Arizona pole attachment rules, in writing and dated.

Cooperative poles

Yes as to the regulator and no as to any rule, and both halves must be said. Arizona electric cooperatives are public service corporations under Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2, which reaches all corporations other than municipal furnishing electricity, and the Arizona Supreme Court so held in Trico Electric Cooperative v. Corporation Commission, 86 Ariz. 27 (1959). Cooperative poles are excluded from 47 U.S.C. 224 by the cooperative exclusion in 224(a)(1), so the FCC has no jurisdiction over them, and the Corporation Commission, which has general jurisdiction, has adopted no pole attachment rule, prescribed no rate methodology and set no process. The one statute touching a cooperative pole rate is A.R.S. 10-2085(J), effective 2021-02-05, a parity rule requiring that a cooperative's pole attachment agreement with its broadband affiliate specifically require the fees charged to an unaffiliated video service or telecommunications provider to equal the fees charged to the affiliate where both are jointly attached to the same pole. It fixes no rate, names no agency and does nothing unless all three of its conditions hold

Municipal poles

No, and the exclusion is constitutional rather than statutory. Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2 covers all corporations other than municipal, and 47 U.S.C. 224(a)(1) and (a)(3) exclude a person owned by a State or its political subdivisions, so a city electric utility is outside both. Salt River Project, an agricultural improvement district and political subdivision under A.R.S. 48-2302 serving roughly 1.18 million customers, is outside both on the same two grounds and is the largest unregulated pole owner in the index to date. Roughly seventeen Title 48 electrical and irrigation districts are a distinct third class, kept separate from public power entities by A.R.S. 30-801(2)(b)(ii). Contract and local ordinance only, with contract remedies in superior court

Rate standard

None from Arizona for any owner class, and the negative was measured rather than inferred: the complete official text of Arizona Administrative Code Title 14, Chapter 2, all twenty six articles, contains the words pole, joint use and make ready zero times. On investor owned electric and telephone poles the federal FCC formulas apply by default because Arizona has not certified, and FCC 25-38, FCC 23-109 and FCC 26-6 govern of their own force. On cooperative poles the attachment agreement governs, with the Commission's constitutional ratemaking authority available on its face but never applied to a pole attachment charge, and the A.R.S. 10-2085(J) parity requirement where a broadband affiliate is jointly attached. On municipal, Salt River Project, district, tribal and federal poles there is no standard. Arizona sets no make ready or self help timeline at any level for any owner

Where a dispute goes

Two tracks that must not be merged. Investor owned poles go to the FCC under 47 U.S.C. 224 and 47 CFR Part 1 Subpart J, and Arizona investor owned pole disputes have historically been filed there. Cooperative poles and any other public service corporation go to the Arizona Corporation Commission under A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248, a forum that exists and has never been used for this subject, and two documentary gates decide the case before the merits. A.R.S. 40-246(A) bars the Commission from entertaining a complaint as to the reasonableness of any rates or charges unless it is signed by a mayor, a majority of a city or town legislative body, or not less than twenty five consumers or purchasers, so a lone attacher pleading unreasonableness is not heard, while the same grievance pleaded as a violation of law or of a Commission order or rule carries no signature requirement. A.R.S. 40-248(B) requires a complaint concerning an excessive or discriminatory charge to be filed within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, with reparation carrying interest at the legal rate from the date of collection. That the two sections reach a pole attachment charge is an inference from the statutory words and not a holding. Municipal, Salt River Project, district, tribal and federal poles have no administrative forum

Confidence

High confidence on non certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579 read in full, on Ariz. Const. art. 15, secs. 2 and 3, A.R.S. 48-2302, A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248, A.R.S. 10-2085(J) and 10-2057(A)(17) read directly, on the Trico holding read in full, and on the measured absence of any pole attachment rule in A.A.C. Title 14, Chapter 2; Provisional on the current Commission cooperative docket practice, on art. 13, sec. 7 and A.R.S. 30-801, on the district count and Salt River Project figures, and on the FCC complaint captions against Arizona Public Service. Whether A.R.S. 40-246 and 40-248 apply to a pole attachment charge is recorded as an open question. No Arizona rate figure exists and none is stated here

AuthoritiesAriz. Const. art. 15, sec. 2Ariz. Const. art. 15, sec. 3Ariz. Const. art. 13, sec. 7A.R.S. 10-2057A.R.S. 10-2085A.R.S. 30-801A.R.S. 40-246A.R.S. 40-248A.R.S. 48-2302A.A.C. Title 14, Chapter 247 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1406FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579Trico Electric Cooperative v. Corporation Commission, 86 Ariz. 27 (1959)