States Tell FCC to Leave Pole Attachment Authority Intact
Utility regulators in Washington, Ohio, and Connecticut call FCC’s proposed recertification unnecessary.
WASHINGTON, July 13, 2026 – Utility regulators in Washington, Ohio, and Connecticut sent similar messages to the Federal Communications Commission this week not to revisit states’ authority over pole attachments.
The states’ filings respond to a June 11 public notice in which the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau asked whether states that have reverse preempted federal pole attachment regulation should face recertification or enhanced transparency requirements. State regulators argued Monday their existing oversight regimes already satisfy federal law and have proven effective.
“No such recertification is warranted for Washington,” Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Chairman Brian Rybarik, along with Commissioners Ann Rendahl and Milton Doumit, told the FCC in a filing, citing nearly a decade without a formal complaint.
“In fact, no entity has filed a complaint alleging that the rates, terms, and conditions offered for a pole attachment were not just and reasonable since 2016, when the WUTC last amended the regulations governing the subject,” Washington regulators said.
Washington regulators said the state’s rules already incorporate federal requirements, including formulas for determining just and reasonable attachment rates that are identical to those used by the FCC.
Washington, Ohio, and Connecticut regulators argued that Section 224 of the Communications Act does not authorize the FCC to routinely review state regulatory regimes after certification.
Ohio regulators said they were concerned by language in the FCC’s public notice pertaining to consistency among the requirements maintained by reverse preemption states with FCC rules.
“To the extent that such consistency is intended to mean that reverse preemption states must implement the FCC’s rules in toto, the Ohio Commission finds such an approach to be at odds with Section 224 and the very notion of reverse preemption itself,” Ohio Public Utilities Commission Attorney General D. Andrew Wilson and Section Chief John Jones, wrote in a filing.
“States must be free to deviate from the FCC’s rules when needed to implement regulations necessary for the unique situations that each state encounters from time-to-time,” the Ohio regulators wrote, adding that the Ohio PUC has strived to create consistency between its rules and the FCC’s rules “where possible and practical.”
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have certified to the FCC that they regulate pole attachments, allowing them to exercise authority over pole attachment rates, terms, and conditions under the Communications Act’s reverse preemption framework.
Connecticut regulators argued that state regulators are better positioned than the FCC to balance broadband deployment with the operational realities of local utilities.
“State commissions are best positioned to balance the deployment of broadband with the safety, reliability, engineering practices, workforce constraints, and cost allocation considerations unique to the reverse preemption state’s electric utility customers,” Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Chairman Thomas Wiehl wrote in a filing.
Wiehl argued a regime of recertification that requires states to satisfy qualitative criteria not specified in the Communications Act would allow the FCC to second-guess state policy judgments and to reassert jurisdiction whenever the FCC disagreed with how reverse preemption states regulate pole attachments.
“Such a change in long-standing policy would render reverse preemption meaningless, undercut Congress’ intent when it passed the Act, and is unnecessary in a state like Connecticut,” the filing states.
An industry group offered a different perspective on the FCC’s review.
In opposition to state regulators, NTCA –The Rural Broadband Association urged the FCC to require reverse preemption states to recertify their authority, noting most existing certifications date back to before 1996.
“These certifications should include specific details with respect to these states’ pole attachment regimes, and the FCC should then work with states including by sharing ‘best practices’ to strengthen state processes where necessary,” the filing, submitted by Justin Faulb, Senior Vice President for Policy and General Counsel, and Brian Ford, Vice President of Federal Regulatory, for NTCA, said.
The NTCA filing said many of its members will participate in federal Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment program, which the FCC expects to touch an estimated 3.9 million utility-owned poles across 2,053 electric utility service territories.
“NTCA members can attest to the fact that timely and affordable access to much-needed advanced networks in rural areas can be undermined by pole attachment rules,” the group states.
The NTCA filing pointed to one Midwestern state that has interpreted its pole access statute as excluding local exchange carriers, leaving NTCA members in the state without the same access rights available to other providers. NTCA also cited a Northeastern state where a member’s request for access to utility poles has remained unresolved for nearly four years, despite the state’s complaint process.
Other state utility regulators also filed comments in the proceeding, including commissions in New York, West Virginia, California, and Arkansas. The Vermont Community Broadband Board also filed comments, along with industry groups and other broadband stakeholders.
The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Ohio Public Utilities Commission, and Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority are nonpartisan regulatory bodies; the commissioners cited in the filings do not represent political party affiliations in their official roles.
