Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pole Attachments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board discusses pole-attachment limits: three providers, wider spacing and transmission-pole ban

Hurricane City Power Board · July 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members discussed a proposed pole-attachment standard that would allow up to three communications providers per distribution pole, require 18‑inch vertical separation between providers' cables, and prohibit attachments on transmission poles to limit weight and wind-related stress.

The board reviewed a draft pole-attachment standard that would limit attachments on distribution poles and increase cable separation to reduce wind-induced wrapping and weight stress.

Presenter summarized the draft language: "we're gonna allow up to 3 communication providers on the distribution pole, and each one of their cables will have to be separated by 18 inches." Members said the 12‑inch NESC separation was insufficient in windy local conditions and supported widening the spacing to reduce cable whipping and tangling.

Agency official and others raised structural concerns for long-span links and the transmission system, arguing that attachments should not be on transmission poles because of weight and wind-shear issues. Several members favored the three‑provider compromise over allowing many attachments, noting practical problems seen where poles become cluttered with lines.

A Committee member said he believed there are legal limits on withholding attachment rights and that enforcement may require charging engineering costs to attaching parties; the presenter said she had not found a specific law in the materials she reviewed, but limiting to three is a common practice in other pole-attachment standards.

The discussion identified follow-up needs: adding sag-chart requirements so new attachments match existing sag lines, clarifying enforcement language, and finishing a companion franchise/agreement to the standard. No formal vote was taken on the pole-attachment standard during the meeting; staff will refine language for a future meeting.