Transcription
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CONMISSIONOF THE STATE OF HAWAIIIn the Matter of the Application of)HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.)DOCKET NO. 05-0228For Authority to Grant an After the)Fact Grant of Perpetual Easement)Over Its Anaehoomalu SubstationSite to Time Warner EntertainmentCompany, doing business as Oceanic )Time Warner Cable of Hawaii, forThe Purpose of InstallingUnderground Fiber Optic Cable.DECISION AND ORDER 22553(-)I\jLJJ w LU 0 cDc )2:Filedfl ’ Ato’clock ,F2006M rr Chief Clerk of the( omissionATTEST: A True CopyHIGASHIChief Clerk, Public UtilitiesCommission, State of HawaiL gJ- KAREN/“ I
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CONMISSIONOF THE STATE OF HAWAIIIn the Matter of the Application of)HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.)Docket No. 05-0228For Authority to Grant an After the)Fact Grant of Perpetual EasementOver Its Anaehoomalu Substation)Site to Time Warner EntertainmentCompany, doing business as OceanicTime Warner Cable of Hawaii, forThe Purpose of Installing)underground Fiber Optic Cable.Decision and Order No.22553DECISION AND ble”)theaoverislandofas described dertheabout December Hawaiionora public utility as defined by§269-1,isengagedinthe
aleofelectricity on the island of Hawaii in the State of ,approvaleasement overofHELCOanafterits AnaehoomaluWaikoloa to Oceanic CablefiledtheapplicationfactgrantofaSubstation property in(the “Easement”)of underground fiber optic cableanfor the installation(“Application”).’HELCOfiledthe Application pursuant to HRS § 269 19.21.The EasementHELCO’s Anaehoomalu Substation is located on 1.71 acresof land in Waikoloa,Hawaii.TheDistrict of South Kohala,substationisParcel 28 on Tax Map 6-8-01,Hawaii.Trustee.situatedThirdonon the island oflandDivision,identifiedasthe StateofofThe land was “acquired in 1981 from First Hawaiian Bank, In 1999,projecttoservicetoincluding,Oceanic Cable completed a fiberaugmentthesubscribersbut notMauna Lani eSouththe andThis fiber optic cable system also ntheOFCOMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS,DIVISION OFCONSUMER ADVOCACY (“Consumer Advocate”), an ex officio party tothis docket pursuant to HRS § 269-51 and Hawaii AdministrativeRules § 6—61-62.2No persons moved to intervene or participate in thisproceeding.3See Application at 2.DEPARTMENT05—02282
HELCO’sfacilitieslocated in South Kohala and North Kona withaccess to telecommunications from roptic cable was installed within an existing underground conduitthat passesHighway.through the site and crosses under Queen KaahumanuHELCOstatesthatitdid noteasement in 1999 since the fiber opticoriginally requireancable was being used toprovide HELCO with telecommunications services.However, saneasement to validate the presence of its fiber optic cable ementisattached to the Application as Exhibit I.2.HELCO’s Justification for ated with theHELCO’s property.rate base atintends to grant the llocated onIt states that the Anaehoomalu Substation iscurrently carried in HELCO’scablefiberCableHELCOthatfor 1.00with 78.81 andsincethetelecommunicationsthe perpetualEasement beingthatitfiber opticservices.grantedtoOceanic Cable will not adversely affect its ability to performits duties to the public.05—02283
B.Consumer Advocate’s Statement of PositionOn November 30, 2005,the Consumer Advocate filed itsStatement of Position informing the commission that it does notobjecttoapprovalPosition”).of tementAdvocatestatesofthat:(1)the Easement will not adversely impact HELCO’s operations;(2)the terms and conditions of the Easement appear reasonable;and(3)the proposed charge ofreasonable.Specifically,and conditions, 1.00for the Easement appearswith regard to the Easement’sthe Consumer Advocate asserts that the “Easementcontains broad indemnification cabletheproposed erchargeappearsreasonable since there is no anticipated increase to HELCO’s costofserviceasaresultoftheEasement,and OceanicCable’sservice is in the public interest.Nonetheless,the Consumer Advocate notesthat it wasinitially concerned that HELCO did not file for approval of theEasementproperty.concern,responses,in 1999,when Oceanic titsstarted occupying HELCO’stotheinformationrequirea4See CA’s Statement of Position at ument(“IR”)with
Oceanic CableHELCOwith(“HawaiianOceanicin :to use(1)andthroughitsaOceanic Cable was providing(2)Hawaiianmastereasement maluWhile it would have preferred that HELCO had filedfor approval of the instant matter earlier, the Consumer Advocatestates “that its concern has been addressed as able]’sitsmasteragreement with Hawaiian Telcom.”5II.DiscussionHRS § 269-19 states:No public utility corporation shall sell, lease,assign,mortgage,or otherwise dispose of orencumber the whole or any part of its road, line,plant, system, or other property necessary oruseful in the performance of its duties to thepublic, or any franchise or permit, or any , merge or consolidate with any otherpublic utility corporation without first havingsecured from the public utilities commission anorder authorizing it so to do.Every such ance, merger, or consolidation, made otherthaninaccordancewiththeorderofthecommission shall be void.HRS § 269-19 (emphasis added).Here,the approval of the Easement appears reasonableand in the public interest.Thetermsand conditionsEasement should sufficiently indemnify HELCO,51d. at 7.05—02285of theits customers,and
the public from any loss or damage to property or injury or deathtopersonsoperation,associatedrepair,cable e’smaintenance,fiberopticThe nominal fee of 1.00 in consideration for theEasement is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of s:carried(1)initsHELCO’srateAnaehoomalubaseat 78.81 (2) HELCO’s facilities in the area are being provided access totelecommunications services through Oceanic Cable’scable system8 and(3)fiber opticOceanic Cable provides the public in thearea with cable television service through the cable ydescriptionoutsidefenced) area”9 on the property,(i.e.,ofoftheEasementHELCO’ssecurethe grant of the Easementshould not interfere with HELCO’s ability to service the comandOceanic Cable have been using the Easement area since the l990s,theredoes“notappearto havebeenanyincidentsthathaveadversely affected HELCO’s ability to provide electric service toits customers in the area.”’ However,like the Consumer Advocate,concerned that HELCO did not request6 Application; Exhibit I at 2. the commission isapproval ofthe EasementApplication at 3.8Id. at 2-3.9See HELCO’s response to CA-IR-3, filed on October 13, 2005.‘ SeeCA’s Statement of Position at 4.05—02286
ingunderonHELCO’sacknowledges,did erTelcom’swhichtheagreementwithHawaiian Telcom.’2More importantly,the approval of the Easement appearsto be in the public interest,since the Easement is necessary toenable Oceanic Cable to continue maintaining its existing fiberopticcablefacilitiessystem on HELCO’s property,withaccesstowhich provides HELCO’stelecommunicationsservicesintheSouth Kohala and North Kona areas and cable television servicesto Oceanic Cable’s subscribers in the area.Nevertheless, HELCOis cautioned that the commission expects HELCOand all ofitsaffiliated entities to adhere to the requirements of HRS § 269-19in all similar applicable future matters,or obtain a commissionruling that the provision is not applicable to a given omalu Substation property in Waikoloa to Oceanic c.,Docket No.7150,Decision and Order No.11490,filed onFebruary 21, 1992.‘2As HELCO explains, HELCO and Hawaiian Telcom’s fiber opticcables are in separate conduits; however, both conduits are ownedby Hawaiian Telcom and are in the same trench located in theEasement area described in the Application.See HELCO’sresponses to CA-IR-l and CA-IR-2, filed on October 13, 2005.05—02287
eoveritsAnaehoomalu Substation property in Waikoloa to Oceanic Cableforapproved as of the date of this Decision and Order.’3III.OrdersTHE COMMISSION ORDERS:1.HELCO’sgrantofaperpetualeasementthe installation of underground fiber optic cable,as describedin the Application, is approved, effective as of the date of thisDecision and Order.2.This docket is closed, unless ordered otherwise bythe commission.13As an approval, nunc pro tunc, would not be appropriate inthis case, this approval is effective only as of the date active effect.See, e.g., In re Acceris CommunicationsCorp., Docket No. 04-0347, Decision and Order No. 21648, filedon February 15,2005;In re Sea Link of Hawaii,Inc.,Docket No. 02-0212, Decision and Order No. 21085, filed onJune 25, 2004.05—02288
DONE at Honolulu, Hawaii22 2006PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONOF THE STATE OF HAWAIIByCarlito P. Caliboso, ChalirmanBy(EXCUSED)Wayne H. Kimura, CommissionerBy flJan E. Kawelo, CommissionerAPPROVED AS TO FORM:77 J }SookKimCommission Counselm-0228.eh05—02289
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of theforegoing Decision and Order No.parties,22553upon the followingby causing a copy hereof to be mailed, postage prepaid,and properly addressed to each such party.JOHN E. COLEEXECUTIVE DIRECTORDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRSDIVISION OF CONSUMER ADVOCACYP. 0. Box 541Honolulu, HI96809H. W. LEEPRES IDENTHAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.1200 Kilauea AvenueHilo, HI96721—1027WARRENDEAN K. MATSUTJRADIRECTORREGULATORY AFFAIRSHAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.P.O. Box 2750Honolulu, HI96840—0001J &tu,) , 11’ Karen Hig J’iiDATED:JUN 222006
Time Warner Cable of Hawaii, for The Purpose of Installing) underground Fiber Optic Cable. DECISION AND ORDER By this Decision and Order, the commission approves HAWAII ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY, INC.'s ("HELCO") grant of a perpetual easement to Time Warner Entertainment Company, dla Oceanic Time Warner Cable of Hawaii ("Oceanic Cable") over
