Duke Energy Asks FCC to Stay AT&T Pole Rate Complaint Pending Arbitration
The utility says FCC should pause the complaint while parties privately dispute the issue.
WASHINGTON, July 24, 2026 – Duke Energy Carolinas is urging the Federal Communications Commission to halt AT&T's pole attachment rate complaint.
In a brief filed Wednesday with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, Duke said the parties’ 1978 joint use agreement requires private dispute resolutions “concerning matters pertaining to” the agreement, including AT&T's recent challenge to the pole attachment rates Duke charges in North and South Carolina.
AT&T filed its complaint in June, asking the FCC to invalidate Duke’s contract rates as unjust and unreasonable under the agency’s pole attachment rules and to order refunds for alleged overcharges dating back three years. AT&T says it has overpaid by millions.
AT&T and Duke are parties to a 1978 joint-use agreement covering roughly 457,901 utility poles across North and South Carolina, with Duke owning about 80 percent of the infrastructure and AT&T the remaining share.
Duke argues that because AT&T’s complaint directly challenges rates established under the agreement, it falls squarely within the contract’s mandatory arbitration provision.
In its argument, the utility relies heavily on two prior FCC decisions involving similar disputes.
In one, involving Alabama Power, the FCC stayed an AT&T complaint over pole attachment rates pending arbitration under a joint use agreement. Duke also pointed to a separate FCC order staying a complaint brought by Frontier Communications against Duke itself because the parties’ agreement contained a comparable arbitration clause.
“AT&T's complaint clearly concern[s] matters pertaining to the Joint Use Agreement,” Duke wrote, arguing that the present case is “materially identical” to those earlier proceedings.
AT&T acknowledged in its complaint that the agreement contains a mandatory arbitration clause but argued the FCC nonetheless must resolve the dispute because federal law makes the commission the “final authority” over just and reasonable pole attachment rates.
Duke rejected that argument, citing the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent holding that arbitration agreements remain enforceable even when disputes involve federal statutory claims unless Congress has expressly provided otherwise.
If the Enforcement Bureau grants the request from Duke, the case would pause while the parties arbitrate the dispute.
