2. Procedural Background

On October 2, 2001, the Commission issued R.01-10-001 to revise GO 95 and GO 128, which govern, respectively, the construction of overhead and underground electric supply and communications systems. Commission staff, industry representatives, labor organizations, and the public conducted 16 months of twice-monthly two- to three-day public workshops throughout California. A total of 63 proposed changes to existing rules were considered. Of these, 40 were supported by consensus of the workshop participants, 15 were withdrawn, and eight were in dispute.

On January 13, 2005, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 05-01-030. The Commission adopted the 40 proposed rule changes supported by consensus, noted the 15 withdrawn proposed rule changes, and discussed and resolved seven of the eight disputed proposed rule changes. The Commission, however, did not approve a new rule to GO 95 to establish uniform construction standards for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used poles. Instead, in D.05-01-030, the Commission directed staff to further investigate the issues raised by the wireless antenna rules in this new rulemaking proceeding.

On February 24, 2005, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) that proposed revisions to GO 95 that would establish uniform construction standards for attaching wireless antennas to jointly used poles and towers. A prehearing conference (PHC) in this proceeding was conducted on May 24, 2005. In the PHC, the parties agreed to hire a facilitator, as they had done in the earlier proceeding, and to conduct workshops aimed at achieving consensus on wireless antenna rules.

On June 7, 2005, a Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner determined that this proceeding is quasi-legislative. The evidentiary hearing schedule was established too.

Seven days of workshops were held in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Approximately 40 to 70 participants, in total representing 20 parties, attended each workshop. While there was substantial agreement on most rules governing wireless antennas, the parties were unable to reach consensus on all issues. Accordingly, on September 12, 2005, the parties submitted a joint workshop report that included three alternative proposals for a new Rule 94, along with position statements of the parties.

Following a second PHC on November 14, 2005, the Commission conducted evidentiary hearings on February 7-9, 2006. At hearing, the Commission heard from nine witnesses and received 22 exhibits into evidence. Briefs were filed on March 13, 2006, and reply briefs were filed on March 28, 2006, at which time the rulemaking was deemed submitted for Commission decision. A Proposed Decision was issued on April 25, 2006.

Before the Commission acted on the Proposed Decision, several parties on July 18, 2006, filed a joint petition to set aside submission pursuant to Rule 84 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions. The petition was granted on July 20, 2006.

On July 28, 2006, PG&E provided notice of a conference regarding a proposed settlement of the disputed issues in this proceeding. The conference was held on August 4, 2006.

On August 23, 2006, a settlement agreement was proposed by sixteen of the parties, including CPSD and the two union parties.¹ An evidentiary hearing to consider the proposal was conducted on September 12, 2006, at the conclusion of which this matter was resubmitted for Commission consideration.

¹ As noted in the summary, sponsors of the settlement agreement are CPSD; IBEW; Communications Workers; PG&E; AT&T California; CCTA; Clearlinx Network Corporation; Crown Castle USA, Inc.; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; NextG Networks of California Inc.; Omnipoint Communications, Inc., dba T-Mobile; Southern California Edison Company; Sprint Nextel; Verizon California Inc.; Verizon Wireless; and William Adams. SDG&E, which owns its own poles, declined to join the Settlement. It does not, however, oppose it. Similarly, the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) is not a signatory but does not oppose the settlement.