Opinion ID: 76304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Georgia Power's Additional Evidence of the Average Number of Attachers

Text: 37 Georgia Power also complains that FCC did not allow it to supplement the record to provide the information that would have substantiated its pole attachment rate. After Teleport filed its reply brief, Georgia Power moved the Cable Services Bureau to allow it to file additional exhibits and information related to its rate calculations. The Cable Services Bureau denied Georgia Power's motion. See Order Denying Motion: Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc. v. Ga. Power Co., 16 F.C.C.R. 11,831 (2001) ( Order Denying Motion ). In its application for review before the full Commission, Georgia Power argued that, in light of the Bureau's reliance on the Recon Order, it should have been permitted to supplement the record with additional information related to the Recon Order. FCC rejected this argument, reasoning that Georgia Power did not attempt to submit appropriate additional materials after the Bureau denied its initial motion. See Final Order 17 F.C.C.R. at 19,864, ¶ 13. Georgia Power now argues that, in light of the central role the Recon Order 's presumptive number of attachers has played in this dispute, it was arbitrary and capricious for FCC not to allow Georgia Power to supplement the record with information germane to the Recon Order. 38 FCC resolves pole attachment disputes according to a three-part pleading cycle. 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1404, 1.1407. In general, no other filings and no motions other than for extension of time will be considered unless authorized by the Commission. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1407(a). Commission rules do allow for additional filings, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(a) (The Commission may also request that one or more of the parties make additional filings or provide additional information.), but the rules are permissive, not mandatory. FCC may also, in its discretion, order an evidentiary hearing, see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1411, but again, that rule is permissive, not mandatory. 39 In light of this well-established procedure, Georgia Power's arguments regarding its supplemental submissions are without merit. First, FCC is entitled to rely upon its standard three-part pleading mechanism for resolving pole attachment disputes. With its initial motion to file supplemental evidence, Georgia Power sought to add an additional round of pleadings to the Teleport dispute. FCC determined that there were no new issues raised in Teleport's reply that were relevant to resolving the dispute. See Final Order, 17 F.C.C.R. at 19,867-68, ¶ 22; see also Teleport, 16 F.C.C.R. at 20,240, ¶ 6. Georgia Power was given a full and fair opportunity to respond in its first pleading, meaning that it had a complete opportunity to present its case, and there was nothing arbitrary or capricious in the denial of its motion. 40 Moreover, the supplemental materials Georgia Power sought to file after the close of the three-part pleading cycle were primarily related to Georgia Power's continuing effort to use a replacement cost methodology rather than FCC's historical cost method. Nothing in those materials filled the holes in Georgia Power's original filings in support of its rate, especially Georgia Power's failure to provide the methodology and data underlying its average number of attachers. See supra Part II.A. Given that the information in Georgia Power's supplemental materials was largely beside the point, it is not surprising that FCC refused to deviate from its established procedures. Georgia Power could have attempted to supplement the record with information that was actually relevant to properly calculating the attachment rate, but it never attempted to submit appropriate material. As FCC correctly recognized, [Georgia Power] chose not to file supplemental material in response to the Bureau's [ Order Denying Motion ]. Final Order, 17 F.C.C.R. 19,864, ¶ 13. 41 We see nothing arbitrary or capricious in FCC's decision not to order or authorize Georgia Power to submit additional information regarding the average number of attaching entities. At every stage of this dispute, Georgia Power has attempted to substitute its own preferred methodology for fixing pole attachments rates for that of FCC. None of its submissions — including the supplemental materials the Cable Services Bureau rejected — would have supplied FCC with the information it needed to calculate the pole attachment rate in accordance with FCC's governing regulations. In light of Georgia Power's position, FCC's decision to estimate the average number of attachers in light of the Recon Order and pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1409(a) was wholly reasonable. We therefore reject Georgia Power's argument. 42