Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
RCN Telecom Services of          )
Philadelphia, Inc.               )    File No. PA 01-003
Complainant,                     )
                                )
v.                               )
                                )
PECO Energy Company and Exelon   )
Infrastructure Services, Inc.,   )
Respondent

                          PHASE I ORDER

   Adopted:  December 17, 2002          Released:  December 18, 
2002                                    

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

     1.   In  this   Order   we  grant   in  part   a   complaint 
("Complaint")  filed with the  Federal Communications  Commission 
("Commission")  by  RCN Telecom  Services of  Philadelphia,  Inc. 
("RCN")  against PECO  Energy Company  and Exelon  Infrastructure 
Services, Inc. (together "PECO"), pursuant to Section  224 of the 
Communications Act  of 1934, as amended ("Pole Attachment  Act")1 
and Subpart J of Part 1 of the Commission's  rules.2   On June 1, 
2001,  the Cable Services  Bureau issued an  Order, DA  01-1339,3 
allowing  RCN to amend its  original complaint.  The filing  date 
of  the amended complaint  is May  4, 2001.  Upon  review of  the 
filings  in this matter,  we have  determined that it  is in  the 
interest  of  justice  to bifurcate  the  issues  concerning  the 
annual  pole attachment rate from  the make-ready issues4  raised 
by RCN. Therefore, in this Order, we grant  the Complaint in part 
and  calculate   a  maximum  just  and  reasonable  annual   pole 
attachment rate and reserve resolution of the make-ready issues.

     2.   Pursuant to the Pole Attachment Act, the Commission has 
general  authority to regulate the  rates, terms, and  conditions 
for  attachments by  a  cable television  system or  provider  of 
telecommunications  service to a pole,  duct, conduit, or  right-
of-way  owned  or controlled  by  a  utility, except  where  such 
matters are regulated by a State.5  The  Commission shall provide 
that such  rates, terms and conditions are just and  reasonable.6  
The  Commission is  authorized to adopt  procedures necessary  to 
hear and to resolve complaints concerning such  rates, terms, and 
conditions.7    Pursuant  to   this  statutory   authority,   the 
Commission  has  developed  a formula  methodology  to  determine 
maximum  allowable  pole attachment  rates  to ensure  that  such 
rates  are just and reasonable.8  A  utility may not charge  more 
than  the maximum amount permitted  by the formulas developed  by 
the Commission.  

     3.   The formula developed to resolve complaints  concerning 
rates  for attachments  by cable systems  is known  as the  Cable 
Formula.9   The Telecommunications  Act of  1996 ("1996  Act"),10 
expanded the  scope of Section 224 by applying the Cable  Formula 
to  rates   for  pole  attachments  made  by   telecommunications 
carriers11 in  addition to cable systems,12 until the  Commission 
developed  a separate formula13 for telecommunications  carriers.  
The  Commission adopted  a Telecommunications  Formula  ("Telecom 
Formula"), which became effective February 8,  2001.14 It applies 
to  all attachments by telecommunications  carriers and is to  be 
phased in  at equal annual increments over a five-year  period.15 
The Commission's two formulas differ in only  one respect, namely 
their  methodologies for determining  the proportion of  unusable 
space  on a  pole that is  attributable to  the attachment.   The 
Cable  Formula attributes unusable space  to an attachment  based 
on the portion of usable space occupied  by the attachment, while 
the   Telecom   Formula   attributes   unusable    space   to   a 
telecommunications  attachment  based  on  the  total  number  of 
attaching entities.16  

     4.   The present case concerns  RCN's attachments to  PECO's 
poles  for telecommunications  services.  As  an initial  matter, 
PECO   argues  that  RCN   is  neither  a   cable  operator   nor 
telecommunications  services  provider  and is  not  entitled  to 
coverage  under the Pole  Attachment Act.  RCN  responds that  it 
has cable  franchises for all the territories within which it  is 
attached  to PECO's poles and  that its offers bundled  services, 
including  telecommunications and  broadband video  services,  as 
well  as  high-speed  Internet access  to  its  customers.   PECO 
provides  no evidence to  dispute RCN's statements  that RCN  has 
entered  into   cable  franchise  agreements  with  all  of   the 
communities  in   which  RCN  has  attached,  or  has   requested 
attachment,  to PECO's  poles.  As a  franchised cable  operator, 
RCN  is a  proper complainant  in this  proceeding.17  PECO  also 
asserts  that the Commission does  not have jurisdiction in  this 
matter  because  RCN  provides  its   customers  with  high-speed 
Internet access.  As the Supreme Court concluded  in NCTA v. Gulf 
Power   Co.18  the   Commission  does   have  jurisdiction   over 
attachments   that   are   used  to   provide   Internet   access 
simultaneously with cable or telecommunications  service, as such 
commingled services  are within the ambit of the Pole  Attachment 
Act.

     5.   We also  reject PECO's  argument that  because RCN  has 
entered  into an agreement  with PECO, it  cannot complain  about 
the  terms of the agreement to  the Commission.  An attacher  may 
file a complaint pursuant to the Pole  Attachment Act challenging 
the  terms of an  agreement after the  contractual agreement  has 
been  executed.19   Indeed,  a  pole  attachment  agreement  that 
includes  a clause waiving statutory  rights to file a  complaint 
with  the Commission  is per se  unreasonable.20  Precluding  RCN 
from challenging the pole attachment fee after  entering into the 
contract would be tantamount to requiring RCN  to waive its right 
to file a complaint with the Commission.   The Commission and the 
Cable  Services Bureau have repeatedly  affirmed the policy  that 
an  attacher cannot  be forced  to waive  its  right to  federal, 
state,   or   local  regulatory   relief   as  a   condition   of 
attachment.21

     6.   As a final threshold  issue, we reject PECO's  argument 
that it  is entitled to charge a market rate for its  attachments 
because our existing formula does not  provide just compensation.  
In  Alabama Cable  v. Alabama  Power22  the Commission  concluded 
that  the Commission's  pole attachment  formulas, together  with 
the  payment of  make-ready expenses,  provide compensation  that 
exceeds  just  compensation.   In affirming  this  decision,  the 
Eleventh  Circuit Court  of Appeals concluded  that absent  proof 
that  each  pole is  at  full  capacity and  evidence  of  either 
another  available buyer waiting  to use the  space or the  power 
company's  ability to put the space  to a higher-valued use  with 
its  own  operations (evidence  lacking here),  the  Commission's 
formula  "(which  provides  for much  more  than  marginal  cost) 
necessarily provides just compensation."23

     7.   We turn  now to  the appropriate  pole attachment  rate 
here.  Because  the Complaint was filed on May 4, 2001, we  apply 
the Cable Formula plus one fifth of  the differential between the 
Cable  Formula rate  and the  fully  implemented Telecom  Formula 
rate  to calculate the maximum  rate.24  Regarding the number  of 
attaching  entities,  we  follow  the  Commission's  guidance  in 
Teleport  v. Georgia  Power,25 for the  period from  May 4,  2001 
through  July  30, 2001,  and  the  presumptions adopted  by  the 
Commission in  the Consolidated Order26 beginning July 31,  2001.  
In Teleport  v. Georgia Power, the Commission concluded that  the 
presumptions  of three  or five attaching  entities, proposed  by 
the  complainant, were  reasonable for  the period  prior to  the 
effective  date of the Consolidated  Order.   Unlike Teleport  v. 
Georgia  Power, however, in this  case, RCN proffered an  average 
number  of attachers  of three  and one-half.27   PECO failed  to 
provide  any  support  for  its  alternative  proposal  of  three 
attaching  entities28 and  thus,  we rely  on RCN's  proposal  of 
three and  one-half attachers, in the absence of any evidence  by 
PECO in support of a different average  number.29  Therefore, for 
the  period May 4,  2001 through July 30,  2001 the period  after 
the  Complaint  was  filed  but before  the  publication  of  the 
Consolidated   Order  in  the  Federal   Register,  we  use   the 
presumption  of  three and  one-half  attaching entities  in  our 
calculation.   For the period beginning  July 31, 2001 we  revert 
to the presumptions of three for non-urbanized  (less than 50,000 
population)  areas  and  five for  urbanized  (more  than  50,000 
population) areas as adopted in the  Consolidated Order.  Neither 
party  produced the type  or extent of  evidence required by  the 
Consolidated Order  to overcome these presumptions for this  time 
period,  such as  a statistically  valid survey  or actual  data.  
Because  the  record does  not  reflect the  specific  geographic 
areas  involved, we have calculated  rates for both three,  three 
and  one-half, and five attaching  entities and the rates  should 
be  applied in  the appropriate  areas for  the appropriate  time 
periods.

     8.   In calculating  PECO's maximum rate,  we calculate  the 
net cost  of a bare pole by subtracting accumulated  depreciation 
and  net deferred  operating  income taxes  from the  gross  pole 
investment in order to arrive at the net  pole investment.  As we 
recently  reiterated in NSCTA  v. Nevada Bell,  30 when  applying 
the pole  attachment formula to electric utilities, we  generally 
prorate   the  pole  accumulated   depreciation  using   publicly 
available  information about the plant accumulated  depreciation.  
We  divide   the  gross  pole  investment  by  the  gross   plant 
investment  and multiply  that figure  by  the plant  accumulated 
depreciation to  determine what portion of the plant  accumulated 
depreciation is  reasonably related to gross pole  investment."31  
That  is precisely the  methodology that we  used in  calculating 
PECO's  pole  attachment rate.32   In  its rate  calculation,  by 
contrast,  PECO calculated its  pole accumulated depreciation  by 
subtracting  its  depreciable  plant base  from  its  gross  pole 
investment.    PECO offers no explanation  why we should  deviate 
from our standard methodology nor does PECO  provide any analysis 
in  support of its deviation.  Based  on our review, we  conclude 
that  PECO's proposed  methodology does not  provide an  accurate 
assessment of the pole accumulated depreciation  and we therefore 
reject it.

     9.   We calculate  the maximum pole  attachment rates  using 
data from PECO's 1999 FERC Form 1.33   Using this information and 
applying  the  Cable Formula  we  calculate  a maximum  just  and 
reasonable  annual cable  rate of  $6.79  per pole  attachment.34  
Using the  same information and applying the Telecom Formula  for 
telecommunications attachments, we calculate a  fully implemented 
maximum   just  and   reasonable  annual  rate   of  $10.26   for 
attachments  in areas with a  presumptive average number of  five 
attachers;35  a  fully implemented  maximum just  and  reasonable 
annual   rate  of  $13.62  for   attachments  in  areas  with   a 
presumptive  average number  of three  and one-half  attachers;36 
and a  fully implemented maximum just and reasonable annual  rate 
of  $15.48 for attachments  in areas with  a presumptive  average 
number of  three attachers.37  For areas with an average of  five 
attachers,  the  first year  rate is  $7.48;  for areas  with  an 
average of  three and one-half attachers, the first year rate  is 
$8.16;  for areas with an average  of three attachers, the  first 
year  rate is  $8.53.  Consequently,  we  find that  Respondent's 
actual   pole  attachment  rate  of   $47.25  is  not  just   and 
reasonable.

     10.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   
0.111, 0.311  and  1.1401-1.1418, that the relief requested  in 
the Complaint IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

     11.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   0.111, 
0.311 and 1.1410, that the annual pole  attachment rate of $47.25 
IS UNREASONABLE and IS TERMINATED, effective upon  the release of 
this Order.

     12.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   0.111, 
0.311  and 1.1410,  that the  annual respective  rates of  $7.48, 
$8.16 and $8.53 for each pole attachment  ARE SUBSTITUTED for the 
rate of $47.25, effective upon the release of this Order.

     13.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1410 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   0.111, 
0.311  and 1.1410, that Respondent  SHALL REFUND to  Complainant, 
within  thirty  (30) days  of the  release  of this  Order,  that 
portion  of the  amount paid in  excess of  the respective  rates 
listed  above, for the  period from May 4,  2001 to the  present, 
plus interest to the date of refund.

     14.  IT IS  FURTHER  ORDERED, pursuant  to  Sections  0.111, 
0.311 and  1.1401-1.1418 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.   
0.111,  0.311   and  1.1401-1.1418,  that  PECO  and  RCN   SHALL 
NEGOTIATE  IN GOOD FAITH, maximum  just and reasonable rates  for 
pole  attachments for  charges based  on changes  in PECO's  FERC 
Form 1, in accordance with the Commission's rules.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 



                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau                          Attachment A
            Pole Attachment Formulas and Calculations

Maximum Rate =   Space  Occupied by Attachment   X      Net  Cost 
of     X    Carrying
                                              Total Usable Space                     
Bare Pole            Charge Rate

                                                                 
Maximum Rate
Space Occupied by              (A)                             1
Attachment
Total Usable Space             (B)                          13.5
Net Cost of a Bare             (C)                        $40.84
Pole
Carrying Charge Rate           (D)                        2.2442
Maximum Rate per          (A\B) x C x D                    $6.79
Pole




Net Cost of a Bare Pole
(1)  Gross Pole Investment                          $311,042,370
(2)  Depreciation Reserve (Poles)                   $243,965,632
(3)  Net Deferred Operating Income Taxes          $2,238,042,911
(Electric Plant)
(4)  Gross Plant Investment (Electric)             $14,626,785,-
                                                             648
(5)  Net Deferred Operating Income Taxes             $47,592,560
(Poles) 
             ((L(1)/L(4) x L(3))
(6)  Net Investment (Poles) (L(1)-L(2)-L(5))         $19,484,178
(7)  Net Investment (Bare Pole) (L(6) x .85 )        $16,561,551
(8)  Number of Poles                                     405,570
(9)  Net Cost of a Bare Pole (L(7)/L(8))                  $40.84
Carrying Charge Rate
(1)  Administrative Charge                                0.3634
(2)  Maintenance Charge                                   1.0683
(3)  Depreciation Charge                                  0.3592
(4)  Taxes                                                0.3410
(5)  Return on Investment                                 0.1123
(6) Total Carrying Charge                                 2.2442
(L(1)+L(2)+L(3)+L(4)+L(5))
          Administrative Charge
(1)  Total G&A Expenses                             $332,918,874
(2)  Gross Plant Investment                      $14,626,785,648
(3) Depreciation Reserve (Plant)                 $11,472,498,140
(4) Accumulated Deferred Taxes (Plant)            $2,238,042,911
(5) Net Investment (Plant)                          $916,244,597
(6) Administrative Charge (L(1)/L(5))                     0.3634
           Maintenance Charge
(1)  Maintenance Expense                             $71,410,003
(2)  Gross Investment (364, 365, 369)             $1,067,045,574
(3) Depreciation Reserve (364, 365, 369)            $836,935,651
(4) Accumulated Deferred Taxes (364, 365,           $163,268,529
369)
(5) Net Investment (364, 365, 369)                   $66,841,394
(6)  Maintenance Charge (L(1)/L(5))                       1.0683
           Depreciation Charge
(1)  Depreciation Rate                                    0.0225
(2)  Gross Pole Investment                          $311,042,370
(3) Depreciation Reserve (Pole)                     $243,965,632
(4) Accumulated Deferred Taxes (Pole)                $47,592,560
(5)  Net Investment (Poles)                          $19,484,178
(6)  Depreciation Charge (L(1) x                          0.3592
(L(2)/L(5))

                  Taxes
(1)  Total Current and Deferred Taxes               $639,281,736
(2)  Net Plant Investment                         $1,874,780,313
(3)  Taxes (L(1)/L(2))                                    0.3410
          Return on Investment
Authorized by State Regulatory Commission                 0.1123

                          Attachment B
            Pole Attachment Formulas and Calculations


                                                                 
Maximum Rate
Space Occupied by              (A)                             1
Attachment
Total Unusable Space           (B)                          24.0
Pole Height                    (C)                          37.5
Number of Attaching            (D)                           5.0
Entities                       (E)                       $40.84*
Net Cost of a Bare             (F)                       2.2442*
Pole
Carrying Charge Rate
                                
Maximum Rate per           [(A + 2/3 x                    $10.26
Pole                    (B/D))/C] x E x F
$10.26 - $6.79 = $3.47/5 = $0.69 + $6.79 = $7.48 as of 2/8/01

*See Attachment A calculation

Maximum Rate
Space Occupied by              (A)                             1
Attachment
Total Unusable Space           (B)                          24.0
Pole Height                    (C)                          37.5
Number of Attaching            (D)                           3.0
Entities                       (E)                       $40.84*
Net Cost of a Bare             (F)                       2.2442*
Pole
Carrying Charge Rate
                                
Maximum Rate per           [(A + 2/3 x                    $15.48
Pole                    (B/D))/C] x E x F

$15.48 - $6.79 = $8.69/5 = $1.74 + $6.79 = $8.53 as of 2/8/01

*See Attachment A calculation
Maximum Rate
Space Occupied by              (A)                             1
Attachment
Total Unusable Space           (B)                          24.0
Pole Height                    (C)                          37.5
Number of Attaching            (D)                           3.5
Entities                       (E)                       $40.84*
Net Cost of a Bare             (F)                       2.2442*
Pole
Carrying Charge Rate
                                
Maximum Rate per           [(A + 2/3 x                    $13.62
Pole                    (B/D))/C] x E x F

$13.62 - $6.79 = $6.83/5 = $1.37 + $6.79 = $8.16 as of 2/8/01

*See Attachment A calculation

_________________________

1 47 U.S.C. 224.
2 47 C.F.R. 1.1401-1.1418.
3 RCN  Telecom  Services of  Philadelphia,  Inc. v.  PECO  Energy 
Company and Excelon Infrastructure Services, Inc., DA 01-1339, 16 
FCC Rcd 11857 (2001).   Effective March 25, 2002, the  Commission 
transferred  responsibility  for   resolving  cable   programming 
services tier  rate  complaints from  the former  Cable  Services 
Bureau to the Enforcement Bureau.  See Establishment of the Media 
Bureau, the  Wireline  Competition Bureau  and the  Consumer  and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reorganization of the  International 
Bureau and Other  Organizational Changes, FCC  02-10, 17 FCC  Rcd 
4672 (2002).
4 "Make-ready" generally refers  to the modification of poles  or 
lines or  the installation  of guys  and  anchors to  accommodate 
additional facilities.
5 47 U.S.C.   224 (b) and  (c).  Pennsylvania has not  certified 
that  it   regulates  rates,   terms  and   conditions  of   pole 
attachments. See Public Notice, "States That Have Certified  That 
They Regulate Pole Attachments," 7 FCC Rcd 1498 (1992).

6 47 U.S.C. 224 (b) (1).
7 47 U.S.C.  224 (b) (1).  
8 See Adoption  of Rules for the  Regulation of Cable  Television 
Pole Attachments,  First  Report and  Order,  68 F.C.C.  2d  1585 
(1978);  Second  Report  and  Order,  72  F.C.C.  2d  59  (1979); 
Memorandum and Order, 77 F.C.C. 2d 187 (1980), aff'd, Monongahela 
Power Co. v. FCC,  655 F.2d 1254  (D.C. Cir. 1985) (per  curiam); 
and Amendment of Rules  and Policies Governing the Attachment  of 
Cable Television  Hardware  to  Utility  Poles, 2  FCC  Rcd  4387 
(1987).   See also,  Implementation  of  Section  703(e)  of  the 
Telecommunications Act  of  1996,  13  FCC Rcd  6777  (1998)  and 
Amendment of Rules  and Policies Governing  Pole Attachments,  15 
FCC Rcd 6453 (2000), pet. for recon. denied in part, Amendment of 
Commission's Rules  and Policies Governing  Pole Attachments,  CS 
Docket  No.  97-98;  Implementation  of  Section  703(e)  of  the 
Telecommunications Act  of 1996,  FCC 01-170,  16  FCC Rcd  12103 
(2001), appeal pending sub  nom. Southern Company Services,  Inc. 
et al. v. FCC, Case No. 01-1326 (D.C. Cir., filed July 26, 2001).
9 47 C.F.R. 1.1409 (e) (1).
10 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
11 47 U.S.C.  153 (44).
12 47 U.S.C.  153 (8); 47 U.S.C.  602 (5).
13 See Implementation of Section 703(e) of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996, 13 FCC Rcd 6777 at  116-130 (1998).
14 See  47 U.S.C.   224 (d)  (3) and  47 U.S.C.   224 (e)  (4); 
Implementation of Section 703  (e) of the Telecommunications  Act 
of 1996, 13 FCC Rcd 6777 at  102 (1998).
15 See  Amendment of  Commission's Rules  and Policies  Governing 
Pole Attachments, CS Docket No. 97-98; Implementation of  Section 
703(e) of the Telecommunications Act  of 1996, CS Docket No.  97-
151, FCC 01-170, 16 FCC Rcd 12103 at  2 (2001).
16 Id. at  53-56.
17 See 47 USC  224 (a) (4).  ("The term `pole  attachment' means 
any attachment  by  a  cable  television system  or  provider  of 
telecommunications service to a pole, duct, conduit, or  right-of 
way owned or controlled by  a utility.")  Because we find RCN  to 
be a cable television system, we do not address the  issue raised 
by PECO  concerning RCN's  previous status  as  a certified  open 
video system provider.
18 534 U.S. 327, 338-339 (2002).
19 See  47 C.F.R.   1.1404 (d)  (requiring that  a complaint  be 
accompanied by a copy of any existing pole attachment agreement).  
See also S. Rep. No. 95-580, at 16 (1977), 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 109, 
124   (anticipating    Commission    jurisdiction    where    the 
communications space is already occupied by the cable  television 
system.)
20 See e.g., Letter from Meredith J. Jones, Chief, Cable Services 
Bureau to Danny E. Adams, Esq., Kelley Drye & Warren LLP,  12 FCC 
Rcd 942 (CSB 1997).
21 See Adoption of Rules  for the Regulation of Cable  Television 
Pole Attachments, First Report and Order, 68 F.C.C. 2d 1585  at  
16   (1978);   Implementation   of   Section   703(e)   of    the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13  FCC Rcd 6777, 6790 and n.  90 
(1998); Cavalier Telephone,  LLC v. Virginia  Electric and  Power 
Company, 15 FCC Rcd 9563 (CSB 2000).  
22  Alabama  Cable  Telecommunications  Association,  et  al.  v. 
Alabama Power  Company, 16  FCC  Rcd 12209  at   32-61  (2001), 
affirmed Alabama Power  Company v. FCC,  Case No. 00-14763  (11th 
Cir., November 14, 2002).
23 Alabama Power  Company v. FCC, Case  No. 00-14763 (11th  Cir., 
November 14, 2002).
24 See 47 U.S.C.  224 (e) (4); Implementation of  Section 703(e) 
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 13 FCC Rcd 6777 (1998).
25  Teleport  Communications  Atlanta,  Inc.  v.  Georgia   Power 
Company, FCC 02-270 (released: October 8, 2002).
26 Amendment of  Rules and Policies  Governing Pole  Attachments, 
FCC 01-170, 16 FCC  Rcd 12103 (2001)  ), appeal pending sub  nom. 
Southern Company Services, Inc. et  al. v. FCC, Case No.  01-1326 
(D.C. Cir., filed July 26, 2001).
27 Statement of Jonathan Troy Stinson, RCN's Reply at Exhibit C.
28 PECO's Response to Amended  Complaint at p. 59 ("PECO has  not 
had the opportunity to develop a statistically valid survey").  
29 47 C.F.R.  1.1409 (a)  ("Where one of the parties has  failed 
to provide information required to be provided by these  rules or 
requested by the  Commission, or where  costs, values or  amounts 
are disputed, the Commission  may estimate such costs, values  or 
amounts it  considers reasonable, or  may decide  adversely to  a 
party who  has failed to  supply requested  information which  is 
readily available to it, or both.").
30 In the Matter of Nevada State Cable Television  Association v. 
Nevada Bell, 17 FCC Rcd 15534 at  13 (EB 2002).
31 Id. at  13.
32 In  cases  such  as  this, where  the  utility  provides  both 
electric and other services, we use the total electric  plant for 
our calculations, except for  the tax element.  See Amendment  of 
Rules and Policies Governing  the Attachment of Cable  Television 
Hardware to Utility Poles, 2 FCC Rcd 4387 at n. *** (1987).
33  While PECO  has  requested  that  certain  of  its  financial 
information be kept  confidential, we  do not need  to reach  the 
issue of confidentiality because  we use only publicly  available 
information to calculate PECO's maximum rate.
34 Our calculations are set forth in Attachment A to this Order.
35 Our calculations are set forth in Attachment B to this Order.
36 Our calculations are set forth in Attachment B to this Order.
37 Our calculations are set forth in Attachment B to this Order.