8. Additional Marking and De-energizing
Safeguards

While the signatories to the settlement include the vast majority of joint pole owners and wireless carriers (except for SDG&E), we recognize that some antenna installations on poles under our jurisdiction may not be covered by the terms of the settlement agreement. For example, we recognize that the settlement will not apply to some small electric utilities and small telephone utilities. Similarly, an antenna owner or operator that is not a signatory to the settlement agreement will not be bound by terms of the settlement, and even a signatory utility will not be required by the settlement to replicate its terms with a non-party seeking to install an antenna.13

In response to this incomplete coverage, our order today adopts additional rules that direct that no antenna owner or operator shall install an antenna on a joint use pole unless such installation is subject to an agreement with the pole owner(s) that includes marking and de-energizing protocols that are substantially similar to and achieve at least the same safety standards as those set forth in the settlement agreement approved herein. The settlement agreement states, in relevant part:

1. Markings Related to the FCC's MPE Limits.

2. Means of De-energizing Antennas.

3. Exemption.

4. Adoption of Operating Procedures.

. . .

EXHIBIT A

ADDITIONAL MARKING REQUIREMENTS

Antenna Owner/Operators are responsible for the installation and upkeep of their sign or signs at each joint use site.

EXHIBIT B

PROTOCOL FOR DE-ENERGIZING ANTENNAS IN NON-EMERGENCY OR ROUTINE WORKING CONDITIONS

EXHIBIT C

PROTOCOL FOR DE-ENERGIZING ANTENNAS IN EMERGENCY WORKING CONDITIONS

These measures ensure that all utility linemen in California will benefit from the protections established in the settlement. Antenna owners or operators not covered by the settlement agreement may file an advice letter with the Commission to ensure that its antenna installation(s) are subject to an agreement that includes marking and de-energizing protocols that are substantially similar to and achieve at least the same safety standards as those set forth in the settlement agreement.

The importance of uniformity in safety standards is reiterated in the record. Testifying on behalf of CPSD, Raymond Fugere explained that "[t]o ensure worker safety, there's a need for a statewide requirement to provide uniformity for construction of wireless antennas on jointly used poles."14 Marc Brock, testifying on behalf of PG&E, concurred that "there is a need for uniform construction standards for antenna installations. This is needed for worker safety, public safety and system reliability."15

13 In Comments on the Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioner Brown, the Wireless Parties committed to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement with respect to any antenna placed on any jointly owned or used pole, whether or not the pole owner or other pole users are parties to the settlement. (Id., at 3.)

14 Exhibit 1, Testimony of Raymond Fugere of CPSD, at 3 (Feb. 7, 2006).

15 Exhibit 10, Testimony of Marc Brock of PG&E, at 2 (Feb. 8, 2006).

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page