Proposed Calif. Department Could Assume CPUC's Broadband Powers

Some California lawmakers want to take broadband responsibilities from the California Public Utilities Commission and create a broadband office, similar to many other states. At a webcast hearing Wednesday, the Assembly Communications Committee advanced Democratic Chair Tasha Boerner’s AB-2575, which would establish a department and commission on broadband and digital equity. The committee also cleared bills concerning the 211 helpline, video franchising and shot clocks for utilities to review broadband applications.

Boerner’s bill would move broadband programs that the CPUC and the California Department of Technology (CDT) administer to the proposed broadband and digital equity department on July 1, 2027. Programs moving would include the CPUC’s California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), broadband loan loss reserve account and state broadband map. The CPUC would continue imposing surcharges for funding CASF through 2032, under the bill. The new department would also take over for CDT on the state’s open-access middle-mile network. The California Broadband Council would become a committee within the new broadband and digital equity commission. Also, AB-2575 would require the new department to create a mechanism for filing digital discrimination complaints.

“California is one of the only states in the nation without a dedicated state agency or department to implement broadband programs in the state,” a committee analysis on AB-2575 said. Separation of duties between the CPUC and CDT “has created issues with interagency coordination, stakeholder engagement, and caused delays that have made the goal of universal and ubiquitous broadband service difficult to attain.”

Boerner said her bill isn’t "about punishing any agency or scuttling the work that has been ongoing for several years." But "persistent challenges" have stemmed from the current regulatory structure, including difficult public participation, a confusing decision-making process and poor interagency coordination, she said. The CPUC’s typical process, which administrative law judges drive, is clunky and doesn’t allow everyone to be heard, Boerner added. The Utility Reform Network has concerns, testified lobbyist Ignacio Hernandez, without specifying them. However, Boerner said that she would keep working to resolve concerns she had heard about who would serve on the proposed broadband commission.

In the committee’s 9-0 vote, Assemblymember Josh Hoover (R) joined committee Democrats to support advancing AB-2575 to the Appropriations Committee. Two other Republicans chose not to vote.

Meanwhile, the committee voted 10-0 to advance the utility shot-clocks bill (AB-2221) to Appropriations, with Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen (D) not voting. Requiring electric utilities to quickly approve broadband project applications won’t jeopardize safety, Assemblymember Juan Carillo (D) and telecom industry supporters stressed. The goal is reducing delays and streamlining deployment, while leaving final decisions to utilities and giving them time to perform safety checks, Carillo said. Boerner supported the bill but suggested more work on the shot-clock language to ensure safety checks are performed before an application is required to be granted.

This won’t put broadband at the front of the line or circumvent safety inspections, USTelecom lobbyist Yolanda Benson assured the committee. While the proposed law would require decisions in 60 to 90 days, utilities could seek extensions and the industry prefers collaboration to litigation, said Benson: The deemed-granted provision is “not meant to be a hard hammer.” The bill is needed because it sometimes takes one to three years for utilities to approve applications, said Crown Castle Regional Manager-California Wes Jones. Other supporters include CTIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association and the Rural County Representatives of California.

But lobbyists for major electric utilities and workers opposed the bill. California Association of Electrical Workers lobbyist Scott Wetch condemned AB-2221 as a “utility worker killer bill” that “presents serious safety concerns.” It's not surprising that Crown Castle supports the bill because it’s one of the industry’s worst actors, claimed Wetch.

Also, the committee voted 7-1 to clear a revival of a video franchise measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed last year for not going far enough on digital equity (see 2310120008 and 2310110067). Sponsor Assemblymember Chris Holden (D) agreed to amend this year’s bill (AB-1826) to remove the section on equal access and antidiscrimination due to other California bills advancing on that subject, such as AB-2239 (see 2404230039). The amended bill would still update the state’s 2006 cable law, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), with changes meant to increase participation by the public and their advocates in the franchise renewal process. Also, it would increase fines for service quality complaints. Hoover voted no, while three other members, including two Republicans and one Democrat, chose not to vote. The bill will go to Appropriations next.

It’s “the fourth time in four sequential legislative sessions that a bill has been introduced to fundamentally reform DIVCA,” according to the committee’s analysis. The California Broadband and Video Association opposed the bill despite being neutral on last year’s bill. Giving the CPUC’s ostensibly independent public advocate more authority is duplicative, said Amanda Gualderama, CalBroadband director-legislative and regulatory advocacy. Besides, the CPUC has a proceeding open for modernizing DIVCA, she said.

The panel voted 11-0 to advance a 211 bill establishing a strategic advisory committee for the social services hotline. AB-3020, which goes next to Appropriations, received support at the hearing from United Way, 211 providers and some counties. Nobody opposed it.