Connecticut Defends Limited Interpretation of 'for Any Purpose' in Muni Broadband Case

provide muni broadband, the state said. PURA was “searching for a reasoned construction of the statute that comports with state and federal law,” Attorney General George Jepsen (D) said in a Friday brief at the Connecticut Superior Court. The court should dismiss appeals by the Connecticut Consumer Counsel and municipalities (see 1811010036), he said. PURA holds broad jurisdiction over utility poles and attachments; the agency issued its interpretation after all parties had a chance to submit comments and have oral argument, the AG said. "Applying the language of the amended statute, PURA appropriately concluded that the statute should be read in concert with procompetitive frameworks established in state and federal law," and PURA’s construction is consistent with the state’s policy of promoting competition, Jepsen said. “The 2013 amendment to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-233 modified the first sentence by replacing the words ‘for municipal and state signal wires’ with the words ‘for any purpose.’ It notably, however, left the last sentence intact, namely the requirement that the gain described in the first two sentences ‘shall be reserved for use by the town, city, borough, fire district or the Department of Transportation.’ Offering broadband services to the public is not ‘use by the town.’” Reclassification of broadband from U.S. Telecom Act Title II to an information service isn't relevant because Connecticut has pole-attachment authority and PURA based its decision on those rules, the AG said.