BILL ANALYSIS 1 1 SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN SB 1276 - Bowen Hearing Date: April 13, 2004 S As Amended: April 1, 2004 FISCAL 2/3 vote requirement B 1 2 7 6 DESCRIPTION Current law requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to develop a program to ensure universal telephone service is provided in high-cost areas at affordable rates. This requirement expires on January 1, 2005. This bill extends that requirement until January 1, 2009. BACKGROUND California has a long tradition of supporting universal telephone service. This tradition extends to rural areas in the state and manifests itself in two separate programs, each dependent on the same statute. The California High Cost Fund - A (CHCFA) is a program which subsidizes 17 small, rural local telephone companies: Calaveras Telephone Company California-Oregon Telephone Company Citizens Telecommunications Company of the Golden State Citizens Telecommunications Company of Tuolumne Ducor Telephone Company Evans Telephone Company Foresthill Telephone Company Happy Valley Telephone Company Hornitos Telephone Company Kerman Telephone Company Pinnacles Telephone Company The Ponderosa Telephone Company Sierra Telephone Company Siskiyou Telephone Company Verizon West Coast Incorporated The Volcano Telephone Company Winterhaven Telephone Company The CHCFA provides these companies with a $37 million annual subsidy funded by a 0.21% surcharge on telephone bills. The subsidy is used to cap residential telephone rates for these companies at not more than 150% of the rate charged residential customers in urban areas. The second universal service program is the California High Cost Fund - B (CHCFB), which provides a subsidy to companies providing service in high-cost areas of the larger local telephone companies: SBC, Verizon, Citizens, and Roseville. This subsidy provides these companies with $483 million a year funded by a 2.7% surcharge on telephone bills. One purpose of this program is to encourage competition in the residential telephone service arena and any company providing that service in those areas is eligible for that subsidy. Both of these programs rely on Section 739.3 of the Public Utilities Code as their statutory foundation, which is slated to sunset on January 1, 2005. This bill extends that section until January 1, 2009. COMMENTS 1.What Happens If The Sun Sets? What will happen if the statutory basis for the CHCFA and CHCFB expires at the end of this year isn't clear, but it's likely the two surcharges, a combined 2.91% of the intrastate telephone bill, will be deleted. While that will result in a small rate reduction for urban telephone customers, the 17 small rural telephone companies will need to raise their rates by $37 million to make up for that shortfall, with the increase most likely to show up in higher basic residential rates. SBC, Verizon, Citizens and Roseville will also likely increase their basic residential rates to make up for the $483 million shortfall. There will also be pressure to allow these companies to charge different rates for different parts of their service area (e.g. rate de-averaging), which would result in higher residential rates in rural areas and relatively lower rates in urban and suburban areas. To the extent it exists, this residential rate re-balancing will have a bearing on competition as competitors focus their attention on the areas where residential telephone service is offered at higher than cost. 2.Do The Programs Work? The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) has recently released a report critical of the CHCFB, noting the program hasn't been reviewed by the CPUC since 1996. Consequently, some areas which were designed as high cost in 1996 may no longer be high cost and may no longer warrant a subsidy. The ORA urges the CPUC to review the CHCFB to ensure it's fulfilling its purpose in a cost-effective way. The author and committee may wish to consider amending the bill to direct the CPUC to perform such a review. POSITIONS Sponsor: Author Support: SBC Oppose: None on file Randy Chinn SB 1276 Analysis Hearing Date: April 13, 2004