State research ledger

The rulebook that governs your pole, in writing and dated.

Who regulates the pole you are attaching to, what rate standard applies, where a dispute actually goes and on what clock. It changes with the state and with who owns the pole, and the answer decides what you owe. This is the record we work from, published so you can read it yourself.

18 states on file · newest record August 21, 2026 · every conclusion carries its citation and a confidence grade

Where the rules are researched

Each record is taken from the statute and the order that made it, and graded for confidence.

Newest record August 21, 2026
ILINOHCOMOKYVA
NMKSTNNCSC
LAMSALGA
TX
FL

Every state is reachable. A state on file has a published record below, and a state researched on request is worked when a client brings a pole in it. Select any lit state to jump straight to its record.

Start here

The federal baseline, and where it stops reaching

Section 224 of the Communications Act and the FCC rules at 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J set the floor for pole attachments: a rate formula, a make-ready process, and timelines a pole owner has to work to. Where they apply, they are the strongest ground a builder has.

They do not reach every pole. Poles owned by electric cooperatives, by municipal utilities and by railroads sit outside federal jurisdiction, and in a state that has certified to regulate attachments itself the state regime displaces the federal one. Those are the poles a great many broadband builders actually attach to, which is why a federal-only answer is often the wrong answer for the invoice in front of you.

So each state gets its own record: whether it has certified, whether cooperative and municipal poles are regulated and under what, the rate standard that governs, the forum a dispute goes to, and the authorities each of those conclusions rests on. The method behind each record is set out in how PoleProof researches and verifies, and how a cleared rule enters an audit is on the methodology page.

Three questions, in this order

How to find the rulebook that governs your pole

The answer changes at each step, and the order matters. Question two cannot be answered before question one.

  1. 1

    Who owns the pole?

    Investor-owned utility, electric cooperative, or municipal utility. This is the question almost everyone skips, and it decides the other two. Cooperative and municipal poles sit outside federal jurisdiction whatever your state has done, so a federal answer can be confidently right and completely irrelevant to the pole in front of you.

  2. 2

    Does your state regulate that owner class?

    Of the 18 states on file, 5 have certified under Section 224(c) that they regulate attachments themselves. Certification is one fact and not the answer: a certified state may still leave cooperative or municipal poles uncovered, and an uncertified one may reach them by a separate statute. The record for your state is below, and the map above jumps straight to it.

  3. 3

    Where does a dispute go, and on what clock?

    A state commission, a federal proceeding, or a court, each with its own deadlines. This is the step that expires. A charge you could have disputed becomes a charge you paid, and the clock usually starts at the invoice rather than at the day you noticed.

Every conclusion in the records below names the authority it rests on, so you can check any of this against the statute rather than against us. The method is set out in how PoleProof researches and verifies.

Authority

Who pays when the pole was already out of compliance

A pole replacement is the largest single line on most make-ready invoices, and the argument behind it is usually the same: the pole had to be replaced, so the attacher pays for the new pole. That argument is weakest where the existing pole was already carrying a safety or engineering violation that somebody else caused.

The FCC rules say a utility may not charge a new attacher to bring poles, attachments or third-party equipment into compliance, at 47 CFR 1.1411(e)(4). In FCC 26-6, a Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted 4 February 2026, the Commission applied that rule to a live billing dispute: Comcast Cable Communications' formal complaint against Appalachian Power Company over Virginia poles. Virginia does not regulate pole attachments itself, which is why the federal rules governed and the Commission had jurisdiction to decide it at all.

The holding has two halves, and anyone citing only the first will be corrected by the other side. Comcast won the first: none of the cost of curing somebody else's preexisting violation may be billed to the new attacher. Comcast lost the second. The Commission rejected the view that its prior precedents preclude a new attacher from being billed any amounts on the poles at issue, held that 1.1411(e)(4) and 1.1408(b) apply in concert rather than one displacing the other, and reaffirmed cost causation: the attacher pays its proportionate share of the incremental cost of the larger pole that makes its own attachment possible.

The Commission worked the arithmetic, which is worth more than the doctrine. A utility owns a 40-foot pole carrying a third party's equipment that violates clearance standards. A 45-foot pole would cure that violation, at a full installed cost of $5,000. A new attacher then needs one more foot, so the utility installs a 50-foot pole at a full installed cost of $5,500. The new attacher owes $500, the difference between the two, because none of the $5,000 attributable to curing the preexisting violation may be billed to it.

The allocation sentence itself is not new. It is the Commission's language from the Fourth Wireline Infrastructure Order, quoted in 26-6 and reaffirmed by it: the prospective attacher is responsible for the incremental cost of a taller or stronger pole needed to support its new facilities, not the cost to replace the defective or deteriorated pole with an equivalent-sized replacement pole. That closing phrase is the operative one. It separates a like for like replacement, which is the utility's own cost, from an upgrade the new attachment required.

Read what it is, and not more. It is an order in one complaint proceeding between two named parties, not a rule of general application, and it turns on a preexisting violation caused by a third party. It is not authority that a replacement charge is unrecoverable. It is authority for how the bill is split, and for the fact that the split has to be shown.

The record

18 states on file

Read the chip on each record as one fact and no more: whether the state has certified under Section 224(c) that it regulates pole attachments itself. It does not settle your pole. Cooperative and municipal poles sit outside federal jurisdiction whether or not a state has certified, so the owner class lines beneath the chip are the ones that answer the question. Each record is worked from the statute and the order that made it rather than from a summary of one, and each carries a confidence line tied to its source. Where a conclusion rests on weaker ground the record says so in that line, because a hedge you can see is what makes the confident answers worth believing.

VirginiaVA

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 24, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, under Code 56-466.1, strengthened for cooperatives effective 2024-07-01
Municipal poles
Unclear, flagged as an open question
Rate standard
State just and reasonable cost standard set by the SCC, not the FCC formula
Where a dispute goes
Virginia State Corporation Commission, not the FCC. The Commission's rate setting power is gated: subsection H bars it from determining rates or terms and conditions for an existing agreement until that agreement expires or is terminated under its own terms, and the terms of an expired or terminated agreement continue to govern while negotiation or Commission review is pending
Confidence
High confidence on the statute, forum, timelines and non-certification; Provisional on the cooperative mechanism and municipal treatment

AuthoritiesVa. Code 56-466.1Va. Code 56-466.1(B) to (H)

North CarolinaNC

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 27, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, under G.S. 62-350, which names electric membership corporations
Municipal poles
Yes, under G.S. 62-350, which names municipalities directly
Rate standard
State just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard set by the NCUC case by case, with no codified formula
Where a dispute goes
North Carolina Utilities Commission, which holds exclusive jurisdiction after a 90 day negotiation window
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification, cooperative and municipal coverage, forum and the core timelines; Good confidence on the 2015 amendment history; Indicative only on the FCC formula used as a benchmark in practice

AuthoritiesN.C. G.S. 62-350

TexasTX

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 28, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, under Utilities Code Chapter 253, effective 2021-09-01, but with no state agency enforcement
Municipal poles
Yes. Utilities Code 54.204(b) bars a municipality or municipally owned utility from discriminating for or against a certificated telecommunications provider on attachment rates or terms, and 54.204(c) bars it from charging any entity, whatever services that entity provides, more than the fee permitted under FCC rules adopted under 47 U.S.C. 224(e), and requires a single uniform rate to unaffiliated entities. Chapter 253 itself does not reach municipal poles. Local Government Code 284.201 remains a separate small cell network node access rule
Rate standard
For cooperative poles, a state just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory five factor standard with cost based nonrecurring charges, no FCC formula and no cap. For municipal poles, a statutory ceiling set by Utilities Code 54.204(c) at the fee permitted under FCC rules adopted under 47 U.S.C. 224(e), with the contract setting the actual rate below it. Investor owned poles are federal
Where a dispute goes
Texas district court for cooperative disputes, not the PUC, after a 90 day negotiation and a mediation. For municipal poles the Public Utility Commission has enforcement jurisdiction under Utilities Code 54.204(d), and a violation is also enforceable as breach of contract in district court where the agreement carries a compliance with laws clause. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification, cooperative coverage, the rate standard, cost causation, forum and timelines, and on the municipal regime at Utilities Code 54.204(b), (c) and (d) and the Supreme Court of Texas holding that applies it; Provisional only on how the commission and the district courts will apply the municipal ceiling on remand

AuthoritiesTex. Util. Code ch. 253Tex. Util. Code 253.0004(a)Tex. Util. Code 54.204Tex. Local Gov't Code 284.201Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC v. City of San Antonio, No. 24-0794 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)

GeorgiaGA

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 29, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, for electric membership corporations under O.C.G.A. 46-3-200.4, effective 2021-01-01
Municipal poles
No rate regime, and the reason is constitutional rather than a gap the legislature left. Ga. Const. art. III, sec. VI, para. V(d) bars the General Assembly from regulating or fixing the charges of a county or municipally owned utility, and O.C.G.A. 46-3-15 names that paragraph in terms. A silence the next legislature could fill; a constitutional bar it could not. Municipal electric systems are not wholly outside the Commission, though. O.C.G.A. 46-3-12 subjects them to its authority in the same manner as electric light and power companies, with rates, charges and service rules filed with the Commission and subject to O.C.G.A. 46-3-11, but expressly not fixed by it. Whether that filing and nondiscrimination duty reaches an attacher, as distinct from an electric customer, is unlitigated and is recorded here as open
Rate standard
The Georgia PSC sets the rate for electric membership corporations under a just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and commercially reasonable standard, on a published schedule
Where a dispute goes
Georgia Public Service Commission for electric membership corporations, with expedited adjudication. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on the statute, PSC jurisdiction, the rate setting mechanism, the EMC only scope, the constitutional municipal bar and the O.C.G.A. 46-3-12 filing duty; Provisional on the published rate figures and on non-certification; open and untested on whether the 46-3-12 filing duty and the 46-3-11 nondiscrimination duty reach an attacher, and O.C.G.A. 46-3-11 has not itself been read

AuthoritiesO.C.G.A. 46-3-200.4O.C.G.A. 46-3-12O.C.G.A. 46-3-15Ga. Const. art. III, sec. VI, para. V(d)233 Ga. 759, 213 S.E.2d 596 (1975)Ga. PSC Docket 43453

FloridaFL

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 30, 2026
Cooperative poles
Conditionally. Fla. Stat. 364.391 places a cooperative's poles under PSC jurisdiction when it provides broadband or accepts broadband funding. A cooperative that does neither stays unregulated
Municipal poles
No. Municipalities are excluded from public utility status and sit outside Section 224
Rate standard
The Florida PSC applies the FCC decisions and orders unless a party proves an alternative cost based rate that is just and reasonable
Where a dispute goes
Florida Public Service Commission, not the FCC, because Florida is certified
Confidence
High confidence on the pole attachment statute, PSC jurisdiction, the apply the FCC rules standard and conditional cooperative coverage; Good confidence on the certification itself; Provisional on the municipal gap

AuthoritiesFla. Stat. 366.04(8)Fla. Stat. 364.391FCC DA 22-630

South CarolinaSC

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated July 31, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, under the Broadband Accessibility Act, S.C. Code 58-9-3030, with PSC jurisdiction carried in by 33-49-150. Read the operative duty rather than the definitions: every duty in 58-9-3030 runs to an electric cooperative as defined at 58-9-3010(10), and the broader electric provider term at 58-9-3010(11), which sweeps in investor owned utilities and the state owned Public Service Authority, is never used in the access duty at all
Municipal poles
No for city electric systems, which sit outside both the statute and Section 224. The state owned Public Service Authority is a different case and not a second No. S.C. Code 58-31-230(F) puts a conditional parity duty on it: the duty switches on only if the Authority first determines, in its sole discretion, to provide access to some communications service provider, access remains subject to the Authority's own terms and conditions, denial is preserved for insufficient capacity, safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering principles, and leasing of excess fiber capacity is carved out entirely. There is no rate standard, no just and reasonable requirement, no formula and no timeline in it
Rate standard
State just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard with no codified formula and no cap. S.C. Code 58-9-3030 sets a standard and nothing more, and its only federal cross reference is procedural, adopting the make ready timelines at 47 C.F.R. 1.1411 as that rule stood on 2020-09-15
Where a dispute goes
South Carolina Public Service Commission for cooperatives, with an interim rate in 30 days and a final rate in 180 days, retroactive to the written request. For the state owned Public Service Authority the forum is the Administrative Law Court, which S.C. Code 58-31-230(G) gives authority and jurisdiction to enforce compliance with that section, not the Commission and not a court of general jurisdiction. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification by statutory self-disclaimer, cooperative coverage, the PSC forum with its 30 and 180 day clocks and retroactivity, the Administrative Law Court forum for the Public Service Authority, the conditional character of the 58-31-230(F) parity duty, and the absence of any rate formula in 58-9-3030; Provisional on the general municipal conclusion, which rests on the absence of a covering statute plus the Section 224 municipal exemption rather than on a statute reaching city systems

AuthoritiesS.C. Code 58-9-3030S.C. Code 58-9-3010(10)S.C. Code 58-9-3010(11)S.C. Code 33-49-150S.C. Code 58-31-230(F)S.C. Code 58-31-230(G)S.C. Code 58-31-230(H)(2)47 C.F.R. 1.1411

AlabamaAL

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 3, 2026
Cooperative poles
Narrow parity only, under Ala. Code 37-16-4(c), and only where the provider offers its own broadband. TVA distributor cooperatives are excluded
Municipal poles
The same narrow parity duty reaches non-TVA municipal providers that offer broadband. Otherwise contract and ordinance only
Rate standard
Parity only. The owner must apply the same rate methodology and access terms it uses for its own broadband. No formula and no cap
Where a dispute goes
No state agency forum for cooperative or municipal poles, so court and contract. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification, the parity statute and its TVA distributor exclusion, and the no state forum finding; Provisional on the investor owned exclusion scope and the private enforcement path

AuthoritiesAla. Code 37-16-4(c)Ala. Code 37-16-3

KentuckyKY

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 5, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, and on the same footing as investor owned utilities, because KRS 279.210(1) makes cooperatives full PSC jurisdictional utilities. Five TVA supplied cooperatives sit outside PSC practice
Municipal poles
No. Cities are excluded from utility status by KRS 278.010(3), and municipal poles sit outside Section 224
Rate standard
A Kentucky formula, not the FCC formula. The methodology is Administrative Case No. 251, which expressly refused the FCC method
Where a dispute goes
Kentucky Public Service Commission for every jurisdictional owner, cooperative and investor owned alike, not the FCC, because Kentucky is certified
Confidence
High confidence on certification, the regulation and every state timeline, cooperative coverage, the municipal exclusion and the 1982 methodology; Good confidence on the TVA exclusion mechanism; Provisional on the municipal conclusion and the open TVA jurisdiction question

Authorities807 KAR 5:015KRS 279.210(1)KRS 278.010(3)Ky. PSC Admin. Case No. 251

MissouriMO

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 6, 2026
Cooperative poles
No, and regulated by nobody. Exempt from Section 224 as cooperatively organized, and exempt from the PSC by RSMo 394.160
Municipal poles
Yes, and this is the only class Missouri regulates, under RSMo 67.5104, effective 2014-08-28, subject to four carve-outs
Rate standard
Municipal rates are capped at the FCC cable formula, with a Missouri only override where Article X of the state constitution requires it. Cooperative poles carry no standard at all
Where a dispute goes
Any Missouri court of competent jurisdiction for municipal disputes, expedited by statute. Not the PSC, which RSMo 67.5104.5 strips of jurisdiction
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification, the statutory strip of PSC jurisdiction, the cooperative exemption, the municipal statute and all four carve-outs, the rate ceiling and the court forum; Good confidence on the BEAD condition

AuthoritiesRSMo 67.5104RSMo 67.5104.5RSMo 394.160

KansasKS

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 10, 2026
Cooperative poles
Conditionally, and the condition is a member vote. Cooperatives are public utilities by default under K.S.A. 66-104(a) and become exempt only by a deregulation election under K.S.A. 66-104d
Municipal poles
No. K.S.A. 66-104(b) and (c) place municipal utilities outside the act, and they sit outside Section 224
Rate standard
No Kansas rate methodology exists for pole attachments. A cooperative that has not deregulated is held only to the general standard that a charge not be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory
Where a dispute goes
Kansas Corporation Commission for a cooperative that has not deregulated, by formal complaint open to any person. District court otherwise. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification, the cooperative default jurisdiction and the exemption mechanism, the municipal exclusions and the complaint grounds; Provisional on the negative findings proved by absence. The Commission route is High confidence as text and untested as applied

AuthoritiesK.S.A. 66-104(a)K.S.A. 66-104dK.A.R. 82-1-220(a)

ColoradoCO

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 11, 2026
Cooperative poles
Conditionally, and the condition is a fact about the cooperative. The rate and access duties in C.R.S. 40-15-604(2) reach only an electric utility that has a broadband affiliate
Municipal poles
Yes, and from a different title. C.R.S. 38-5.5-108 caps municipal and local government pole charges in a right of way at the federal formula and bans in kind payment outright
Rate standard
No Colorado formula. A cooperative with a broadband affiliate owes just and reasonable fees apportioned by usable space. A municipality in a right of way is capped at the federal number
Where a dispute goes
Any Colorado court of competent jurisdiction. Part 6 names no agency and does not mention the PUC. Investor owned disputes go to the FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non-certification proved two independent ways, the Part 6 duty structure and its broadband affiliate condition, the court only forum, and the municipal ceiling and in kind ban; Good confidence on utility counts; Provisional on the exemption mechanics

AuthoritiesC.R.S. 40-15-604C.R.S. 40-15-604(8)(b)C.R.S. 38-5.5-108

LouisianaLA

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 12, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes, fully, and the Revised Statutes read the other way. La. R.S. 45:1163 appears to let a cooperative exempt itself, but Cajun Electric Power Cooperative v. LPSC (La. 1989) held the constitutional grant plenary and that statute unconstitutional insofar as it permits the exemption. La. R.S. 12:430.1 separately binds cooperatives to the Commission's pole order by name
Municipal poles
No, and Louisiana inverts the usual pattern. Municipal and parish systems are the unregulated class, outside the Commission by the state constitution and outside Section 224. Roughly twenty one systems, contract and ordinance only
Rate standard
Not established. Louisiana is certified, so the FCC cable and telecom formulas do not govern a Louisiana pole and must not be used to benchmark one. The operative Commission general order in Docket R-26968 could not be obtained, so no Louisiana rate methodology, ceiling or state clock is established here
Where a dispute goes
Louisiana Public Service Commission for every private owner including cooperatives, never the FCC, because Louisiana is certified. Municipal and parish poles go to district court on the contract
Confidence
High confidence on certification, cooperative regulation and the constitutional holding behind it, the municipal exclusion and the La. R.S. 12:430.1 duties; Good confidence on the 1978 certification date and the utility counts; the rate methodology, any rate ceiling and every state timeline are not established, because the operative Commission general order could not be retrieved and is not published

AuthoritiesLa. R.S. 12:430.1La. R.S. 45:1163La. R.S. 45:121Cajun Electric Power Coop. v. LPSC, 544 So. 2d 362 (La. 1989)FCC DA 22-630

MississippiMS

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 13, 2026
Cooperative poles
Access yes, rate no. Miss. Code Ann. 77-5-235(4) gives an attacher a real state law right of access to electric power association poles, and denial is permitted only for insufficient capacity or safety and reliability and only where the attacher will not resolve the issue. The rate is set by the association's own board and is not regulated
Municipal poles
No. Roughly twenty five municipal systems sit outside Section 224, outside the Electric Power Associations Act and outside Commission rate jurisdiction. Contract and ordinance only, with no Mississippi rate ceiling of any kind
Rate standard
No Mississippi rate standard exists for any owner class. Investor owned poles run on the FCC formulas. Association rates are board set with no formula, no ceiling and no reasonableness standard, disciplined only by an affiliate fee parity rule where the association has a broadband affiliate
Where a dispute goes
The FCC for investor owned electric and telephone poles, because Mississippi has not certified and its Commission has issued no attachment rule. For association poles the forum is not established: the statute preserves prior Commission jurisdiction only if any existed, and none has been demonstrated
Confidence
High confidence on non certification proved two independent ways, the whole of the attachment section including the access duty and the savings clause, the width of the Commission carve outs, the affiliate parity rule, the municipal exclusions, and the total absence of any Commission attachment rule proved by reading the rules; Good confidence on the federal entity footprint; Provisional on the statutory character of the Commission and on the distinction of the leading case from the attachment question

AuthoritiesMiss. Code Ann. 77-5-235Miss. Code Ann. 77-3-5Miss. Code Ann. 77-17-5Miss. Code Ann. 77-5-259FCC DA 22-630

IllinoisIL

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 15, 2026
Cooperative poles
No. Cooperatives are excluded from public utility status by 220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(3) and sit outside Section 224, so no Commission rate or access duty reaches a cooperative pole. Contract, and a circuit court
Municipal poles
No. Municipal systems are excluded from Illinois Commerce Commission jurisdiction by 220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(1) and sit outside Section 224. Whether any Illinois rate ceiling or access duty reaches them was not established in this pass
Rate standard
A presumptive Illinois formula at 83 Ill. Adm. Code 315.20, which is presumptive rather than a ceiling and reaches cable television attachers only. No Illinois rate standard of any kind applies to a telecommunications attacher, to a cooperative pole or to a municipal pole
Where a dispute goes
It splits by attacher and by owner. The Illinois Commerce Commission for a cable television attacher on a Commission jurisdictional pole. The FCC for a telecommunications attacher on an investor owned electric pole, because the state certification does not reach telecommunications attachments to electric utility poles. No commission at all for a cooperative or municipal pole
Confidence
High confidence on certification and on the limit of that certification, on the cooperative and municipal exclusions, on the Part 315 cable formula and on the finding that Illinois has no wireline make ready timeline of any kind; Provisional on the municipal negatives proved by absence and on the practical forum characterisation. No Illinois limitation period or filing deadline was sourced and none is stated here

Authorities220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(1)220 ILCS 5/3-105(b)(3)220 ILCS 5/7-10283 Ill. Adm. Code 315.2047 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 19-640

IndianaIN

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 17, 2026
Cooperative poles
Yes. IC 8-1-2-5.5 names cooperative pole owners, and Kankakee Valley holds that Commission jurisdiction over a pole dispute survives a cooperative's withdrawal election under IC 8-1-13-18.5
Municipal poles
Yes. IC 8-1-2-5 reaches every municipality and IC 8-1-2-5.5(e)(3) names a municipality providing electric service as a pole owner. Municipal poles sit outside Section 224
Rate standard
Two regimes. Investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles run on the FCC formulas, and IC 8-1-2-5(b) adds only a bare reasonableness standard with no formula, no ceiling and no presumption. For a cooperative or municipal pole with a cable operator attacher, IC 8-1-2-5.5(i) sets a safe harbour that is a ceiling and a presumption rather than a mandatory rate
Where a dispute goes
The FCC for investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for cooperative and municipal poles, with judicial review under IC 8-1-3
Confidence
High confidence on non certification, on both state regimes, on every forum, and on the findings that Indiana sets no attacher limitation period, no Commission decision clock and no make ready timeline of general application; Provisional on carrying the Kankakee Valley reasoning across to the municipal withdrawal statutes and on utility counts. No Indiana deadline or timeline is stated here

AuthoritiesIC 8-1-2-5IC 8-1-2-5.5IC 8-1-13-18.5IC 8-1-347 U.S.C. 224FCC DA 22-630Kankakee Valley Rural Electric Membership Corporation v. United Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc., No. 93A02-0505-EX-463 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2006)

OhioOH

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 19, 2026
Cooperative poles
No. The Ohio regime reaches only an electric light company that is a public utility, and ORC 4905.02(A) excludes a member owned not for profit utility, so cooperative poles sit outside both the state rule and Section 224. Contract only, and the exclusion is unconfirmed by case law or commission practice
Municipal poles
No. ORC 4905.02(A)(3) excludes a utility owned or operated by a municipal corporation, and municipal poles sit outside Section 224. Contract and ordinance only
Rate standard
The FCC cable formula, applied by the Commission through a filed tariff under OAC 4901:1-3-04(D)(2) with the federal presumptions and a mandatory deduction of excess accumulated deferred income tax. The filed rate figures themselves are not established well enough to publish
Where a dispute goes
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, by complaint under ORC 4905.26 or ORC 4927.21, because Ohio is certified. For a cooperative or municipal pole, no commission and no FCC
Confidence
High confidence on certification proved two independent ways, on the tariff and formula mechanism, on the Commission complaint forum, and on the cooperative and municipal exclusions as statutory and regulatory text; Provisional on the filed rate figures, which are deliberately not published, and on system counts. The exclusions are unconfirmed by case law or commission practice, and no Ohio limitation period was found

AuthoritiesORC 4905.71ORC 4905.02(A)ORC 4905.26OAC 4901:1-3-04OAC 4901:1-3-0547 U.S.C. 224(c)(2)47 CFR 1.1406FCC DA 22-630

New MexicoNM

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 20, 2026
Cooperative poles
Distribution cooperatives are subject to New Mexico Public Regulation Commission jurisdiction, written into the Public Utility Act by name with no opt out. Generation and transmission cooperatives are carved out
Municipal poles
Municipal systems are not Commission rate regulated and sit outside Section 224. Contract only
Rate standard
There is no New Mexico pole attachment rate standard of any kind: no formula, no ceiling, no presumptive rate, no filed tariff duty and no adoption of the FCC formula by reference. A distribution cooperative is held only to the general standard that a charge not be unfair, unreasonable, unjust or inadequate
Where a dispute goes
The FCC for investor owned electric and incumbent telephone poles. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission for a distribution cooperative, by complaint under NMSA 1978, Section 62-10-1, and the Commission may proceed only where it finds probable cause. District court on the contract for a generation and transmission cooperative and for a municipal or H class county system. Tribal jurisdiction is unresolved
Confidence
High confidence on non certification proved by reading the list in full, on cooperative jurisdiction as statutory text, on the municipal position and on the total absence of any state rate standard; Provisional on how that jurisdiction would apply to a pole attachment, which no located New Mexico statute, rule or order has yet done in either direction. No New Mexico limitation period, make ready timeline or decision clock exists and none is stated here

AuthoritiesNMSA 1978, Section 62-3-3(D)NMSA 1978, Section 62-6-4(A)NMSA 1978, Section 62-10-11.2.2.9 NMAC47 U.S.C. 224(c)47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579

TennesseeTN

Not certified under Section 224(c)Record dated August 21, 2026
Cooperative poles
Cooperative poles sit outside state utility regulation and outside Section 224. Where the cooperative sells broadband, Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134 adds a nondiscriminatory access duty, a self imputation rule and a chancery court remedy. A cooperative distributing Tennessee Valley Authority power charges a TVA approved fully allocated cost rate under its wholesale power contract, which is not a rate cap and does not displace the agreement
Municipal poles
Municipal systems are excluded from public utility status and sit outside Section 224, and City of Memphis v. Gilliland held that Section 224(f)(1) is not mandatory on a municipal system. The chapter 52 parity, imputation and remedy provisions run to a franchisee under chapter 59 rather than to attachers generally, and that reading is less firmly established than the rest of this row
Rate standard
For a municipal or cooperative local power company distributing Tennessee Valley Authority power, the TVA fully allocated cost formula, being space allocation times net cost of a bare pole times carrying cost. Investor owned poles run on the FCC cable and telecom formulas
Where a dispute goes
The FCC under Subpart J for investor owned poles. Chancery court in the two statutory cases. Otherwise contract only, in a Tennessee court, with no agency, no commission and no FCC
Confidence
High confidence on non certification, on the cooperative position and the TVA rate mechanism, and on the forum conclusions that rest on Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134(h) and on the absence of any Tennessee pole attachment rule; Provisional on the municipal row, including the chapter 52 provisions. Tennessee has no state make ready timeline, no self help right and no application processing deadline, no limitation period was researched, and no Tennessee deadline is stated here

AuthoritiesTenn. Code Ann. 65-4-101(6)(A)Tenn. Code Ann. 65-25-134Tenn. Code Ann. 7-52-60916 U.S.C. 831i47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1)TVA, Determination on Regulation of Pole Attachments (February 2016)City of Memphis v. Tandy J. Gilliland Family LLC, No. W2014-02472-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2015)FCC DA 22-630

The program

Where the research goes next

Every state and the District of Columbia is on the program. 18 are published above. The 33 below are being worked in turn and land as each one clears, to the same method and the same grading as the records already on file. If your build is in one that has not landed yet, say so on a free check and it moves up the order.

In progress

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Coverage

51 jurisdictions, every state and the District of Columbia. Nothing is out of scope. A state you do not see published above is being worked rather than declined.

Scope

How to use this, and how to check it

Every conclusion above names the authority it rests on, so you can go read that authority and decide whether you agree. That is the point of publishing the ledger rather than asserting the result.

This is general information about the rules and it is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for your own counsel on a specific dispute. PoleProof performs financial and cost review of what you have been billed rather than engineering evaluation of what the pole owner determined was necessary. Rules change, and a record carries the date it was worked so you can see how current it is.

Find out which rulebook your poles actually run under.

One free check. No account, no commitment. Send one invoice or estimate and the attachment agreement it runs under.

Run a free check →