Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-7-13 Letter of Support 'If Amended' for SB 740 from MendocinoSweeney, Kathleen (Moghannam} From. Brandon Merritt [merrittb@co.mendocino.ca.usj Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:10 PM To: Connelly, Bill; Teeter, Doug; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; Lambert, Steve; dfinigan@co.del- norte.ca.us; ghemmingsen@co.del-norte.ca.us; jsarina@co.del-norte.ca.us; mmcclure@co.del-norte.ca.us; msullivan@co.del-norte.ca.us; rgitlin@co.del-norte.ca.us; efennell@co.humboldt.ca.us; mlovelace@ca.humboldt.ca.us; rbohn@co.humboldt.ca.us; rsundberg@co.humboldt.ca.us; vbass@co.humboldt.ca.us; aalbaugh@co.lassen.ca.us; jchapman@co.lassen.ca.us; jhanson@co.lassen.ca.us; Iwosick@co.lassen.ca.us; rpyle@co.lassen.ca.us; davidallan@co.modoc.ca.us; geribyrne@co.modoc.ca.us; jimwills@co.modoc.ca.us; johnpedersen@co.modoc.ca.us; kathiealves@co.modoc.ca.us; ~~~~ bschappell@co.shasta.ca.us; dkehoe@co.shasta.ca.us; Ibaugh@co.shasta.ca.us; Imoty@co.shasta.ca.us; pgiacomini@co.shasta.ca.us; bcriss@co.siskiyou.ca.us; ®'~`~ gbennett@ca.siskiyou.ca.us; marmstrong@co.siskiyou.ca.us; mkobseff@co.siskiyou.ca.us; ~~ ®~ Bundy@co.tehama.ca.us; schamblin@co.tehama.ca.us; dcarter@countyofcolusa.org; _,t~pi~~vans@countyofcolusa.org; kvann@countyofcolusa.org; mmarshall@countyofcolusa.org; ~, tindrieri@countyofcolusa.org; dfoltz@countyofglenn.net; jviegas@countyofglenn.net; Imcdaniel@countyofglenn.net; mmurray@countyofglenn.net; sdsoeth@countyofglenn.net; sthrall@digitalpath.net; kevin.goss4district2@gmail.com; lorisimpson.plumas@gmail.com; district5supervisor@hotmail.com; Anthony.farrington@lakecauntyca.gov; denise.rushing@lakecountyca.gov; jeff.smith@lakecountyca.gov; jim.comstock@lakecountyca.gov; rob.brown@lakecountyca.gov; matt@rexroad.com; dist2sup@sbcglobal.net; terrellswofford@sbcgiobal.net; bwilliams@tehamacountyadmin.org; dgarton@tehamacountyadmin.org; dchapman@trinitycounty.org; jfenley@trinitycounty.org; jpflueger@trinitycounty.org; jymorris@trinitycounty.arg; kfisher@trinitycounty.org; wtyler@trinitycounty.org; don.saylor@yolocounty.org; duane.chamberlain@yolocounty.org; jim.provenza@yolocounty.org; mike.mcgowan@yolocounty.org Subject: Letter of Support "If Amended" for SB 740 (Padilla} Attachments: 06-11-13 Hamburg-SB 740 Letter of Support if Amended.pdf; sb_740_bill_20130507 _amended_sen ~98.pdf Dear Northern California Supervisors, You are receiving this Letter of Support "If Amended" for SB 740 (Padilla}, sponsored by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, which has been placed on the consent calendar for the Tuesday, June 11 Board meeting. Supervisor, and Board Chair, Dan Hamburg has asked me to forward this along to you because, as a Northern California County, you are directly affected by the outcome of SB 740 {Padilla). The bill is currently in the State Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee in the State Legislature, and slated for a vote around the 24th of June. Chair Hamburg, along with the Broadband Alliance of Mendocino County, is asking for your support by passing a version, with the information modified to be unique to your County, of the attached Letter of Support if Amended at your next Board meeting to create a unified front of opposition to the harmful direction that SB 740 (Padilia) is headed. SB 740, although originally benefitting counties asintroducedinto the State Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, now contains harmful amendments that were inserted on May 7th, 2013 while in committee. These amendments are as follows: 1. Removal of $100 Million that, as introduced by the bill on February 22, 2013, would have been deposited into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant program within the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) California Advanced Services Fund (CASE) program; 2. Eligibility restrictions for middle-mile infrastructure project applicants unless the applicant can prove that the project serves "unserved" areas (see the letter`s comment about the CPUG's definition of "unserved"). Middle- mile infrastructure is essentially the laying of fiber, containing unlimited bandwidth capacity, compared to a very much limited bandwidth capacity currently in place in most of rural Northern California; 3. Restriction of the ability for local governments to apply as project applicants to receive funding from the CPUC's CASE program to build out broadband infrastructure within their jurisdictions. Thank you for your support. Please also find attached the version of 56 740 (v98) containing those harmful amendments mentioned above. Best Regards, Brandon Brandon Merritt, Admin. Analyst I Mendocino County Executive Office 501 Low Gap Rd. ~ Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707.463.7236 ~ Cell: 707.972.1731 ~ Fax: 707.4635649 Email: merrittb eo.mendocino.ca.us CARMEL J. ANGELO Chief Executive Officer Clerk of the Board ,~~ ~ h €ny>' COUNTY OF MENDOCINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 11, 2013 The Honorable Alex Padilla Senator, Senate District 20 Chair, Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications State Capitol, Raom 4038 Sacramento, CA 95814 CONTACT INEORFvIATION 501 Low Gap Raad • Room ].010 Ukiah, California 95482 TELEPHONE: {707) 463-4221 FAX: (707) 463-7237 Email: bosQco.mendocino.ca.us Web: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/bos RE: Support If Amended for California State Senate 1-1ill 7-10 from the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Dear Senator Padilla and Members of the Assembly Cc~ininittee din Utilities and Commerce: We are writing to express a change in our support fe>i' y~~~ir bill,'.SB 74~, which, in its original form modified eligibility requirements. and, ad~3~:d fundu11; to tle'California Advanced Services Fund (CASE). This bill is scheduled fir 't~eariil~; ~chiring t11~~ last week of June before the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Camnlcrc~. In its original form, SB %4~1 F?r~~videcl th.e needed flexibility to help the state achieve its broadband objectives including attai~lm~n.t of thz ~,~aI of reaching c~ctua2 broadband deployment of 98% and an adoption rate of 80% by 2015. 'ibis goal is notwithstanding the inaccuracy of maps currently used by the California Public Utilities Cpmmission {CPUC) to determine whether an area is "unserved" or "underserved", the main criterion currently used to determine applicant eligibility for these funds. Meeting these goals in our state's rural areas is especially challenging. However, economic development, public safety, education and healthcare depend upon equal and fair digital access for all the citizens of our state. At both the county and state level we must have the vision to plan not only for our current needs but also for the Future. Fox that reason, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has been working proactively with groups in our county that are creating solutions for our broadband deficiencies. In its current form, SB 740 is damaging to Mendocino County in the following ways: Removal of $100 Million in Added Funding -The amount of eligible applications vastly exceeds the current amount in the CPUC's Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. We are disappointed that this funding provision was removed as we assumed that one of the main goals of SB 740 was to augment the CASE program and help it achieve its stated objectives of 98% deployment of broadband Internet access; THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CARRE B1tOWN JOHN MCCOWEN JOHN PINCHES DAN GJERDE DAN HAMriURG First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District Page 2 of 3 June 11, 20H ^ Restrictive Provisions to C.acal Government Eligibility - We were glad to see the inclusion of local government agencies, including Cities, Counties, and Municipalities, as an entity that would be eligible to receive funding from the CASF program (Section 281(e}(3) of SB 740). However, the inclusion of the phrase "...only if the infrastructure project is far an unserved area ..." is troubling. As you may be aware, census block;.; groups (CBG) may be considered "served" by the California Public Utilities Commission if ec~i•n a single household within a CBG's boundaries receives internet service at the rates that :are :~d7~ertised by a telecommunications carrier such as AT&T, Comcast or Verizon. By using this criterion, the vast majority of CBGs, and specifically the governmental organizations pry ~i ~l i r1g within their boundaries, are deemed ineligible to receive funding from the CA~1 l~rc>};ram. This issue must be corrected within the legislation by changing the Cl'~C"5 ~urr~~lt definition of broadband as the advertised speed delivered and adverh~se,1 ~~o~,~er:i ge ~~~r~il.z??le to households within a CBG. A more comprehensive and fair .elefirutiaii ~ti.~~u}d reflect fhe proportion of homes and businesses in a CBG actually receiving these rates ail cc~vcra~~; ^ IZeslxictive Provisions to IV•iidclle Mile 13ruadband Project Eligibility - We were also glad to see the first mention ~~t i un~iir; fi?r a middle-mile backbone that would provide service for last-mile broadband coi~~rctions..(.Section 281{b} of SB 740}. However, the present language is far too restrictive it that it requires project applicants to "demonstrate that the project provides last-mile broadband connections to households that are unserved by any existing facilities-based broadband provider." In its Resolution T-17143, the CPUC defines an area as unserved by a facilities-based broadband provider if the only service available otherwise is through dial-up internet ar by satellite. Telecommunications companies can claim that they serve this population through ifs wireless service model, but the fact remains that the vast majority of Northern California is a mountainous topography without the "line of sight" required for a wireless service model. This severely impedes the viability of wireless service and thus complicates the growth of our regional economy. It would be better to change "unserved" in this case to "underserved," and further define underserved to reflect a certain ratio of homes and businesses actually receiving internet at the CPUC-established broadband speeds. The original form of SB 740 would have gone a long way towards facilitating critical broadband innovation and investment in unserved and underserved regions in California. However, we are concerned that the amendments discussed above and added to the bill on May 7 will greatly hamper Mendocino County's efforts to provide universal broadband access to its citizens. Again, we thank you For authoring SB 740 but must adopt a "support if amended" position at this time. Please feel free to contact me at 707-463-4441 if you have any questions regarding our position. Sincerely, Dan Hamburg, Chair Mendocino County Board of Supervisors cc: The Honorable Noreen bvans, Senator The Honorable Wesley Chesbra, Assemblymember CA State Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce CA State Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications California State Association of Counties {CSAC) Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) The Honorable Jared Huffman, Congressman Page 3 of 3 Jim Moorehead, Chair, Mendocino County Broadband Alliance Board of Supervisors for: • Butte County • Colusa County • Del Norte County • Glenn County • Humboldt County • Lake County • Lassen County • Modoc County • Plumas County • Shasta County , • Siskiyou County • Sonoma County • Tehama Count~~ • Trinity County • Yolo County June 11, 2013 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 7, 2013 SENATE BILL No. 74Q Introduced by Senator Padilla February 22, 2013 An act to amend Section 281 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to telecommunications, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUIVSEI.'S DIGEST SB 740, as amended, Padilla. Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund. Existing law, the federal TelecornmunicationsAct of 1996, establishes a program of cooperative federalism for the regulation of telecommunications to attain the goal of local competition, while implementing specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, consistent with certain universal service principles. The universal service principles include the principle that consumers in all regions of the nation, including law-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high-cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas. The act authorizes each state Eo adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and standards to preserve and advance universal service within the state, only to the extent that they adopt additional specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms 98 SS 740 - 2 that do not rely on or burden federal universal service support mechanisms. Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations, as defined. Existing law establishes the California High-Cost Fund-A Administrative Committee Fund, the California High-Cost Fund-B Administrative Committee Fund, the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund, the Payphone Service Providers Committee Fund, the California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund, and the California Advanced Services Fund{~~}, referred to as the CASF, in the State Treasury and requires that moneys in the funds are the proceeds of rates and are held in trust for the benefit of ratepayers and to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service and maybe expended only to accomplish specified telecommunications universal service programs, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act or upon supplemental appropriation. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the CASF to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies, as provided in specified decisions of the commission and in the CASF statute. Existing law requires that~96a999;999 moneys, collected by the surcharge, authorized by the commission, after January 1, 2011,~s are to be deposited into 3 separate accounts within the CASF. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect an additional sum not to exceed $125,000,000, after January 1, 2011, for a sum total of moneys collected through the surcharge not to exceed $225,000,000. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect the additional sum through the 2015 calendar year. .The bill would authoxize the commission to collect the additional money until z02o. This bill would provide that the goal of the CASFprogram is, no later than December 31, 2015, to approvefundingfor infrastructure projects 98 ---- 3 - SB 740 that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households and would provide that it is the intent of the Legislature to authorize collection of additional surcharge amounts necessary to achieve this program goal..In awarding infrastructure grants, this bill would require that priority be given to projects that provide last-mile broadband connection to households that are unnerved by an existing facilities-based broadband provider This bill would provide that a middle-mile broadband project is eligible for an infrastructure grant even if it passes through an area served by an existing facilities-based broadband provider as long as the project applicant can demonstrate that the projectprovideslast-mile broadband connection to households that are unnerved by any existing facilities-based broadband provider This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the requirement that moneys in the funds are to be used to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service, an entity that is not a telephone corporation is eligible to apply to participate in the CASF program if the entity otherwise meets the eligibility requirements and complies with program requirements established by the commission. This bill would provide that a local governmental agency may be eligible for an infrastructure grant only if the infrastructure project is for an unnerved area, the commission has conducted an open application process and no other eligible entity applied, and the commission determines that within the region of the local agency s jurisdiction there is less than 98% broadband deployment. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: na. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 281 of the Public Utilities Code is 2 amended to read: 3 281. (a) The commission shall develop, implement, and 4 administer the California Advanced Services Fund program to 5 encourage deployment ofhigh-quality advanced communications 6 services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, 7 job creation, and the substantial social benefits of advanced 8 information and communications technologies, as provided in 9 Decision 07-12-054 and Decision 09-07-020 and this section.~re 98 SB 740 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3b 37 38 39 40 -4- (b) The goal of the program is, no later than December 31, 2015, to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98 percent of California households. In awarding infrastructure grants, priority shall be given to projects that provide last-mile broadband connection to households that are unnerved by an existing facilities-based broadband provider However, amiddle-mile broadband project is eligible for an infrastructure grant even if it passes through an area served by an existing facilities-based broadband provider, as long as the project applicant can demonstrate that the project provides last-mile broadband connection to households that are unnerved by any existing facilities-based broadband provider (c) The commission shall establish the following accounts within the fund: {1) The Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. (2) The Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account. {3) The Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account. d} (1) All moneys collected by the surcharge authorized by the commission pursuant to Decision 07-12-054, whether collected before or after January 1, 2009, shall be transmitted to the commission pursuant to a schedule established by the commission. The commission shall transfer the moneys received to the Controller for deposit in the California Advanced Services Fund. Moneys collected after January 1, 2011, shall be deposited in the following amounts in the following accounts: {A) Tvt~o-One hundred million dollars-{~269;99A~9B} ($100, 000, 000) into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. {B} Ten million dollars ($10,000,000) into the Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account. (C} Fifteen million dollars {$15,000,000} into the Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account. (2) All interest earned on moneys in the fund shall be deposited in the fund. (3) The commission shall not collect moneys, by imposing the surcharge described in paragraph {1) for deposit in the fund, in an amount that exceeds one hundred million dollars {$100,000,000) before January 1, 2011. After January 1, 2011, the commission may collect an additional sum not to exceed~e one hundred 98 5 - SB 74U 1 twenty-five million dollars~090~} (,$125,000,000), for a 2 sum total of moneys collected by imposing the surcharge described 3 in paragraph (1) not to exceedee two hundred twenty-five 4 million dollars , e8j ($225, 000, 000). The commission S may collect the additional sum beginning with the calendar year b starting on January 1, 2011, and continuing through the 2020 7 calendar year, in an amount not to exceed twenty-five million 8 dollars ($25,000,000) per year, unless the commission determines 9 that collecting a higher amount in any year will not result in an 10 increase in the total amount of all surcharges collected from 11 telephone customers that year. 12 (4) It is the intent of the Legislature to authorize collection of 13 additional surcharge amounts necessary to achieve the progYam 14 goal described in subdivision (b). 1S ~ 1b (e) (1) All moneys in the California Advanced Services Fund 17 shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the 18 commission for the program administered by the commission 19 pursuant to this section, including the costs incurred by the 20 commission in developing, implementing, and administering the 21 program and the fund. 22 (2) Notwithstanding any other law and for the sole purpose of 23 providing matching funds pursuant to the federal American 24 Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 {Public Law 111-5}, any 25 entity eligible for funding pursuant to that act shall be eligible to 26 apply to participate in the program administered by the commission 27 pursuant to this section, if that entity otherwise satisfies the 28 eligibility requirements under that program. Nothing in this section 29 shall impede the ability of an incumbent local exchange carrier, 30 as defined by subsection {h) of Section 251 of Title 47 of the 31 United States Code, that is regulated under a rate of return 32 regulatory structure, to recover, in rate base, California 33 infrastructure investment not provided through federal or state 34 grant funds for facilities that provide broadband service and 35 California intrastate voice service. 36 (3) Notwithstanding subdivision {b} of Section 270, an entity 37 that is not a telephone corporation shall be eligible to apply to 3 8 participate in the program administered by the commission pursuant 39 to this section if the entity otherwise meets the eligibility 40 requirements and complies with program requirements established 98 5B 740 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 34 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 --- 6 - by the commission. A local governmental agency may be eligible for an infrastructure grant only if the infrastructure project is for an unserved area, the commission has conducted an open application process and no other eligible entity applied, and the commission determines that within the region of the local agency s jurisdiction there is less than 98 percent broadband deployment. (f) Moneys in the Rural and Urban Regional Broadband Consortia Grant Account shall be available for grants to eligible consortia to fund the cost of broadband deployment activities other than the capital cost of facilities, as specified by the commission. An eligible consortium may include, as specified by the commission, representatives of organizations, including, but not limited to, local and regional government, public safety, K-1.2 education, health care, libraries, higher education, community-based organizations, tourism, parks and recreation, agricultural, and business, and is not required to have as its lead fiscal agent an entity with a certificate of public convenience and necessity. (g Moneys in the Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account shall be available to finance capital costs of broadband facilities not funded by a grant from the Broadband lnfrastructuxe Grant Account. The commission shall periodically set interest rates on the loans based on surveys of existing financial markets. (~ (1) The commission shall conduct an interim and final financial audit and an interim and final performance audit of the implementation and effectiveness of the California Advanced Services Fund to ensure that funds have been expended in accordance with the approved terms of the grant awards and loan agreements and this section. The commission shall report its interim findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2411. The commission shall report its final findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2417. The reports shall also include an update to the maps in the final report of the California Broadband Task Farce and data on the types and numbers of jobs created as a result of the program administered by the commission pursuant to this section. 98 7 - SB 740 1 {2) (A) The requirement for submitting a report imposed under 2 paragraph { 1) is inoperative on January 1, 201 S, pursuant to Section 3 10231.5 of the Government Code. 4 (B} A report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph {1) shall be 5 submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government 6 Code. 7 ~} 8 (i) (1} Beginning on January 1, 2012, and annually thereafter, 9 the commission shall provide a report to the Legislature that 10 includes all of the following information: 11 (A) The amount of funds expended from the California 12 Advanced Services Fund in the prior year. 13 (B) The recipients of funds expended from the California 14 Advanced Services Fund in the prior year. 15 (C} The geographic regions of the state affected by funds 16 expended from the California Advanced Services Fund in the prior 17 year. 18 (D) The expected benefits to be derived froze the funds expended 19 from the California Advanced Services Fund in the prior year. 20 (E) Actual broadband adoption levels from the funds expended 21 from the California Advanced Services Fund in the prior year. 22 {F) The amount of funds expended from the California 23 Advanced Services Fund used to match federal funds. 24 {G) An update on the expenditures from California Advanced 25 Services Fund and broadband adoption levels, and an accounting 26 of remaining unnerved and underserved areas of the state. 27 (2) (A) The requirement for submitting a report imposed under 28 paragraph (1 } is inoperative on January 1, 2016, pursuant to Section 29 10231.5 of the Government Code. 30 (B) A report to be submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 31 submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government 32 Code. 33 SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the 34 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within 35 the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into 36 immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: 37 In order to authorize the award of funds for the expansion of 38 broadband deployment to unnerved and underserved areas of 39 California, to stimulate investments in infrastructure critical to 40 increasing the state's productivity, and to improve the quality of 98 ss ~aa - s 1 information available to all of the state's citizens, as needed for 2 the health and safety of those citizens, it is necessary that this act 3 take effect immediately. O 98