II. Procedural History

On September 18, 2000, Daniels (subsequently Adelphia) and CCTA (jointly "Complainants") filed a complaint, which initiated this proceeding. The complaint against SDG&E was filed pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 767.5(c).¹ That statute authorizes the Commission to determine pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions when cable operators are unable to reach agreement with investor-owned utilities.

Adelphia operates a mid-sized cable company providing cable services to approximately 64,800 customers in Northern San Diego County. In providing these services, Adelphia attaches coaxial cable and fiber optic cable to poles owned by SDG&E.

CCTA is a trade association representing cable television operators with over 400 cable television systems in California. Consistent with Section 767.5, CCTA negotiates on behalf of cable television companies for pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions for all investor-owned utility poles in California.

D.02-03-048 resolved the complaint regarding a $6,080 per mile fee that SDG&E attempted to charge Daniels for use of SDG&E's transmission easements and ROW. The decision found that SDG&E could not impose upon Daniels a fee for use of transmission ROW as long as the 1986 Pole Attachment License Agreement (1986 Agreement) between the parties remained in effect. However, it was determined that if either party terminated the 1986 Agreement, as allowed by its provisions, SDG&E could charge a fee for use of its transmission ROW based on its actual costs to acquire the easements and ROW between transmission poles. SDG&E's proposed market-based fee of $6,080 per mile was rejected. The calculation of a transmission ROW fee, as an overhead component of SDG&E's pole attachment fee, was adopted using the formula proposed by Complainants and set forth in Attachment A to that decision. Within 45 days of the effective date of the order, SDG&E was ordered to file a notice that the parties had agreed on a transmission ROW charge using the approved formula. Alternatively, if parties were unable to agree, SDG&E was ordered to file its proposed transmission ROW charge for the Commission to examine in Phase II of this proceeding.

SDG&E and Complainants were unable to reach an agreement on a transmission ROW charge. On June 5, 2002,² SDG&E filed a proposed transmission ROW charge in accordance with its understanding of the formula in D.02-03-048, Attachment A. For attachment to each of its poles in the transmission ROW, SDG&E calculated an annual charge of $69.36 per pole. As directed in D.02-03-048, the ROW fee is included in the overhead component of that charge.

On July 5, Complainants (now Adelphia and CCTA) filed their opposition to SDG&E's proposed transmission ROW charge. Complainants asserted that SDG&E improperly calculated the annual pole attachment fee. Moreover, the complainants insisted that there should be separate fees for wood and steel poles. In its opposition filing, Complainants included the assumptions and calculations that resulted in an annual charge of $21.88 per wood pole and $239.33 per steel pole. Differences with SDG&E's assumptions and calculations were highlighted and discussed.

On August 5, SDG&E filed a response to Complainants' opposition filing. In its response, SDG&E acknowledged the concept of separate rates for wood and steel poles, recognizing that equity demands that the pole attachment rate should reflect the actual type of attachment. SDG&E then calculated an annual charge of $33.41 per wood pole and $586.88 per steel pole. Differences with Complainants' assumptions and calculations were highlighted and discussed.

On August 13, Complainants filed a motion for leave to file a reply to SDG&E's response. In the accompanying reply, Complainants addressed their concern with several of the changes that they felt SDG&E had inappropriately made to the calculation of the pole attachment charges. There was no opposition to the motion and we have included consideration of the reply in deciding this matter.