VII. Public Interest

We will grant PG&E the requested approval of the Master Agreement, as amended, subject to the conditions set forth below. The arrangement between PG&E and AT&T Wireless makes good sense from several perspectives and we have approved similar agreements for the use of utility facilities for telecommunication equipment.5

The Master Agreement makes productive joint use of available space. As we stated in D.00-07-010:


It is sensible for California's energy utilities, with their extensive easements, rights-of-way, and cable facilities, to cooperate in this manner with telecommunications utilities that are seeking to build an updated telecommunications network. Joint use of utility facilities has obvious economic and environmental benefits. The public interest is served when utility property is used for other productive purposes without interfering with the utility's operation or affecting service to utility customers. (D.00-07-010, mimeo. p. 6.)

The Master Agreement will allow improved service to AT&T Wireless customers and provides prompt access to PG&E's facilities at rates and terms mutually agreed upon by PG&E and AT&T Wireless. This Commission has long had a policy of promoting competition in the telecommunications industry and does not wish its efforts to be frustrated by unduly restrictive or discriminatory access to the sites, facilities and rights-of-way of regulated public utilities. PG&E shall not unduly or unlawfully discriminate in the provision of access to its sites, facilities and rights-of-way and the Master Agreement supports the policies we have set forth on this subject.6

The public interest is further served in that AT&T Wireless will not use these facilities to provide service beyond that authorized under licenses from the FCC. Consistent with the Master Agreement, AT&T Wireless shall adhere to strict safety requirements, including the restriction that only PG&E shall install, maintain, or remove equipment attached to transmission towers. In addition, PG&E retains the right to enter and use facilities, land and sites leased to AT&T Wireless. These terms in the Master Agreement will ensure that the lease will not interfere with utility service to PG&E customers.

We do not agree with ORA's position that PG&E should provide additional details regarding the proposed installation of communication equipment under the Master Agreement. Specifically, ORA suggests that PG&E should describe when and where equipment will be installed and provide illustration of the size, placement, and method of attachment of the equipment.

In response, both PG&E and AT&T Wireless jointly urge rejection of ORA's protest. Applicants state that the additional information requested by ORA is superfluous and duplicative given the Commission's General Order 159-A which defers to local agencies for site review and permitting for cellular equipment, including review of the specific equipment and installation details for each site. Applicants contend that AT&T Wireless currently complies with GO 159-A and reports as required to the Commission on the status of local approval before initiating construction on new antenna sites.7 ORA has not explained why additional equipment installation information is needed. We find that as long as AT&T Wireless complies with the notification procedures in GO 159-A, there is no need for additional reporting.

While we will approve the application based on the current terms of the Master Agreement, as amended in January 2002, we will require PG&E to file under § 851 for advance Commission review of any amendments to the Master Agreement. Furthermore, as we have done in D.96-10-071 and other similar orders, we shall impose appropriate notification provisions upon PG&E. PG&E shall notify our Energy Division by letter within 30 days of the execution, extension or termination of this Master Agreement. PG&E shall also provide notification of substantive changes regarding plant in service and right of way under the Master Agreement. All notifications should include a description of the site involved.

5 See in particular D.00-01-014, D.00-07-010, and D.98-02-110. 6 See D.98-10-058, as modified by D.00-03-055. 7 On March 12, 2001, in response to an inquiry from the ALJ, Applicants filed a supplemental application containing an example of a GO 159-A compliance report.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page