Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 1 of 19 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF PORTLAND, No. 18-72689 Petitioner, FCC No. 18-111 v. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; CITY OF ARCADIA; CITY OF BELLEVUE; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN; CITY OF BURIEN; CITY OF BURLINGAME; CITY OF CHICAGO; CITY OF CULVER CITY; CITY OF DUBUQUE; CITY OF GIG HARBOR; CITY OF KIRKLAND; CITY OF LAS VEGAS; CITY OF LINCOLN; CITY OF MONTEREY; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; CITY OF PIEDMONT; CITY OF PLANO; CITY OF SAN BRUNO; CITY OF SAN JACINTO; CITY OF SAN JOSE; CITY OF SANTA MONICA; CITY OF SHAFTER; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; HOWARD COUNTY; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; TOWN OF FAIRFAX; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 2 of 19 Intervenors. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER No. 19-70490 SERVICE CORPORATION; CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON FCC No. 18-111 ELECTRIC, LLC; DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION; ENTERGY CORPORATION; ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC; SOUTHERN COMPANY; TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY; XCEL ENERGY SERVICES INC., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, VERIZON; USTELECOM-THE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, Respondents-Intervenors. SPRINT CORPORATION, No. 19-70123 Petitioner, FCC No. FCC 18-133 v. 2 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 3 of 19 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF BOWIE, MARYLAND; CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON; CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA; CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MARIN, California; CITY OF ARCADIA, Calfornia; CULVER CITY, California; CITY OF BELLEVUE, California; CITY OF BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, Washington; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California; CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenors. 3 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 4 of 19 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., No. 19-70124 Petitioner, FCC No. 18-133 v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF ARCADIA, California; CITY OF BELLEVUE, California; CITY OF BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, Washington; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CULVER CITY, California; CITY OF NEW YORK; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California, Intervenors. 4 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 5 of 19 PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE No. 19-70125 COMPANY, INC., FCC No. FCC 18-133 Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF ARCADIA, California; CITY OF BELLEVUE, California; CITY OF BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, California; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CULVER CITY, California; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California; CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenors. 5 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 6 of 19 CITY OF SEATTLE, Washington; CITY No. 19-70136 OF TACOMA, Washington; KING COUNTY, Washington; LEAGUE OF FCC No. 18-133 OREGON CITIES; LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES; LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES AND TOWNS, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California; CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; CITY OF LACEY, Washington; CITY OF OLYMPIA, Washington; CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, California; CITY OF TUMWATER, Washington; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; COUNTY OF THURSTON, Washington; CITY OF ARCADIA, California; CITY OF BELLEVUE, Washington; CITY OF BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, California; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS 6 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 7 of 19 ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CULVER CITY, California; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California; CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenors. CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY No. 19-70144 OF ARCADIA, Calfornia; CITY OF BELLEVUE, Washington; CITY OF FCC No. FCC 18-133 BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, California; CULVER CITY, California; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona, 7 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 8 of 19 Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; SPRINT CORPORATION; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; CITY OF NEW YORK; WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION, Intervenors. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN No. 19-70145 FRANCISCO, FCC No. 18-133 Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. 8 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 9 of 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, No. 19-70146 Petitioner, FCC No. 18-133 v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF ARCADIA, California; CITY OF BELLEVUE, Washington; CITY OF BURIEN, Washington; CITY OF BURLINGAME, California; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, Washington; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, Washington; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CITY OF MONTEREY, California; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, California; CITY OF SHAFTER, California; CITY OF YUMA, Arizona; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, California; CULVER CITY, California; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, California; CITY OF NEW YORK, Intervenors. 9 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 10 of 19 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland No. 19-70147 Petitioner, FCC No. FCC 18-133 v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. AT&T SERVICES, INC., No. 19-70326 Petitioner, FCC Nos. 18-133 83-FR-51867 v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, California; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO; NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California; TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA; CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; 10 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 11 of 19 CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA; CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA; CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON; CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA; CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS; CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES; CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND; CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SUGARLAND, TEXAS; CITY OF TUMWATER, WASHINGTON; CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA; INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; LEAGUE OF NEBRASKA MUNICIPALITIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONA OFFICERS AND ADVISORS; RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CALIFORNIA; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA; TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WASHINGTON; CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON; CITY OF BURIEN, 11 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 12 of 19 WASHINGTON; CITY OF BURLINGAMER, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF CULVER CITY , CALIFORNIA; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON; CITY OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON; CITY OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON; CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF PIEDMONT, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON; CITY OF SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SHAFTER, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF YUMA, ARIZONA; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TOWN OF FAIRFAX, CALIFORNIA, Intervenors. AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER No. 19-70339 ASSOCIATION, FCC Nos. 18-133 Petitioner, 83-FR-51867 v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ 12 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 13 of 19 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO; NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA; CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA; TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND; CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA; CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA; CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS; CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND; CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SUGARLAND, TEXAS; LEAGUE OF NEBRASKA MUNICIPALITIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS; CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California; CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES; CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON; CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF TUMWATER, WASHINGTON; TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WASHINGTON; THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, California; COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA; CONTRA 13 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 14 of 19 COSTA COUNTY, California; TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND, Intervenors. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS; CITY OF No. 19-70341 ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN; COUNTY OF ANNE ARUNDEL, MARYLAND; FCC Nos. 18-133 CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA; CITY 83-FR-51867 OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS; CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS; CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA; CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND; CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; CITY OF GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND; HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; CITY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; CITY OF RYE, NEW YORK; CITY OF SCARSDALE, NEW YORK; CITY OF SEAT PLEASANT, MARYLAND; CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND; TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES; MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN; BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN; MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION; MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC 14 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 15 of 19 RIGHTS-OF-WAY, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO; NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA; CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA; TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND; CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA; CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA; CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS; CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND; CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SUGARLAND, TEXAS; LEAGUE OF NEBRASKA MUNICIPALITIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS; CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California; CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF 15 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 16 of 19 RANCHO PALOS VERDES; CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON; CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF TUMWATER, WASHINGTON; TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WASHINGTON; THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, California; COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND, Intervenors. CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON; CITY OF No. 19-70344 HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA; CITY OF BOWIE, MARYLAND, FCC Nos. 18-133 83-FR-51867 Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, ______________________________ 16 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 17 of 19 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO; NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA; CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA; TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND; CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA; CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA; CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS; CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND; CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SUGARLAND, TEXAS; LEAGUE OF NEBRASKA MUNICIPALITIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS; CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES; CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON; CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON; CITY OF TUMWATER, WASHINGTON; TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WASHINGTON; THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, California; COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA; CONTRA 17 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 18 of 19 COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND, Intervenors. Before: SCHROEDER, BYBEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing by American Electric Power Service Corporation and Southern Company. Judge Bress has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc by American Public Power Association, and Judges Schroeder and Bybee have so recommended. Judge Bress votes to grant the petition for rehearing en banc by City of Portland, et al. Judges Schroeder and Bybee recommend denying the petition for rehearing en banc by City of Portland, et al. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matters en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for panel rehearing by American Electric Power Service Corporation and Southern Company is DENIED. 18 Case: 18-72689, 10/22/2020, ID: 11868424, DktEntry: 175, Page 19 of 19 The petition for rehearing en banc by American Public Power Association is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc by City of Portland, et al. is DENIED. 19