State research record

Washington pole attachment rules, in writing and dated.

Who regulates the pole you are attaching to in Washington, 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 September 7, 2026 · certified under Section 224(c) · 24 authorities cited
The record

Washington

WashingtonWA

Certified under Section 224(c)Record dated September 7, 2026
Cooperative poles
By statute and outside the Commission. RCW 23.86.400(2) requires all rates, terms and conditions demanded or received by an electric service cooperative for attachments to its poles to be just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and sufficient, with attachment space rental rates uniform for the same class of service, and RCW 24.06.600(2) says the same for a mutual corporation. Subsection (3) of each expressly denies the Utilities and Transportation Commission any jurisdiction. There is no formula, no timeline, no complaint procedure and no agency, so the remedy is a superior court civil action. A cooperative that took a BEAD award as a subgrantee and owns poles is, on the face of Section 13.D.1.e of the November 2025 BEAD General Terms and Conditions, required to comply with FCC pole attachment rules across its footprint, and that text carries no carve out for poles already regulated under state law; the instrument that binds the owner is the Washington State Broadband Office subgrantee agreement, which has not been read
Municipal poles
By statute, unequally, and outside the Commission. A public utility district is subject to a mandatory two part rate formula under RCW 54.04.045, amended in 2008, while a city under RCW 35.21.455 and a code city under RCW 35A.21.125 carry only the bare just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and sufficient standard with uniform rates, unchanged since 1996. All three expressly deny the Commission jurisdiction, so disputes go to superior court, a route verified by Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County v. Comcast of Washington IV, No. 70625-0-I (2014), where the Court of Appeals held that the RCW 54.04.045(3) formula is construed without deference to the district. Treating the three statutes as one regime is the most expensive available error in this state
Rate standard
Three answers by owner class. On investor owned electric and telephone poles the maximum rate is the WAC 480-54-060(2) formula, space factor times net cost of a bare pole times carrying charge rate, with the space factor being occupied space divided by total usable space and the rule presuming a 37.5 foot pole, 13.5 feet of usable space, 24 feet of unusable space and one foot of occupied space, bounded by the statutory band in RCW 80.54.040, with a separate duct and conduit formula in subsection (3). It is a ceiling, and under WAC 480-54-030(2) a party advocating a rate that varies from the rules bears the burden of proving it fair, just, reasonable and sufficient. On a public utility district pole the rate is mandatory under RCW 54.04.045(3), one half of each of two components, with an election under subsection (4) to compute the first by the FCC cable formula as it stood on 2008-06-12. On city, code city, cooperative and mutual poles there is only the reasonableness and uniformity standard, plus the RCW 80.54.070 duty on every utility, regulated or not, to levy uniform attachment rates within its service area. Washington sets its own make ready periods on investor owned poles under WAC 480-54-030. Those are not the federal tiers and must not be merged with them
Where a dispute goes
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission by formal complaint under WAC 480-54-070, but only for investor owned electric and telephone poles, because RCW 80.54.010(3) excludes cooperatives, federal owners and every government owned utility from the defined term utility. The complaint must plead good faith executive level negotiations including the exchange of the information needed to calculate the rate under WAC 480-54-060, so the demand for the owner's rate inputs is a filing prerequisite. A challenge to an executed agreement on the good faith negotiation limb must be brought within six months from the agreement execution date under WAC 480-54-070(4)(a), which runs from execution and not from an invoice, and is the only attacher facing filing deadline located in the Washington regime. The Commission enters an initial order within six months and a final order within 360 days, and the owner bears the burden of proving its rates fair, just, reasonable and sufficient. Every other non federal owner class goes to superior court under the express jurisdictional bar in each of its own statutes; no limitation period for that route is stated because none was sourced. PoleProof may not appear for a client at the Commission, because WAC 480-07-345(1) limits representatives to a Washington bar member, an out of state bar member in good standing, an officer or employee of the party with the presiding officer's permission, or a Rule 9 legal intern. The Bonneville Power Administration sits outside both 47 U.S.C. 224 and chapter 80.54 RCW. Whether a city, county, port district or public utility district attaching for its own broadband is a licensee on an investor owned pole is unresolved, and it is live because Washington BEAD awardees include public utility districts and tribes
Confidence
High confidence on certification, on chapter 80.54 RCW and chapter 480-54 WAC read in full, on RCW 54.04.045, 35.21.455, 35A.21.125, 23.86.400 and 24.06.600 read in full, on WAC 480-07-345, on the Pacific County slip opinion read in full, and on the Section 13.D.1.e text; Good confidence on the BEAD envelope, because the Commerce figures are Good confidence and the General Terms and Conditions were read from a mirrored copy after the NTIA hosted file returned an empty body twice; Provisional on the application of DA 26-579 to Washington's partial coverage, on the reading that WAC 480-54-010(3) reaches no owner outside RCW 80.54.010(3), on the identification of the federal and tribal owners, and on the champerty limb, whose primary case text could not be retrieved. The date Washington filed its certification, the limitation period for the superior court route, and whether any attacher has ever run WAC 480-54-070 are open and nothing is stated on them here

AuthoritiesRCW 80.54.010RCW 80.54.020RCW 80.54.040RCW 80.54.070RCW 54.04.045RCW 35.21.455RCW 35A.21.125RCW 23.86.400RCW 24.06.600RCW 80.04.220RCW 80.04.230RCW 1.16.080WAC 480-54-020WAC 480-54-030WAC 480-54-050WAC 480-54-060WAC 480-54-070WAC 480-07-34547 U.S.C. 22447 CFR 1.1405(f)FCC DA 22-630FCC DA 26-579Public Utility District No. 2 of Pacific County v. Comcast of Washington IV, No. 70625-0-IBEAD General Terms and Conditions, November 18, 2025, Section 13.D.1.e

Read the chip above as one fact and no more: whether Washington 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 →