Newsom Vetoing Small-Cells Law 2nd Try Surprises Some
Localities got a second veto of a California small-cells bill. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) rejected SB-556 Monday, after his predecessor Jerry Brown (D) rejected a similar bill meant to streamline wireless infrastructure deployment by preempting localities in the right of way. In a win for the wireless industry the same day, Newsom signed AB-537 to codify a deemed-granted wireless remedy.
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.
Counties and municipalities including San Francisco -- where Newsom was mayor -- asked for the veto (see 2109230048). SB-556 by Sen. Bill Dodd (D) would codify an FCC $270 cap on annual small-cell attachment rates and shorten shot clocks.
“This bill would restrict the ability of local governments and publicly-owned electric utilities to regulate the placement of small cell wireless facilities on public infrastructure and limit the compensation that may be collected for use of these public assets,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter to the Senate. The FCC adopted many of the same requirements in 2018, but parts of SB-556 “conflict with and complicate” some of those federal rules, he said. “It would be imprudent to codify these requirements in state law in the event the FCC revises them.”
“While this bill didn't get across the finish line,” Dodd said, “I'll continue pushing to improve broadband access and dependability.”
AB-537 “will help expedite broadband deployment and provide internet access to more Californians,” said sponsor Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D) in a Crown Castle news release. The company said it “will ensure Californians will quickly benefit from high-speed internet projects by requiring local governments to approve or deny broadband permits within federally mandated timelines.” Crown Castle declined to comment on the SB-556 veto.
“This bill would have imposed another layer of complexity and confusion between government and private partners,” emailed a spokesperson for San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D): It “would have required local governments to make traffic signals available for small cell deployment, even when this would increase risk.” League of California Cities Legislative Representative Damon Conklin emailed that Newsom "sent a clear message that local governments play a critical role in broadband coverage and are important in the process." CTIA declined to comment Tuesday and the Wireless Infrastructure Association didn’t comment.
Newsom “made the right call” in rejecting SB-556 since it clashes with requirements in 2018’s FCC order that could later change, emailed Best Best’s Gail Karish. “It is unfortunate and somewhat inconsistent” that the governor simultaneously signed AB-537, “which hands the industry a state ‘deemed approved’ remedy for alleged violations of the FCC shot clocks in that same small cell order.” The local government lawyer doubts legislators will seek to override the veto: “This wouldn’t be the kind of issue important enough to cross the Governor on when he just won recall election.”
The veto “pleasantly surprised” local government attorney Tripp May of Telecom Law Firm. It “sent the clear message that local governments play an important role in the infrastructure deployment process and should not be shut out or steamrolled by the industry,” emailed May. He doubted the legislature will override, including because the bill didn’t pass with a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. It got two-thirds support in the Senate. “If the Governor’s veto of SB 556 and signature on AB 537 has any dampening effect on anyone who voted yes in the first go-around, I do not see the state legislature overriding the veto,” said May.
“Sometimes local governments win,” emailed Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum. The veto surprised the local government consultant, but he said he would be even more surprised by an override since those are rare in California. Localities also suffered a loss with enactment of AB-537, which “gets into the nuts and bolts of cities' day to day work, and will have a more practical effect on city operations.”