Opinion ID: 2600556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aerial Supporting Structures

Text: ¶ 5 Qwest argues the term aerial supporting structures is not limited to poles or pole-like structures, but instead includes strand, down-guys, cross-arms, and any other attachment hardware used to keep aerial cable supported. [2] Qwest asserts its definition is supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, by the legislative history of the statute, and by the fact that the disputed term is a term of art in the telecommunications industry. ¶ 6 Kent contends that the term aerial supporting structures means telephone poles, cable television poles, power transmission and power distribution poles, H-frames, glu-lams, and towers. [3] Kent argues the legislature could not have intended the term to include strand or other attachment hardware because a service provider always owns its cable, strand, and hardware even if it does not own the poles to which they are attached. Kent points out that, under Qwest's definition, the telecommunications company would always have an ownership share in the aerial supporting structures. Thus, the statute's explicit requirement that a service provider have an ownership share in the aerial supporting structures would be superfluous. Finally, Kent asserts RCW 35.99.060(3)(b) is a narrow exception to the general rule that telecommunications companies should bear the cost of relocation. Under Qwest's definition, the articulated exception of reimbursement would swallow the nonreimbursement rule because the city would always be required to reimburse the service provider for an aerial to underground relocation. ¶ 7 RCW 35.99.060(3)(b) reads [w]here aerial to underground relocation of authorized facilities is required by the city or town under subsection (1) of this section, for service providers with an ownership share of the aerial supporting structures, the additional incremental cost of underground compared to aerial relocation, or as provided for in the approved tariff if less, will be paid by the city or town requiring relocation. (Emphasis added.) When interpreting statutory language, our goal is to fulfill the intent of the legislature. In ascertaining this intent, the language at issue must be evaluated in the context of the entire statute. We avoid interpretations that are strained, unlikely or unrealistic. Simpson Inv. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash.2d 139, 149, 3 P.3d 741 (2000). ¶ 8 Between the definition offered by Qwest and the definition offered by Kent, Kent's definition is more consistent with the overall language of the statute. Kent's definition gives the clause for service providers with an ownership share of the aerial supporting structures substance. For example, on the Pacific Highway relocation project at issue here, Qwest had cable attached to 100 out of 100 poles. However, Qwest owned only 21 of the 100 poles. Under Kent's proposed definition, Qwest would be entitled to reimbursement under the statute because Qwest had a 21% ownership share in the aerial supporting structures. If, on the other hand, Qwest had not owned any of the poles on the project, Qwest would not be entitled to any reimbursement under RCW 35.99.060(3)(b). Under Qwest's proposed definition of aerial supporting structures, Qwest would be entitled to reimbursement in both situations.