis of potential safety implications of OTMR.”10 SCE also opposes adoption of the OTMR rules, seeks to extend various proposed time deadlines, and calls for a series of workshops to identify what FCC provisions are suitable for adoption in this state, and to address safety issues. SCE goes so far as to assert that there is no evidence in the proceeding that OTMR is needed or that OTMR will speed up the construction and deployment

6 SDG&E Comments, at p. 7. 7 PG&E Comments, at p. 7. 8 SCE Comments, at p. 4. 9 Race Comments, at p. 5. 10 SED Comments, at pp. 2, 4.

4 / 7 of broadband infrastructure in California.11 PG&E requests extending OTMR requirements initially to Tier 1 High Fire Threat Areas and evaluate it before extending them to HFTAs Tier 2 and 3.12 SDG&E joins the call for more workshops on safety, operational requirements, and implementation, and requests OTMR should not be implemented in the HFTDs.13 Race strongly disagrees with these parties who call for more study, who request to narrow the OTMR application to certain geographic areas of the state, or who claim that utilities do not in any way delay the deployment of broadband as to pole attachment requests. While Race understands that the IOUs are engaged in important wildfire hardening work for their core mission, having reliable broadband for communities who live in wildfire threat areas is an equally important public safety consideration. Broadband will keep residents informed of potential wildfires, provide evacuation information, advise of upcoming Public Safety Power Shutoffs, and other critical public safety information. Further, Race can say with certainty that it has experienced significant delays in its broadband projects in unserved areas of California due to significant delays in pole attachment requests to utilities. The FCC has extensively analyzed safety issues when it issued its August 2018 Order implementing OTMR and SHMR procedures.14 For a number of years, the FCC has been streamlining infrastructure siting rules and removing barriers to broadband deployment, in order to ensure the United States continues to be a global leader in advanced communications, including the global 5G race. Notably, in addition to the voluminous written comment OTMR and SHMR record, the FCC pressed into service a number of industry experts who served on the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) to ensure that the rules would ensure equipment integrity and public safety, with the goals of limiting risk, keeping workers safe and avoiding tort liability for damages caused by substandard work.15 Notably, the FCC found what actual evidence that was presented in support of safety concerns was “anecdotal” and

11 SCE Comments, at pp. 1, 3, 5, 8, 9. 12 PG&E Comments, at p. 2. SDG&E states at page 4 of its Comments that internal utility standards may exceed General Order 95 in Tiers 2 and 3 of the utilities’ designated High Fire-Threat District (“HFTD”). Race suggests that such utility standards should be provided to new attachers for full transparency in advance. 13 SDG&E Comments, at pp. 1, 7. 14 See In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment to Infrastructure Investment et al, Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 33 FCC Rcd 7705 (adopted Aug. 2, 2018) (“FCC OTMR Order”). 15 FCC OTMR Order, at para. 25.

5 / 7 “unpersuasive.”16 Race recommends that insofar as there are concerns, there could be similar rules to the FCC’s to ensure safety. Utilities and pole owners could maintain a list of approved contractors and require self-help be done by such contractors. The Commission may order certain safety and operational guidelines be followed as part of its new rules. Finally, new attachers could give advance notice of any work so that pole owner representatives can be present for the survey and make-ready work if they desire. Race finally asserts that these FCC OTMR and SHMR rules have been in place for a number of years now and safety issues have not manifested themselves.

E. Race Supports Crown Castle’s Suggestion that the Commission Extend Self Help Remedy to Include Pole Replacements

Race supports the suggestion of Crown Castle to delete Section IV.E.3, which disallows Self Help for pole replacements.17 Crown Castle summarizes the FCC’s reasoning for adoption of self-help nicely, noting how it spurs positive action by the pole owner.18 Race agrees that the safeguards inherent in the ‘Self Help’ remedies, allowing new attachers to perform pole replacements in a safe and effective way, will speed deployment of broadband. Race has found that significant delay results when utilities and other pole owners cannot timely perform surveys and make-ready obligations, particularly when Race is undertaking large projects and bringing hundreds of pole applications to utility, for example. By including pole replacements as a self- help remedy, as Crown Castle suggests, this rule would provide incentives for utilities to respond faster to survey and make-ready requests, in addition to ensuring faster installation of a new pole if warranted.

F. Utility Application Fees for Space Requests Must Be Reasonable and Based on Actual Costs

SDG&E requests incremental costs over its General Rate Case funding to process pole attachment and communication service requests, citing the Commission’s language in Decision 98-10-058.19 It is reasonable to assume that with new federal and state funding for broadband

16 FCC OTMR Order, at para. 25. 17 Crown Castle Comments, at pp. 12-14. 18 Id. at 13. 19 SDG&E Comments, at p. 5, and fn. 2.

6 / 7 infrastructure projects on the near horizon that communications and pole requests will increase in the near term. Race can support an application fee but only if it is “reasonable” and “based on actual expenses incurred” as required by D. 98-10-058, at pp. 48-49.

WHEREFORE, Race requests that the Commission amend its proposed ROW rules consistent with Race’s Reply Comments, but in any event in an expedited manner to ensure rapid deployment of broadband in unserved areas of the State.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Raul Alcaraz /s/ Carlos Alcantar

Raul Alcaraz Carlos Alcantar Race Telecommunications, Inc. 1325 Howard Avenue, #604 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel. 415-376-3111 [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ Rachelle Chong

Rachelle Chong Law Offices of Rachelle Chong 345 W. Portal Avenue, Ste. 110 San Francisco, CA 94127 Tel. (415) 735-0378 [email protected] Outside Counsel to Race Telecommunications, Inc.

April 28, 2021