Critics of the action say that changes in AT&T’s tariff would cause disproportionate financial burden on cities — and by extension, taxpayers. AT&T says this filing would give them the same status afforded other utility companies operating in Ohio.
“We have significant concerns about what this new financial exposure would be to our municipalities, and how it would impact future development plans and just other operations within our communities,” said Kent Scarrett, Executive Director of the Ohio Municipal League. “And ultimately, these costs would be borne on our taxpayers.”
The Ohio Municipal League filed a challenge to that application on Wednesday, saying the tariff would represent “a marked change to existing Ohio law” and shift financial responsibility for moving utilities onto Ohio taxpayers, many of whom “do not subscribe to AT&T services but would be paying the costs."
The Ohio Municipal League, which has 732 members across the state, was joined by 102 cities, 42 villages, four townships and two county governments in the filing.
Local cities that joined in the intervention include Beavercreek, Centerville, Kettering, Dayton, Englewood, Oakwood, Riverside, Springfield, Springboro, Troy, Tipp City, Lebanon, Xenia, and Vandalia.
Six other trade organizations also cosigned the filing, including the Ohio Municipal Electric Association, and the Ohio Mayors' Alliance.
AT&T also withdrew its application on Wednesday.
AT&T had filed a clarification with PUCO on Monday, indicating that the tariff application is intended to “address only requests for ‘relocation and undergrounding’” of AT&T infrastructure.
“The high cost of undergrounding existing aerial facilities for beautification purposes is what underpins AT&T’s proposal,” lawyers for AT&T wrote.
The “customary” relocation of AT&T facilities to accommodate municipal projects such as road widening, adding turn lanes, improving intersections or other public safety projects would not be affected, lawyers for AT&T said.
An AT&T spokesperson told the Dayton Daily News that he filing sought to update AT&T Ohio’s tariff, similar to all seven Ohio electric distribution companies and Texas-based Frontier North.
“We understand that there has been confusion and concern regarding the purpose and effect of the tariff update,” the company said. “(Other utilities) have already received PUCO approval, consistent with long-standing Ohio Supreme Court precedent, to amend their tariffs to address cost recovery when a local government requires existing aerial facilities be moved underground for ‘beautification purposes’ — not public safety."
Scarrett said that while he appreciates that AT&T withdrew the filing, the scope of the original filing was overbroad — probably more broad than the company intended.
“This issue isn’t over for us,” Scarrett said. “We want to work with AT&T to get to a position where their concerns are addressed, our concerns, our taxpayers' concerns are addressed, and I think we can do that as long as we work in a spirit of cooperation.”
The next step in that process is negotiations between AT&T and interested parties, including the Ohio Municipal League, outside formal regulatory proceedings, Scarrett said.
About the Author
