CPUC Receives Backlash to Low-Income Pilot Plans Ahead of April 25 Meeting
Proposed California pilot programs meant to expand service for low-income households drew concerns from industry and consumer groups, in comments this week at the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC scheduled votes April 25 in its consent agenda on proposed decisions (PD) to establish a $5 million California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) line extensions program pilot and to authorize state LifeLine pilot programs by Boost Mobile and iFoster (see 1903270011 and 1903260051). The agency plans to vote the same day on proposed changes to the California Teleconnect Fund for schools and libraries that also got opposition (see 1904120037 and 1904110032).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Facilities-based broadband providers shouldn’t have to pay 5 percent of proposed line extensions in the proposed $5 million CASF pilot that targets households that couldn't otherwise pay for extensions, AT&T said in comments in docket R.12-10-012. The CPUC proposed the pilot would pay 95 percent and the provider would pay 5 percent, but the California law (AB-1665) requiring the program specified only two funding sources: program grants and the household or property owner, AT&T said. “The Commission cannot disregard the Legislature’s clear intent.”
The California Cable and Telecommunications Association objects to “imposing an across-the-board cap on CASF line extension grants, specifically the cap of $5,300 per household for wireline line extensions,” CCTA commented. The cap is contrary to the law’s plain language and is a “factual error in that it is erroneously based on a cost estimate in the record that does not reflect eligible line extension projects.” To limit spending, the CPUC should instead adopt a preference for low-cost line extension projects, CCTA said.
A proposed decision to authorize California LifeLine pilot programs by Boost and iFoster drew procedural objections by consumer groups and some providers in docket R.11-03-013. The proposed decision “errs by approving these iFoster and Boost projects based solely on concepts and presentations that predate the Commission’s adoption of a formal Pilot Proposal Framework, as neither project proponent submitted formal proposals into the record of this proceeding,” the Center for Accessible Technology and The Utility Reform Network said in comments. The PD would clear projects that “differ from the Boost and iFoster materials and are not supported by the comments and material in the record,” they said.
The CPUC didn’t adequately vet the proposed projects, agreed TruConnect Communications, a LifeLine provider that submitted its own proposed project. Clearing Boost’s pilot would be unfair to other LifeLine carriers, said Calaveras Telephone and other small carriers. It would “advance an enrollment process that encourages exclusionary partnerships between certain LifeLine carriers and public assistance entities,” they said. Linking eligibility to the California [Alternate] Rates for Energy program, which allows participants to self-certify incomes, conflicts with the federal Lifeline program, they said.
San Francisco supported proposed LifeLine pilots and applauded CPUC efforts to increase consumer choice, participation and renewal rates among unserved and underserved households. “If the Boost pilot program proves to be successful it could encourage other major carriers to participate in the LifeLine Program and provide consumers who are eligible for LifeLine benefits with even more choices,” the city and county said.