4. Rule 94 Initial Proposals
All parties agree that today GO 95 does not contain specific rules for the installation of wireless antennas on jointly used utility poles, but uniform rules governing the installation of these wireless antennas should be added to GO 95. As a result of the workshops, the parties presented us with three preliminary proposals for uniform rules, which we briefly discuss below.4
4.1 Proposal 1 for Rule 94
Proposal 1 was sponsored by CPSD, IBEW, Communications Workers, PG&E, and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). It added a definition of "antenna" to Rule 20 of GO 95 ("a device for emitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals") and proposed a new Rule 94. The proposed Rule 94 would require that antennas meet standards applicable to Class C communications equipment; maintain a vertical clearance of 6 feet from supply (electrical) conductors operating at 0-50 kilovolts and clearances of 2 feet (vertical) from communications conductors and (horizontal) from the centerline of the pole; provide a sign identifying the antenna and providing information regarding compliance with the FCC's maximum permissible exposure limits, and provide a means of controlling or shutting down wireless antennas. Antennas used by utilities for monitoring their supply system and antennas attached to communication cables would be exempt from Rule 94, although they would need to comply with other GO 95 requirements.
4.2 Proposal 2 for Rule 94
Proposal 2 was sponsored by SCE. It was supported by Crown Castle USA, Inc.; Cingular Wireless; NextG Networks; Sprint Nextel; Omnipoint Communications, Inc., dba T-Mobile; and Verizon Wireless (collectively, the Wireless Group). Its proposed definition of "antenna" and its proposed requirement that antennas meet the circuit requirements of Class C equipment mirrored the requirements of Proposal 1. Proposal 2 provided for a vertical separation of 2 feet from communication conductors, a 2-foot horizontal clearance from the face of the pole when supported by a cross arm, and a clearance from supply conductors of 4 to 6 feet as specified in GO 95 tables. At the evidentiary hearing on February 7, 2006, all parties stipulated that Proposal 2 could be amended to include provision 94.5 of Proposal 1 (a sign identifying the type of antenna and a 24-hour contact number for the antenna operator).
4.3 Proposal 3 for Rule 94
Proposal 3 was sponsored by William P. Adams, a former Commission employee and intervenor in this proceeding. Adams's proposal essentially mirrored Proposal 1 as to clearances between wireless antennas and power and communications conductors, and was similar to Proposal 2 in requiring that the antenna operator be responsible for powering down or shutting down a wireless antenna. Proposal 3 was the only proposal addressing wireless antennas on the top of utility poles, although at hearing Adams recommended that pole-top provisions be deferred. In his reply brief, Adams essentially withdrew Proposal 3 and instead supported Proposal 2.5
4 Another rule labeled Proposal 2A was offered by the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) in its reply brief on March 28, 2006. Proposal 2A was a composite of sections from Proposals 1 and 2.
5 Adams proposes one addition to Proposal 2, stating that if a disconnect device is installed, it "be protected from unauthorized operation by suitable means." (Adams Reply Brief, at 2.)
