VERMONT PUBLIC POWER
SUPPLY AUTHORITY
5195 Waterbury-Stowe Road  P.O. Box 298  Waterbury Ctr., VT 05677-0298
(802) 244-7678
Fax (802) 244-6889
www.vppsa.com
April 4, 2008
Susan M. Hudson, Clerk
Vermont Public Service Board
112 State Street, Drawer 20
Montpelier, VT 05620-2701
re: comments on draft Rule 3.700
Dear Mrs. Hudson:
This letter sets forth the comments of the Fourteen Municipal Electric Utilities relative to the
prospective amendments to Board Rule 3.700 forwarded by John Bentley under electronic cover
message dated March 21, 2008.
1. The Rule should acknowledge the feasibility of the “second pole” solution in facilitating
the enhanced availability of broadband services. At the February 5, 2008 workshop on the subject
of Rule 3.700, there was substantial discussion of the advantages to placing a second pole in existing
rights of way in situations where such placement is both environmentally and logistically feasible.
There are several advantages to this option:

it is very often the least cost solution, thereby minimizing the costs to broadband providers,
and enhancing their ability to bring service to the more rural areas of the state

it minimizes the safety risks to line workers, by creating physical distance between the
broadband equipment and the electric system infrastructure

it may in some instances provide a better physical location of broadband equipment from
the equipment owner’s operational perspective

it may allow broadband equipment installations in areas where such installation would
otherwise be difficult or impossible given limitations on pole height, utility equipment, and
the number and/or nature of existing attachments on poles
In view of these important considerations, the Fourteen Municipals urge that any amendments to
Rule 3.700 expressly recognize the feasibility and desirability of the “second pole” option. The
legislature was unequivocal in establishing a goal of ensuring “that all residences and business in all
regions of the state have access to affordable broadband services not later than the end of the year
2010. 30 V.S.A. § 8060(b)(1) (emphasis added). Achievement of this aggressive goal will require
utilization of the simplest and least cost alternatives right from the outset of the collective efforts
– VPPSA –
 Page 2
March 6, 2016
between utilities and broadband providers, and a Rule that acknowledges the availability of the
simplest and least cost solution of all will do much to enhance those efforts.
2. Section 3.706(D)(2)(b). It is unclear from the Fourteen Municipals what is intended by use of
the words “in this context” at the beginning of the sentence at the end of this section. The language
could be read, for example, to refer to instances where the utility has conducted the study referenced in
the prior sentence, or to be referring back to the last sentence of subsection (2)(a) immediately above.
This intent should be clarified.
3. Section 3.707(A)(4). At the technical workshop and in the many discussions between the
various parties, significant concern has been expressed regarding the safety and wisdom of placing
antennas above the electric supply space. The draft rule is inconsistent with these concerns. An
appropriate rewrite would be to express preference for the “second pole” solution as discussed above,
and to create a presumption that, in situations where the second pole solution was not feasible,
installations above the electric supply space would be prohibited unless authorized by the work
practices of the utility. This flexibility would ensure safety, while allowing utilities to craft case by
case exceptions consistent with their practices, equipment, and “in the field” assessments of a given
situation. Flexibility in this context would also facilitate the provision of broadband services. For
example, installation of broadband equipment on poles inaccessible by bucket truck would likely
require the scheduling of an outage, where an alternative approach may not.
4. Section 3.708(C). Changing the word “received” in the added clause to “accepted” would
cover the situation where the utility receives an incomplete or otherwise inadequate application, and
the Fourteen Municipals respectfully request this change.
5. Section 3.708(G). The draft language of this section appears to allow the nonelectric utility
owning poles discretion in deciding whether it will allow the electric utility to be part of the
supervision and control over third party contractors. The Fourteen Municipals believe that
participation by the electric utility should be of right when such participation is requested, and that
“may” should thus be changed to “shall” in the next to last line of that section.
6. Section 3.708(K). This section could be improved by making clear any protocols offered under
this section may be flexible in scope, and may take into account such factors as the size of the utility,
an assessment of the types of attachments for which attachment is most likely to be requested, the
nature of the equipment owned by the utility, and other relevant factors.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
David John Mullett
cc: service list
 Page 3
March 6, 2016