BILL ANALYSIS SB 1276 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 4, 2004 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Judy Chu, Chair SB 1276 (Bowen) - As Amended: June 16, 2004 Policy Committee: UtilitiesVote:11-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: SUMMARY This bill: 1)Extends for four years, until January 1, 2009, two Public Utilities Commission (PUC) programs to provide local telephone rates in high service-cost areas of the state (mainly rural) that are comparable to rates in the remainder of a local telephone company's service area. The programs are currently funded through a surcharge on telephone bills and provide subsidy payments to companies in order offset high service costs. 2)Requires the PUC to review one of the two programs, which involves high-cost customers of the state's four largest local telephone companies, and to determine, by January 1, 2006, whether to: a) Adjust subsidy payments to reflect updated operating costs. b) Evaluate whether subsidy levels can be reduced while still meeting program goals. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Extending the current surcharge for the two programs would continue annual revenues of about $540 million for the subsidies and program administration. 2)PUC costs for program review would be around $100,000. [Public Utilities Reimbursement Acccount] SB 1276 Page 2 COMMENTS 1)Background . The two programs are administered by the PUC--California High Cost Fund - A (CHCF-A) and the California High Cost Fund - B (CHCF-B)--to support universal telephone service in California. CHCF-A provides subsidies to 17 small, rural local exchange carriers providing services in high-cost areas through a 0.21% surcharge on all telephone bills, which raises annual revenues of about $65 million. The subsidies are used to cap residential telephone rates for these companies at not more than 150% of the rates in urban areas. CHCF-B entails a subsidy for providing service in high-cost areas of the larger local telephone companies: SBC, Verizon, Citizens, and Roseville. This program is funded through a 2.9% surcharge that raises annual revenue of about $480 million. The 2002-03 Budget Act transferred a total of $278 million from the two funds to the General Fund. 2)Opposition . The Department of Finance (DOF) believes the goals of universal service have been met and that eliminating these programs will not result in a sizable reduction in telephone subscribers. Furthermore, the DOF believes the programs provide subsidies to individuals who choose to live in rural locations and that since housing costs in rural locations tend to be significantly less than in urban and suburban locations, the savings from these lower costs are available to rural residents to offset higher telecommunications costs. Contrary to the department's position, however, the Governor's 2004-05 Budget proposes program expenditure levels--$59.3 million and $482 million, respectively--that would appear to carry the programs through June 30, 2005, or six months beyond the current sunset date. 3)Review Recommended . The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), within the PUC, recently released a report critical of the CHCF-B, noting that the program has not been reviewed PUC since 1996, hence some areas previously designated as high cost may no longer warrant a subsidy. The bill requires the PUC to review the program's current subsidy payments by January 1, 2006. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081