States Ready Lifeline Programs for Federal Changes, But Some Seek More Time

“States with state Lifeline programs will need to bring those programs into alignment with the federal program in terms of the income level requirements and program eligibility,” National Regulatory Research Institute Principal Sherry Lichtenberg emailed us. “They will have to do things like remove the school lunch program from the list of programs that qualify. Some states will also have to add veterans’ pensions and HUD.”

Some seek to decelerate the implementation process. The FCC asked for comment by this Friday on a USTelecom petition for a temporary waiver of certain rules so Lifeline providers can continue enrolling consumers in the federal USF low-income subsidy support program based on state-specific criteria in 25 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (see 1610060043). Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission last week urged the FCC to delay processing several companies' applications to be Lifeline broadband providers while states pursue their lawsuit against the FCC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (see 1610140028).

“Some states will definitely need more time to bring their programs in line with the FCC’s order,” emailed Ramsay. “The minimum fallout will be confusion for Lifeline program participants.” At least a few NARUC member states believe “they will be able to revise their programs in time to meet the deadline (and will thus not need a waiver),” he said. “However, it is clear that at least a few of NARUC’s members agree with [USTelecom’s] petition. … I’m expecting several states to endorse some aspect of their waiver request (perhaps suggesting different time frames) or at least comment on it.”

While the FCC required changes​ to many state programs and procedures, not all will need to conduct rulemakings, Ramsay said. “States with no state-specific lifeline program or separate income/eligibility criteria for Lifeline,” for example ones that rely on federal forms and don't have their own verification database, “may not have much to do,” he emailed.

State Updates

The Kentucky PSC plans to release an order “in the next few days” to bring the state program in line with federal changes on eligibility and service standards effective Dec. 2, a spokesman said Tuesday. Kentucky provides $3.50 of the Lifeline subsidy, but that won’t be available for broadband because the PSC doesn’t regulate it, it said. The Kentucky commission highlighted benefits of the changes for veterans, in a news release Monday, and low-income consumers in a release Oct. 3. Low-income veterans or their survivors will have automatic proof of eligibility for the Lifeline program starting Dec. 2.

“Easing access for eligible veterans and their survivors is the right thing,” PSC Chairman Michael Schmitt said Monday. Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs Commissioner Norman Arflack said expanding the program to broadband “is a significant enhancement.”

“Minnesota has adopted the federal Lifeline eligibility requirements as the eligibility requirements for joining the TAP [Telephone Assistance Plan] program,” the PUC said in an Oct. 11 order. “Future TAP applicants will have to meet the new eligibility requirements ... , and current TAP participants will … have to meet those new requirements when recertification is required.” The PUC clarified that state Lifeline funds can't be used for broadband-only services, saying “customers who do not subscribe to voice service cannot make use of the TAP credit, because the credit functions by offsetting the cost of voice service.”

The D.C. PSC received comments Monday on an NPRM in docket RM28, with replies due Oct. 31. The commission also has a related notice of inquiry with comments due Nov. 7 and replies due Nov. 21 (docket FC988). In comments posted Monday, the Office of People’s Counsel supported rule changes to comply with the FCC order by December. "OPC, however, believes the Commission should undertake significant efforts to ensure consumers are adequately educated about upcoming changes to the Lifeline Program and USTF [Universal Service Trust Fund],” it said. The rule changes may promote broadband availability and streamline the Lifeline program, but changes including the phase-out of standalone voice support “will have a significant impact on the lives of District residents,” OPC said.

The California Public Utilities Commission last week received comments and held a workshop on changes to its state LifeLine program (see 1609230029). In comments posted Monday (docket R. 11-03-013), the Office of Ratepayer Advocates said the CPUC "should strive to minimize disruption in the California LifeLine program," and “complement the FCC’s transition by ensuring California LifeLine maintains its focus and support for voice services.” After December 2021, the state commission “can assess the adequacy of the FCC’s performance in increasing BIAS penetration among low income customers,” ORA said. “If inadequate, the Commission can determine what targeted measures California can employ to cost effectively supplement the FCC’s BIAS efforts.”

At the July NARUC meeting, CPUC Commissioner Catherine Sandoval said California may want to opt out of national Lifeline verification because the state already has a strong third-party verifier (see 1607270020). In comments, ORA said the commission shouldn’t move hastily: "The Commission should not migrate from its current third-party LifeLine administrator to the FCC’s National Verifier arrangement until enough time passes to assess the latter’s performance, effectiveness, cost, and efficacy.”

Industry commenters urged the CPUC to align closely with the FCC on Lifeline. The CPUC should act swiftly or risk consumers losing benefits of either the state or federal program, AT&T commented: “The programs need to be aligned so participation does not become so complicated that providers flee the California program.” Failure to align port freeze rules will hurt consumers trying to switch California LifeLine providers, AT&T said. Cox Communications commented: “If federal and state eligibility requirements do not align then there could effectively be three Lifeline rates -- one for customers who qualify for federal and state support, one for those who qualify only for federal support, and one for those who qualify only for state support.”

State commissioners “should preserve the California LifeLine program as an independent complement to the federal program,” said the Center for Accessible Technology, The Greenlining Institute and The Utility Reform Network. They commented that the CPUC must adapt to the federal changes while keeping a commitment to California telecom and universal service goals. “The FCC order eliminates federal support for some California households' telephone services," they said. "To maintain program participation and prevent customer confusion, the Commission should provide supplemental funding for customers who are no longer eligible for the federal subsidy at least until the [California] Commission has had time to conduct additional analysis and take more detailed comments on the impacts of developing a more robust state only program.”