State research record

Idaho pole attachment rules, in writing and dated.

Who regulates the pole you are attaching to in Idaho, what rate standard applies, where a dispute actually goes and whether cooperative and municipal poles are covered. This is the record we work from, published so you can read it yourself.

Record dated October 1, 2026 · certified under Section 224(c) · 19 authorities cited
The record

Idaho

IdahoID

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated October 1, 2026
Cooperative poles
No. An Idaho electric cooperative is not a corporation under Idaho Code 61-104, which excludes a mutual nonprofit or cooperative electrical corporation by name, so it is not an electrical corporation under 61-119, not a public utility under 61-129, and not inside the pole attachment statute at Idaho Code 61-538, which is anchored on public utility at every operative clause. It is also outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the cooperative exclusion in 224(a)(1). So an Idaho cooperative pole has no rate regulator at any level of government, no state remedy, no federal remedy and no rate ceiling from any source. There is no election mechanism into or out of Commission regulation. Whether cooperative poles were inside the repealed 1982 version of 61-538 and lost that coverage on 2025-07-01 is the highest value open question in the record and is not offered here as a finding either way
Municipal poles
No, and more cleanly than the cooperatives. Municipal corporations are excluded by name in the first clause of Idaho Code 61-104, so a municipal electric system is not inside Idaho Code 61-538, and it is outside 47 U.S.C. 224 by the exclusion for a person owned by any State. Municipal electric systems do operate in Idaho; how many is not established to publication standard in the record and no count is stated here. Idaho Code 50-325(2) lets a consumer of a municipal electric system ask the district court whether the municipality's charges for electric service are fair, just and reasonable, but an attacher renting pole space is not a consumer of electric service and no authority extending that route to an attachment charge was found. Contract and ordinance only. The BEAD condition reaches an Idaho cooperative or municipal pole only through the state subgrant agreement and only where the subgrantee itself owns poles
Rate standard
A statutory floor and ceiling with no formula inside it, adjudicated case by case on complaint, and only on investor owned electric and telephone poles. Idaho Code 61-538(3), rebuilt by House Bill 180 of 2025 effective 2025-07-01, assures the utility recovery of not less than all the additional costs of providing and maintaining pole attachments and not more than the associated capital cost and operating expenses attributable to the portion of the pole used, including a share of the required support and clearance space. That last phrase is the highest value rate finding: the Idaho ceiling expressly includes support and clearance space that the FCC cable formula excludes, so an Idaho rate benchmarked against the FCC cable formula will read high without being unlawful. No Idaho rate formula has ever been adopted, the new rule chapter IDAPA 31.27.01 contains no rate provision, and no published Idaho rate figure was verified, so none is stated here. The rule chapter, effective 2026-07-01, sets Idaho's own state permitting and make ready clocks. They can run slower than the federal tiers, there is no deemed grant and no self help, and because Idaho is certified the federal timelines do not govern an Idaho pole of their own force
Where a dispute goes
It depends on whether an agreement already exists, and only investor owned electric and telephone poles have a regulator at all. For a dispute under an EXISTING attachment agreement, including a billing, rate, overcharge or audit dispute, the forum is a court on the contract and NOT the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, for any attacher class and whatever the conduct date. IPUC Final Order No. 36917 in Case AVU-E-25-11, served 2026-01-27 and read in full at source, holds that the Commission lacks jurisdiction under both the former and the amended version of Idaho Code 61-538, that the statute does not permit the Commission to review, interpret or enforce existing contracts where a meeting of the minds has occurred, and that such matters generally fall within the jurisdiction of the courts; reconsideration was denied by Order No. 36979 on 2026-03-23. Whether the FCC hears an Idaho existing agreement dispute instead is not established and is being litigated in FCC EB Docket 26-236. The Commission is the forum only for an impasse on rates, terms or conditions in forming a NEW agreement, because Idaho Code 61-538(3) is dispute triggered and there is no filed rate or tariff, so the practical first move is a documented impasse. Inside that route the attacher class matters: before 2025-07-01 it reached only a cable television company, judged by the nature of the entity and not the billing classification of its attachments, and from 2025-07-01 it reaches a provider of telecommunications service, broadband or cable services. On such a filing the Commission must decide within thirty days, extendable to about 272 days in total under IDAPA 31.01.01.151, which is a Commission clock and not an attacher deadline. A partnership, corporation or other entity must be represented by a licensed attorney in a formal complaint under IDAPA 31.01.01.043.02, with no dollar threshold exception. The Commission may not adjudicate federal pole attachment claims or impose penalties for alleged violations of federal law, and 61-538(5) authorises rules on permitting timing only, so federal rate formulas and penalties cannot be imported through the Commission. Idaho Code 61-514 reaches only joint use between public utilities and supplies no route for a billing dispute or an alleged breach. For cooperative and municipal poles there is no forum but the contract. No attacher limitation period or filing deadline was located anywhere in Idaho law and none is stated here. The Bonneville Power Administration is the federal presence and is transmission, not distribution, with no pole attachment rate regime
Confidence
High confidence on certification from DA 22-630 and DA 26-579 read in full, on Idaho Code 61-538, 61-104, 61-119, 61-129 and 61-334 read in full, on IDAPA 31.27.01 read in full and on IDAPA 31.01.01 Rules 43, 151 and 152 read in full, and on the existence, numbers and dates of the two Commission orders in Case AVU-E-25-11 read from the Commission's own case index; High confidence also, as of the re-derivation of 2026-10-01, on the holding of Final Order No. 36917, which was read in full at source that day, superseding the earlier Good confidence grading that rested on the parties' own descriptions in the FCC docket; Order No. 36979 denying reconsideration has still not been read and nothing here rests on its reasoning. Whether the FCC hears an Idaho existing agreement dispute is open and ungraded. Provisional on the certification filing history, the case law on cooperative exclusion, the utility class counts, which is why no count is published, the BEAD figures, the federal entity analysis and the whole champerty and engineering flag lines; Indicative only on the inference that Idaho is one of the eighteen pre 1996 certifiers counted in DA 26-579

AuthoritiesIdaho Code 61-104Idaho Code 61-119Idaho Code 61-129Idaho Code 61-334Idaho Code 61-514Idaho Code 61-538Idaho Code 50-325IDAPA 31.01.01.043IDAPA 31.01.01.151IDAPA 31.01.01.152IDAPA 31.27.0147 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(f)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579IPUC Case AVU-E-25-11IPUC Final Order No. 36917IPUC Order No. 36979FCC EB Docket 26-236

Read the chip above as one fact and no more: whether Idaho 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 two owner class lines are the ones that answer the question for the invoice in front of you.

This record is worked from the statute and the order that made it rather than from a summary of one. The confidence line is tied to its source: where a conclusion rests on weaker ground the record says so, because a hedge you can see is what makes the confident answers worth believing. The method is set out in how PoleProof researches and verifies, and how a cleared rule enters an audit is on the methodology page.

Back to the state research ledger · 45 jurisdictions on file

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 record 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 is not a law firm. 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 this 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 →
Run a free check →