BILL ANALYSIS
AB 140
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2001
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Carole Migden, Chairwoman
AB 140 (Strom-Martin) - As Amended: April 26, 2001
Policy Committee:
UtilitiesVote:15-0 (Consent)
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish a
grant program to fund telecommunications infrastructure in
areas currently without such service.
2)Limits the grant funding to $10 million per year from
California High Cost Fund-A (CHCF-A) or the California High
Cost Fund-B (CHCF-B), or both, and sunsets the program after
four years.
3)Requires the PUC to establish a government-industry work group
to develop technical criteria for evaluating grant proposals,
which would be submitted by community-based groups.
FISCAL EFFECT
Up to $10 million special fund costs for four years.
COMMENTS
1)Background . There are two High Cost Funds which operate to
provide subsidy for high cost local telephone service in
California. CHCF-A provides for transfer payments to the
small, independent telephone companies in California providing
telephone service in high-cost areas. The fund allows for
fair and equitable rate structures throughout the state by
providing payment as subsidy to the telephone companies whose
basic exchange access line rates may be set below their
average cost to serve these mostly rural areas. CHCF-B
AB 140
Page 2
established in 1996 through CPUC Decision (D.) 96-10-066,
provides for the same sort of equitable statewide rate
structure for the larger carriers.
2)Purpose . AB 140 would allow money in the CHCF-A and CHCF-B to
be diverted to the specified grant program until January 1,
2006. The purpose of this bill is to try to bridge the divide
between communities which have no basic telephone service and
those with access to a broad array of wired and wireless
services. The cost of infrastructure to many of these areas
and their remoteness from other communities have been the
obstacles to many communities in getting basic telephone
service.
3)Prior Legislation . Last year, AB 1825 (Strom-Martin), which
was substantially similar to this bill, was vetoed. The
governor, while acknowledging the good intent of the bill, was
concerned that by diverting up to $10 million a year from the
California High Cost Funds could cause other rural ratepayers
to see increases in their telephone bills. To address the
governor's concern, language is included in AB 140 stipulating
that the high cost funds are only available for the grant
program if the PUC is current in paying claims from telephone
carriers for providing service in high cost areas.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)319-2081