********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                      Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554
TCI Cablevision of Montana, Inc.             )
d/b/a AT&T Cable Services                    )
          Complainant,                  )
                                   )    File No. PA 00-002
          v.                       )
                                   )
Energy Northwest, Inc.                       )
          Respondent.                   )
                             ORDER
       Adopted:   August 16, 2000               Released:  August 18, 2000
By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau:
     1.   On April 14, 2000, TCI Cablevision of Montana, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Cable Services
("Complainant") filed a pole attachment complaint ("Complaint") against Energy Northwest, Inc. ("Respondent")
pursuant to Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Pole Attachment Act") and Subpart
J of the Commission's Rules.  On May 24, 2000, Respondent filed its Response, which included a request that the
Complaint be dismissed because the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") lacks jurisdiction over
the Respondent. On June 13, 2000, Complainant filed its Reply.
     2.   Pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to regulate
attachments to poles owned or controlled by a utility that is cooperatively organized. The Senate Report on the
Pole Attachment Act acknowledged that "pole rates charged by . . . cooperative utilities are already subject to a
decision making process based upon constituent needs . . . These rates presumably reflect what . . . managers of
customer-owned cooperatives regard as an equitable distribution of pole costs between utilities and cable television
systems."  Respondent states that, in November 1998, Flathead Electric Cooperative acquired an investor owned
utility's service area that included the cities of Columbia Falls, Whitefish and Kalispell, Montana.  Because,
pursuant to Montana law, these areas were too populated to be served directly by Flathead Electric Cooperative,
Flathead Electric Cooperative created a wholly-owned subsidiary, Energy Northwest, Inc. (the Respondent), to
service these areas.  Respondent is incorporated as a for profit corporation under Montana law, because it is
ineligible to incorporate as a rural electric cooperative due to the size of its service areas.  However, Respondent's
articles of incorporation and bylaws specifically require Respondent to operate on a non-profit, patronage basis
for the mutual benefit of its patrons, the users of its services.  Respondent's patrons are represented on the board
of trustees of Flathead Electric Cooperative; its profits, if any, are allocated to its patrons; its directors are
democratically elected by its patrons; and Respondent is classified as a cooperative by the Internal Revenue
Service.
     3.   Complainant argues for a narrow interpretation of the Pole Attachment Act's term "cooperatively
organized" that would exclude Respondent from exemption from our pole attachment regulations.  Complainant
argues that Respondent's legal structure, while "cooperative like," does not satisfy the phrase "cooperatively
organized" as it is used in the Pole Attachment Act.  We disagree.  The record shows that Respondent's
classification as a for profit corporation under Montana laws creates little, if any, restriction on Respondent's
ability to operate as a cooperative in providing service to its patrons.  We find that Respondent is "cooperatively
organized" as the term is used in the Pole Attachment Act. Therefore, we find that the Commission is without
jurisdiction to resolve the Complaint and it will be dismissed.
     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.321, 1.1402 and 1.1406 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.321, 1.1402 and 1.1406, that the referenced complaint IS DISMISSED, and
the proceeding IS TERMINATED.
                             FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                             William H. Johnson
                             Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau