March 11, 2026 · Communications And Conveyance · 13,120 words · 10 speakers · 309 segments
Thank you, everyone, for joining us here today for today's communication campaign Committee hearing on the California Public Utilities Commission. My name is Tasha Burner. I serve as the chair of the committee. Joining me on the diet, our assembly member is assembly member Chris Rogers. We're also being joined by Emilio Perez. I thought it was wrong. You think after three years of being a chair, I'd remember the buttons?
But every year.
So let me start over. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today at today's Communication and Conveyance Committee hearing on the California Public Utility Commission. My name is Tasha Berner. I serve as the chair of the committee. Joining me on the D today is assembly member Chris Rogers. And we're also being joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant of the Communications Committee, and Daniel Ballen, the Republican policy consultant. Before we begin our presentation, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping as we proceed with witnesses and public comment. I want to make sure everyone understands the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in the proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. You can exit the hearing room once you've done testifying or return to your seat. Now, let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in
the last few years.
As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation or which were posted outside the door in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time place element as permitted by me, the chair. Public comment must be related to the subject being discussed today and no engaging. Engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing. Please be aware that violations of these rules may be May subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. So thank you for your cooperation on the housekeeping items today. Now we can transition to the substantive portion of today's oversight hearing on the California Public Utilities Commission. Since I've been chair of this committee, I've been insistent about ensuring the legislature exercises regular oversight on the CPUC programs falling under our jurisdiction. In the recent past, we have focused our hearings on last mile broadband infrastructure programs, transportation network companies, and also carrier of last resort. At the same time, this committee has considered legislation that raises questions about the administrative structure of telecommunications and broadband regulation in our state. For example, many of you are aware I've advocated for establishing a new agency to oversee broadband and telecommunications policy in our state. That agency would play a similar role to the Federal Communications Commission so that this important but niche area of policy could get focused attention it deserves. My colleagues have also introduced legislation that raised reasonable questions about whether the cpuc, especially in its current form, is the most suitable regulatory structure to to meet our state's public policy objectives. For example, my colleague, Assemblymember McKenna is a strong advocate for rethinking how our state can transition from a legacy regulatory structure to a new structure that unleashes investment in a competitive market while protecting consumers. My colleague Assemblymember Bonta has also moved legislation that proposes greater oversight of broadband companies, but notably that would happen outside
the structure of the cpuc.
Given all this context, my intention with this year's hearing is to make more room for discussion about what I view as structural challenges to meeting our public
policy objectives under the current structure of the cpuc.
My reasons are not personal to any commissioner, and they are not a criticism of the staff of the CPUC who I believe do their best to serve the public. Thank you to the staff work at the cpuc. Our state will be investing billions of
dollars into broadband infrastructure over the next five years.
However, challenges still remain. Despite our investment policy decisions were taken that made achieving universal service more expensive and out of reach. My vision for the future of broadband and telecommunications legislation in the state is based on believing that more is possible and that a focused and efficient regulatory agency could help us get there. One of the most obvious challenges to the CPUC has structurally is that there are only five commissioners who must oversee a breadth of public policy challenges that include electric rates and reliability, climate initiatives, utility wildfires on top of regulation of passenger carriers and telecommunications. There is seemingly a choke point to expect five people to be expert decision makers on that breadth of policy areas and to engage with the public on that number of matters. The things I hear my constituents complain about most is not broadband or their uber ride. They're talking about energy affordability and reliability. We should want the CPUC to focus
on these core public concerns which is
why I believe relieving the CPUC of
its telecommunications responsibility can actually help our state respond in a more focused manner to the challenges we see in telecommunications and in energy policy.
I look forward to a future discussion on that. Following the cpuc, we have also invited State Superintendent of Public Instruction to speak about the California Teleconnect Fund. The CPUC is considering changes to this program and in my view is a case study about structural challenges we face
even when we're trying to do the right thing.
So with all that in mind, I look forward to hearing from our panelists and the public comment at the end of the hearing. Assembly Member Rogers, do you have any comments? Nope, we're good to go. Before we give him the cpuc, oh no, he is not here. And so at this point I'd like to invite up our first panel.
Wait, where am I going?
Panel one. So we'll start with panel one, the California Public Utilities Commission Commissioner John Reynolds, who's now congratulations, President of the CPUC and Anna Maria Johnson, Deputy Executive Director, Broadband and Communications. The CPUC supplemental material will be available on our website and we were provided and were provided to member staff in advance. Before the CPUC begins, I do want to congratulate you on becoming President and in your new appointment. This committee had an opportunity to hear from you during last year's oversight hearing, and I look forward to continuing to build a working relationship with your office. Thank you to President Reynolds for being present today and also Anna Maria for being present on behalf of the Communications
Division Management of the cpuc.
So you may begin.
Thank you Chair Berner, and thank you Committee. It's wonderful to be here with you this afternoon. I have a few slides that I'll go through and look forward to your questions. So starting with slide two, the California Public Utilities Commission delivers policies and programs that aim to bring safe, accessible, reliable and affordable communications services to all Californians. The PUC oversees the communications industry in California in areas that impact public safety, universal access to essential services, and broadband deployment and adoption Initiatives will provide an overview of programs within each of these critical areas of our work on Slide three. Apologies, I've gone a little too far. So I'll touch upon these three main pillars, beginning with public safety and carrier oversight. Safe and reliable communication services are core to the work that we do. This includes licensing providers, resolving consumer complaints and ensuring reliable and high quality service. This also includes standards and requirements for ensuring communications networks are resilient and reliable during wildfires and other disasters, such as the implementation of the 72 hour backup power requirement for universal service. This is the long held statutory objective that all Californians, no matter where they live, should have access to safe, reliable and affordable communication services. The PUC administers the state's six public purpose programs that help bring access to voice and broadband services to communities across the state, including rural communities, schools, libraries, anchor institutions and disadvantaged and low income households. This includes the carrier of last resort obligation which ensures all customers have access to to telephone services as part of universal service. To continue closing the digital divide, the PUC approved multiple decisions to modernize the California lifeline program in 2025 expanding access to high quality Internet service for more Californians. The PUC launched the new Home Broadband Pilot to increase the broadband data capacity available to low income households. Through Lifeline, more Californians will be able to use technology neutral broadband Internet for work, school health and safety. The PUC also enhanced the Lifeline Foster Youth Program to offer every current and former foster youth reliable, affordable access to phone service to stay connected, pursue education and employment, and build independent lives. Broadband is an essential service necessary for work, receiving healthcare, education, public safety, civic engagement and simply living in today's world. Expanding broadband availability and increasing broadband adoption is a core goal of our organization. We continue to make great strides in connecting Californians through our various broadband infrastructure grant programs, so in particular I will highlight the investments that we've made over the past few years through the Last Mile Federal Funding Account Program. This program is having a real impact in communities across the state. To date, we've awarded 122 projects totaling $1.2 billion in funds across every one of California's 58 counties. Over 2 million Californians will benefit from these investments and 4,000 community anchor institutions. We are also working closely with the statewide Middle Mile Network as illustrated by 65 of these projects planning to connect to the state network. This is a real world example of the impact of these investments. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians located in Santa Barbara county are building a broadband network. This is in addition to their success in building homes and a water system on their ancestral land. They were awarded $4.7 million installing 13 miles of underground fiber in 2026, benefiting 853 Californians. They used a Tribal Technical Assistance grant for planning the project and they will provide gigabit symmetrical fiber for a generational investment in the resilience of the community. In addition to the federal funding account, the State of California received a total of $1.86 billion to implement the broadband equity access and deployment Program or bead. The State submitted its final proposal to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration on December 19, 2025, which proposed to use approximately $1.57 billion for deployment of infrastructure and to connect Californians. In total, this program will provide broadband access to more than 338,000 locations, with the vast majority of funds going to fiber optic networks. The National Transportation, Telecommunications and Information Administration is currently reviewing California's final proposal and we're going through the curing process. Our work in 2026 continues with essential projects and proceedings, including, but not limited to, obtaining federal approval for California's BEAD final proposal and getting projects started. Continuing our efforts to ensure our programs, like the California Lifeline Program, reflect the communications needs of Californians and that includes access to essential service like broadband ensuring universal service principles that no Californian is left behind from receiving access to safe, reliable and affordable communications services. As the PUC continues to examine its carrier of last resort obligations rules, we all know that communication services are key to public safety, and Californians need access to a reliable communications connection in an emergency to access 911, receive alerts and access evacuation information. As such, the PUC is continuing its work in the emergency preparedness and resiliency proceeding to strengthen public safety, improve compliance from service providers, and assess additional measures that will deliver reliable service to Californians. There's still a significant amount of work to be done to ensure communications networks in California are resilient, but we're seeing service providers continue to make improvements each year. We will also continue reviewing mergers and acquisitions, such as the Charter Cox merger, to examine whether or not such proposals are in the public interest. These main categories of the work that we do public safety, carrier oversight, universal service, and broadband access are necessary interconnected elements for ensuring that Californians are receiving communication services. Our dedicated staff of analysts, engineers, supervisors and managers work hard every day to carry out our mission. Before closing, I want to take a moment to provide a brief disclaimer. As a Commissioner, I am subject to statutory ex parte and Bagley Keene restrictions and in addition may be subject to the perception of providing an unfair advantage to certain parties. I'm happy to brief you today on the great work of the Commission and the many issues before us, but note that there are limitations when these interactions include parties to Commission proceedings. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today. I look forward to your questions.
Yes, and thank you for following the law. Assembly Member Rogers do you have any questions before I go in?
You can go in. Do they have questions okay, I'll ask
the easy questions, and you can ask the hard questions, and then I'll ask the harder questions. Okay, Sounds good. President Reynolds, for my first question, I
do want it to start in easy. You're the new president, so I want to start off nice.
What have you learned about telecommunications and
your time as a commissioner?
It's a great question and it's a big sector. And one thing that I think I've learned in my time as a commissioner in the past four years really has been how quickly our networks are continuing to adapt. While we're still using many of the same fundamental consumer forms of connectivity through our phones, through our computers and home broadband, the networks continue to require considerable investment to move to new technologies and higher speeds. And all of that is happening sort of in the background that customers don't necessarily see, but that ultimately will deliver benefits in the form of higher speed connections with access to greater and greater types of data movement that will enable new forms of economic development that I think we're seeing in many different ways emerge and that really ride on these networks.
And then secondly, as president, what's your vision for the CPUC as it relates to telecommunications?
It really goes back to those three pillars. It's making sure that we're performing our carryover site to support public safety, the resilience of networks and the reliability of the networks. It's making sure that we are deploying broadband throughout our state and it's really supporting the universal service goals, whether that's expanding networks to areas of the state that have historically been underinvested, or providing support for low income communities or for customers who require some additional access needs, like deaf and disabled customers.
With that, we'll go to Assemblymember Rogers.
Yeah, first of all, thank you so much for being here. I'll start with kind of a little bit of a comment. I hope that when you think of telecom issues, you'll continue to ask yourself, is that true for everybody? Right. And the goal of universal access, I think, is a good one. But I think remembering that equal access to programs, when you have certain parts of the state that are 20 years behind other parts of the state means that they continue to fall further behind as technology advances, even if the programs are designed to be even in rural and urban areas, just because their starting places are very different. So sort of with that as the context, can you talk to me about what your vision for last mile is and how would you define success? What do you think the next metrics are that we should be looking towards and 10 years, 15 years down the road, how do you hope that that will impact that disparity from the digital divide that exists?
Thank you for the question. I think in the immediate term my focus is on making sure that the awards that we're approving translate into dollars moving to companies that are building projects that connect Californians in unconnected or under connected areas of the state. And we see under connected areas of the state in every county. And that's why we have awards to every county. We see locations that need investment, that have exactly that. They have been underinvested to the tune of decades being further delayed than parts of the state that got network upgrades earlier. So most immediately I want to see the dollars that we have before US dollars approved by the state legislature and by the federal government translate into projects connecting those Californians. I want to see those projects move forward as quickly as possible, responsibly, of course. Longer term, I want to make sure that we're delivering, wherever we can, future proof solutions or as future proof as we can. There are going to be some extremely high cost areas where we may have to weigh the use of technologies that don't necessarily provide the same level of future proofing as fiber connectivity does at the current stage. But wherever it's a, it's a viable solution. I really appreciate our effort to drive the best technologies to customers that are going to deliver generational benefits.
I appreciate that, and the chair has heard me say this many times in my district. Part of the problem is that they have had promises for a long time and yet there has been no delivery on those promises. And so even the example that you use about every county has different areas that are not connected. While that's true if you're in LA county, an unconnected part of LA county still has property tax for services that are being generated by connected areas, unlike some of our rural communities. So there is still a disadvantage there. I wanted to ask you specifically about the Teleconnect fund and the impact of that. My understanding is that there's a move to allocate funding at the actual school level, not the school district level. And I want to know if you've contemplated the difference in ability for small schools, small school districts to be able to apply for, administer and report on the grant as opposed to other areas that might be more equipped. And how are you going to make sure that that is addressed?
Yeah, I do appreciate the question. We do now have an active docket that really is looking at the question of whether there are opportunities for schools to be to be represented in more of a consortium for purposes of participating in the program. We do at this time support thousands of schools in California with the California Teleconnect Fund. And ultimately we're looking to make sure that this program serves the schools, libraries and other anchor institutions that provide access to broadband for customers directly for students, for members of the community. And you know, schools and libraries have historically been model examples of doing exactly that. And we're trying to make sure that the program works for them.
Great.
I hope what you'll One of the data points you'll take back from this discussion as that continues to advance is I have a school that has three people in my district. They have the same reporting requirements, administrative reporting requirements as every other school in the state. They don't. They have more administrative staff than they have students. Because of the requirements that are involved. They would not be probably in a position to deal with this as an individual school. So you may want to build flexibility if the intent is for equitable distribution. You just have to recognize that not every school and not every school district is going to be able to comply the same way. And then my last question, and then I'll kick it back to the chair for harder questions, is around resiliency. And we've seen some success stories in the worst of times of the telecommunication networks holding up, keeping people connected even when everything else is chaotic. And then we've also seen some instances where that hasn't been the case. What do you see as the CPUC's role to ensure that you have more examples in the first column than in the second column? And where do you see gaps for achieving that?
I think we've been using, I think, two main venues, our resiliency docket and our service quality docket, as areas to provide the carrier oversight necessary to move more into that first category where we see success stories, resilient and reliable networks are going to help create more success stories. We both need to set requirements that make it clear what we expect in terms of resiliency and reliability. We've made a lot of progress on setting those requirements and we've got to hold carriers accountable for meeting those requirements and set the penalties correctly so that carriers are incentivized to make the investments necessary to deliver on resiliency and reliability.
And if I can ask you to go a little bit further in that, because you're not always able to tell carriers they have to be in an area and so redundancy and other types of costs shift their willingness to provide service in Certain areas. So how do you hold their feet to the fire without pushing them out of the area entirely?
It is a bit of a delicate balance for sure. I certainly recognize that it's true that those carriers who don't have an obligation to serve may make a business decision about whether or not it's worth investing in certain areas. And I think there's a little bit of a, a multi method approach here where we, we can both set the requirements on the carrier oversight side. We can and do engage in inspection activity and see the progress that carriers are making on, for example, the 72 hour backup requirement. We can exercise a degree of discretion and setting the appropriate penalty for perhaps a first time offense on our metrics versus chronic offenses. And on top of that, we can continue to support investment in communities that don't have sufficient networks that are delivering high quality connectivity at modern speeds.
I appreciate that we have in our area a place called Garberville that actually went almost a month at one point, a number of years ago without point of sale for any of their businesses because there was no redundancy. And I believe, if I remember the story correctly, a driver hit the wrong pole and took out the entire network for that small area. So it's really important for our area. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I want to welcome Assemblymember Coloza and Assemblymember Ponta. We have the cpuc, our newly appointed President Reynolds. Oh yeah, John Reynolds. President Reynolds. Right One.
Do you have any questions before I begin?
Okay.
Jessica.
Yeah.
Assemblymember Coloza.
Thank you so much. Chair, nice to see you. Congratulations and excited to see the President here. I know that was something. Now in my second year serving on this commission, I know something that we really wanted to see more of was attendance here from the commission. And I know our chair has been the biggest advocate for how do we rebuild that relationship and work on having that relationship. I wanted to ask about the 2026 work plan items that were outlined in your presentation. Could you just give us an update on the active proceed. How has that been going? Can you tell us some of the things that you're observing? I know there's four big items there.
Yes. So we have.
Feel free to start with whichever item you'd like.
Gladly. We have these four big items in addition to other proceedings as well. So we do have a range of proceedings touching communications matters. But I did highlight a few of the big ones here. For the Chartercocks merger, I can say that we have a timeline in that proceeding where the target for a proposed decision is for a decision is in September and that is the timeline that we're tracking towards ultimately there is process involved there and the judge and the assigned commissioner will be weighing the briefs and the evidence presented by parties to determine what the right outcome is on the BEAD program. The current state of that process really is that we have submitted our final proposal to ntia. We are now engaged in the curing process with NTIA, where we have a back and forth with NTIA about whether or not our final proposal satisfies the rules and requirements. Once we've completed the curing process, we'll be able to move forward with awards, moving out the door and getting dollars into projects and projects in the ground. For Lifeline. We have approved the Lifeline hardware Home Broadband Pilot and I believe, and please do correct me If I'm wrong, Ms. Johnson, we have not the the program does not yet have enrollees, but that will be happening this year.
We have an update on that if
you would like Me Yes.
Good afternoon Chair and Assembly Members Anna Maria Johnson, Deputy Executive Director for Broadband and Communications at the cpuc and as President John Reynolds mentioned, our Home Broadband Pilot has launched. As of January of this year, we have received 16 applications. 15 have been approved. Those providers are currently onboarding and going through testing to interface with our Lifeline program and one which is Charter. The Covers, Charter, Time Warner and BrightHouse. Together, all those three entities are already subscribing customers. The Home Broadband Pilot is a three year pilot that allows service providers to participate and offer a discount on broadband service, standalone broadband service for 100Mbps down and 20 up, along with high capacity bandwidth of data for $20 per month as a discount. And if they want to include voice, it will be $30.
Thank you, that's very helpful. And I know we're always looking for more programs for our constituents to apply to to make it more affordable and you're not getting away from the last two items. Please continue.
For the carrier of last resort proceeding, we in December issued a staff proposal in that proceeding and have taken in comments from parties early this year. So now the question before us is whether and how to revise the staff proposal to evaluate party comments and figure out the right next steps and direction for that proceeding. And for resiliency, I'm actually going to turn to Ms. Johnson again. Could you provide an update on that proceeding?
Thank you, President Reynolds, for the emergency Preparedness Resilience proceeding, which is looking at our existing rules as shared with Assemblymember rogers. Of the 72 hours of backup power. The proceeding has opened. We are assessing the data elements that providers are submitting to make sure they continue to be compliant. We are looking to make sure if the existing rule should expound outside of high wild fire risk areas. And our work continues with a staff proposal hopefully being issued this year. Okay, thank you.
See, that was fine. I know you're. I just appreciated hearing about the updates for these, like, four very large projects that you guys are undergoing. If I can also make a request to the CPUC for some of the public hearings that you have, I know my team has attended some of them in my district and in Los Angeles, Glendale area. If you're able to share that, that would be helpful. Just really always trying to figure out ways we can better connect the work that's happening, the outreach that you're in our communities, to the work that we're doing here in the committee room. And the last comment that I'll make, and I know we'll see more of you this year, is I know they're a separate office, but I did just want to commend the work of the Public Advocate's office and the reports that they have been putting out. I personally find them incredibly helpful as I continue to dive deeper into these policy issues. So I did just want to give
a special shout out to your Public Advocate's office.
Thank you.
Thank you. And with us we also have Assemblymember Rubio.
Blanca Rubio, not Susan Rubio, Blanca Rubio.
And our Chair of our Joint Legislative Audit Committee and also represents one of
the LA Wildfire areas, Assemblymember Hera Bidian. So if, do you have any questions
for the CPOC at this time?
No, no.
I just wanted to thank you for the information. I'm still reading through some of it and I know that this is only the beginning of our, you know, oversight and other communication that we have with you. So hopefully we can maintain a relationship where we can, you know, ask questions and get some timely answers. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Same.
Thank you to the Chair for the invite.
I would be shocked if Assemblymember Bhata didn't have questions.
Just warming up. Chair. So I have two questions primarily around the California Lifeline and the website. One is whether you all can provide some clarification around when residents are going to be able to start enrolling in the home Broadband pilot.
Could you take that, Ms. Johnson?
Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta. So right now in our California Lifeline program, the public can go in and put their zip code in the website and get providers that offer wireless wireline and we're currently up loading to show the providers that are offering broadband in the area. So that would be the main area where they can go to today. One company or a combination of three, which is Charter, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Network is the only company that has been subscribing customers. They just finished.
Only one of the four companies has
been one of the 16 that have applied because the others are still in the onboarding phase.
Okay, so.
So that would be the main location where customers can check if there's a provider that offers the home broadband. In addition, we do require for service providers who are participating in the program to share with us their outreach plan. So for example, the outreach and marketing material that they will be using includes annual notices sent to residential customers. Some companies will be providing flyers in retail stores, information on the company's website, as well as banners in certain platforms, social platforms and direct mail campaigns and email communications to households. So each company that participates in the pilot has a marketing plan that they have to submit that includes those examples.
My question was less so where people can get information or what the nature of the program was, but when people will actually be able to end users will be able to sign up and become a part of the pilot.
So now for the charter Southern California area and for the others, it's in the works as they continue through the onboarding. The other 15 companies in the works is a pretty.
Well, it's not even pretty. It is a very vague and non committal time frame. I'm assuming that you have like project timelines associated with these, with these endeavors?
Yes.
Is there a deliverable timeframe associated with when you're going to roll out the pilot?
I can provide to you where they are on the onboarding. So they onboard individually with our third party administrator in the Lifeline program. They have been officially approved and they're just through the testing of the interface that they have to work with our third party administrator. And I can follow up with you where each of those 14 companies are in that process to provide a more unique start day on when they're going to be subscribing customers.
So it's up to the 14 companies to determine their own timeline then?
No, it's when they complete.
Does he have a timeline and a deadline?
I can provide you the testing time period where they're in. I don't have that readily available in front of me at the moment, but I can get it to you. It's not up to the company. It's really when they are ready and completed the onboarding process with our third party administrator.
And does that also have any information about when different providers. Well, it doesn't have any information about the provider's timeline, but it does have information about the you said 16 providers, ISP providers that are available.
16 have applied, 15 have been approved, one is pending review of their proposal
and I haven't looked at the website. Are those 16 providers known and on the website?
Not yet. They will be uploaded in the website where the customer will be able to enter their zip code and show the plan. We cannot upload all of them yet with exception of charter since they're already offering, but the other ones have to wait as they go through the testing and interfacing with a third party administrator to onboarding on how to subscribe the customers. So that information is forthcoming and I can share with you a timeline on when to expect it on our California Lifeline website.
I think what might be helpful is if you give to us and we'll distribute to our committee members the timeline for those 15 companies are there are 16 companies. One is pending, one is approved. So the 14 remaining companies, what is the timeline when you expect them to finish their onboarding? And that will be live. So if you can give us that then we can distribute that.
And I would be remiss when I
hear Assemblymember Bonta's questions that this seems the answers seem to be acting out of the interest of the CPUC and not the interest of the customer who needs to enroll.
I'm trying to imagine the world of
somebody without broadband being expected to go to the CPUC website, put in their zip code.
Like how yes, the companies themselves will
have a marketing plan, but maybe to
go back and have the team think
from the end user's perspective, from the people we're trying to help, that you're
trying to help, that we're trying to
help how that will be easy for them and maybe put that in a comment letter to us. That would be helpful. Would that be helpful, Assembly Member Bhatta?
Yes. And it could also include information about who those providers are because I think what you've said is that information is not readily available. What constitutes a qualifying plan? I think that that would also be available and where those respective plans and providers are have applied for Absolutely. For distribution. I think it's not only the end user of the individual who's trying to make sure that they have access to the California Lifeline program, but it's also the many service providers who have and the ecosystem of very healthy digital equity providers that we have that want to be able to make sure that people receive this service. And so it feels the opaqueness of what you have just shared I think creates an unnecessary friction point for many providers who are trying to make sure that we can get as much connectivity and service to individuals as possible. I have a particular sense of urgency around this as many people became very clear to us during COVID the first pandemic that that people were going to be incredibly reliant on telehealth and digital services to be able to communicate with the outside world. We are on the verge of nearly 2 million people losing health care coverage and a lot of the re eligibility and redetermination process that they will need to access and quite frankly that the state is banking on them using and being informed through this whole population is not going to be able to receive that. And so we're not going to be doing our part. So I'm hoping that we can make sure to bring this online as soon as possible and create more transparency.
Absolutely, we will get you that information.
And sticking with the lifeline questions, of
the 15 approved providers, how much of the state is covered by those 15% like either in territory or in or in total population or in total need of low income Californians who qualify.
We are very glad to see some of the largest companies like Charter, Comcast, but we're also seeing some small rural telephone companies. So the small local exchange carriers that participate in the California Hot Cuffs Fund, a a number of them are participants as well. We have not yet seen companies like AT&T or Frontier come in and participate at the moment. So I would say the largest cable companies and some smaller rural telephone companies.
So in the follow up to this
it would be helpful if you could let us know in terms of territory of the 15 that have been approved,
how much in territory in California is
covered, how much in total population is covered and if you have it, how much of those who are in greatest need are covered?
So I hear 15.
But when I hear the Ilex that's very small population and are the bigger like the ones you mentioned, Charter and
Comcast, is that their entire territory or
only portions of their territory?
Do you know it's a pilot and I can get back to you on the estimates of subscribers that they plan but it is in their areas where they serve.
Okay, if we could follow up with that that would be helpful for us to understand. I do want to say given the
CPUC's lifeline pilot for Home broadband.
I think it's important to be mindful that expanding subsidies does increase the state
costs that are ultimately paid on surcharges on telephone bills.
And I would like to know when we can expect to see more analysis on the surcharge impacts of the Lifeline
program of the Lifeline pilot home broadband program.
We can definitely follow up with you with the amount of funding in the surcharge that ultimately goes to the home broadband pallet. As we see subscribers come on.
And then projections, as you see people take up the Lifeline home broadband program, what are your projections of the increase in surcharge? It's that upward pressure that could be
there that I suspect is there so
that we have an understanding of what it will be.
So that would be helpful. And will the CPUC submit a report
to the legislature when the pilot is complete?
Will we get interim reports? What is your plan to communicate with us?
Great question. We'd certainly be happy to share information with the legislature about the results of the home broadband pilot as we continue to think about what is the right funding structure for Lifeline? What services should it fund? Is it delivering the services that customers would like to see from it? And I think information, including the cost and impact on the surcharge would certainly be relevant to that kind of report out, as well as the subscribers that ultimately we see through this program.
Any questions on Lifeline home broadband program before I move on to Last Mile Broadband? Okay, so to date, CPUC has awarded all of the appropriated funding for the CASF and FFA and is waiting for
the approval from NTIA to begin awarding the 1.86 billion worth of grants for bead.
What progress can the legislature expect over
the next several years between BEAD and casf?
Great question. We are looking forward to seeing the projects that we've already awarded under CASF and FFA translate into projects on the ground that ultimately deliver service to customers. There is a timeline associated with those awards. So providers do have to complete their construction within, I believe it's 24 months after the award is approved. So we should be seeing those projects come online. And we actually have information that there are a number of projects that have already started construction we can continue. We can and will continue monitoring the status of those awards to see how those projects move forward. Obviously, for the BEAD program, we first need to get approval from NTIA of our final plan, and then from there we will move to getting awards out the door and getting those projects started.
Okay.
Interim reports. The legislature would be very helpful on that. And are you seeing last mile projects
impacted because of middle mile delays?
We certainly have a number of projects that are intending to connect to the middle mile broadband network. My understanding is that some of the individual awardees are evaluate their alternative options in the event that there's not a middle mile connection available to them. So that would be kind of a provider by provider and project by project question. Some projects are not dependent on that network, but we would absolutely love to see our networks be our last mile grants able to leverage that network and that network to be able to deliver service to Californians.
Okay.
I think that's really important to be
able to track that because if they were planning to go for the middle mile and now they have to provide alternate connectivity, that's an increase in cost of the project. And who's covering that at what cost is always a grave concern.
And on that, with a previous budget, I advocated to delay 500 million in
general fund FFA dollars to 2728 to allow for the state to first spin down the federal funds from FFA and Bead.
What is your vision for that final 500 million?
And do you believe that the state should make any revisions to its approach with that final amount of funding, especially considering the cost differential between fiber and fixed wireless?
I think it's important that we make use of the funds that have been made available to California in order to deliver service to Californians. We want to make sure that we meet the timelines associated with those funds. And I think we should always evaluate what options we have to tie those funds to different kinds of projects to make sure that we're making timely use. I think that's, that's going to be critical and something that I'll want us to always evaluate. Can I add, please.
Thank you for that question, Chair Berner. Those $550 million are critical and necessary to fulfill the 2 billion DOL vision. Of the federal funding account, 58 counties have been awarded, but a large majority, a large number of them, 21, have yet to receive 50% or more of their allocated amounts in the county. So as you recall, the $2 billion was supposed to be split between rural and urban counties at the CPUC. Across the 58 counties, a certain amount of funding allocation was identified in each county based on the budget that we had with the original 1.4 billion. That includes the local agency technical assistance plus the awards that we have made. We have funded all of the 58 counties, but a number of them remain to get 100% of that allocation and that 550 million is is necessary to achieve that goal. There's a lot of demand and still a lot of work left in the various counties both across rural and urban. And that money is necessary.
I appreciate the money is necessary, but you have 1.86 billion coming in beat that could also be going to those projects. So the idea of the 550 million from FFA was those are state dollars was to expend the federal dollars first without jeopardizing any federal money. And so it seems like Bede applicants also would have applied for some of those projects in the counties as well. So they're overlapping projects.
Once we get our final proposal approved by the federal government, we are absolutely going to be assess remaining locations are in each county. What's an enforceable commitment we can count on until we get that final approval? As we go through curing in the NTIA. While we have put a proposal to cover all 338,000 of the eligible federal locations, we're hoping that we get all of them. But we have to wait to assess what remains. And as such we do see a true need to continue to allocate the $550 million for federal funding.
I would suggest that until there's a strategy for the $550 million after the bead allocation and there's some real where we're shown where the real gaps are, I would say I am missing the data to fully comprehend your argument. That's a nice way to say it.
Understood.
Any other questions on this? Any other questions on this before I
go to service quality rulemaking?
Okay. Service quality rulemaking. First, I want to commend the staff of the CPUC and the commissioners for updating the CPUC's voice service quality rules
to include VoIP in phase two of the proceeding.
The CPUC is actively considering extending service
quality regulations to wireless voice services broadband.
There's obviously a lot of public interest in this proceeding and some complex legal
issues the CPC will have to consider.
I realize there are some restrictions in
speaking about pending proceedings.
I think it's important to share what
you can and I'll try to ask general questions instead of specifics.
So, President Reynolds, do you agree that there are complex legal matters at play in this proceeding?
I certainly think it's fair to say that there are complex legal matters in this proceeding as there were in the last service quality docket. Yes.
And while I want to ask your opinion on the legal questions at play
in this proceedings, can you summarize or characterize what the legal differences of opinion
Are we are still at the very beginning of the new service quality docket. And while I might anticipate there being a number of different legal arguments made by a number of different stakeholders, we're still at the very beginning of this process. We haven't necessarily heard the, you know, the fully articulated positions of different parties on the legal issues that could be presented here.
Okay.
And are you aware that the definition section of the Public Utilities act does not include a definition of broadband service?
And that always seemed odd to me.
I appreciate that.
And do you think there would be of any value in the legislature clarifying
the CPC's jurisdiction on the matter, given the complexity?
I always have the good fortune of taking in the direction of the legislature so that we can comply with the direction that you set forth for us. I will certainly say that we intend to proceed with our work in the service quality docket under the statutory regime that exists. And to the extent that there were any changes, we would absolutely take that into account.
Thank you for your response.
Now we have questions on AB 1532 implementation. Any other questions before I proceed to 1532? As you know, last year this committee passed legislation to get more granular information on how often commissioners attend public hearings and proceedings related to telecommunications. Going into that bill, we obviously had our own impressions. Before I get to my questions, I first wanted to give you an opportunity to speak about what takeaways you'd like
us to take away from that report. Can you make some comments around those?
Gladly. I think it's fair to say that we've got a range of different types of public facing forums between our voting meetings, public participation hearings, pre hearing conferences, evidentiary hearings, oral arguments. There are many different types of hearings that commissioners may or may not attend, many of which will depend on their individual caseload. So our evidentiary hearings, for example, are not necessarily held in every case, but some cases have them, some cases don't. Similarly, oral arguments are only held on request of parties, so only some cases will have those. Public participation hearings are typically held in cases that have a higher likelihood of public interest. And commissioner attendance will really depend on which types of cases they are individually assigned. So I think my, my hope, as a general takeaway from the statistics we've reported out, is that there are a range of different types of hearings that our commissioners are attending. For each individual commissioner, I would say that their attendance will likely depend on the sorts of cases that they are assigned.
So thank you for clarifying that. That's kind of a different takeaway than I have or it's a different reason for the takeaway. I should say one of my takeaways when I looked at it is that commissioners are attending public hearings at unequal rates. And that raises questions to me about the extent to which all commissioners have
a clear priority around telecommunications.
For example, when it comes to public participation hearings, some are attending 10 to 12 per year, but the least active attended only one. And when it came to workshops, one commissioner attended 35 and others attended 10 or less. So do you agree that this data should raise questions and you start to say because they're assigned different cases. It seems to me if all five
commissioners are making decisions around telecommunications, they should be.
One would expect a more equitable and
equal distribution of participation in telecommunications hearings than what the report suggested.
I appreciate that. You know, I can speak personally. I had both the Verizon Frontier merger as well as the carrier of last resort proceedings, and both of those involved a lot of public participation hearings. And so I had a lot of telecommunications public participation hearings as the lead commissioner for those. Those dockets that were expected to have and did have a lot of those types of hearings. Other commissioners may not have the same set of a similar set of assignments in the telecommunications space that will require that extensive amount of public hearings.
Yeah, go ahead.
Commissioners get paid.
We do.
Do they get paid equally?
No.
Can you share what the differential is?
I don't have it off the top of my head. I'm sorry. But it is public for the rationale. It is set by the legislature. Commissioner pay.
That's not an answer. That's not the rationale. That's a fact.
You don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't have anything further for you.
Maybe get back to us on that. That's a great question to somebody.
Remember Bonta?
Because when I look at this data, it really leads me to believe that
commissioner offices themselves are overburdened. Just because there is a lead commissioner on an issue, you would expect.
I'm the chair of this committee.
I expect my committee members to equally be involved in the decisions that this committee makes.
So it's hard for us to. I think. What did you say?
We do get paid the same.
We get paid the same. Yeah, we're going to look into that. That's a weird thing. So.
But we're equally involved in the bills that come for this committee.
And so when I look at this data and I hear your responses, it seems to me that given the number
of proceedings and the depth, perhaps the commissioner's officers are overburdened.
And might benefit from having more support. So would you agree that each individual commissioner has a lot on their plate?
That is. That is certainly true. Chair.
Okay, thank you for all your questions and responses so far. As we conclude panel one, we'll transition to the next. Oh, yeah. Sorry, sorry. Any final questions before I transition next,
I just want to follow up on the attendance. Is there something different that we could help you with? Since you indicated that we are the one that set the salary schedule? We all have a lot right now. It's kind of the slow time, but there's been many times where I'm in three committee hearings at the same time and I call it ping ponging. We go back and forth. But is there something that you don't have to answer now? Is there something that we could do to help you either set schedules or figure out how? Because clearly this is really, really important. This is not for me. All of the committees are important, but you have to kind of prioritize which ones. If it's my own committee, obviously I have to be there. But is there a way that we can facilitate either one day that there's nothing else except for this or that kind of thing? Because obviously with a lot of the issues that we've been having just the last couple of years, it's critical that, that all of the commissioners are involved because if you come or somebody else comes, you won't be able to answer the questions because you didn't attend meetings. If you can think about other than the salary, because we're looking into that. Is there something that we could do? Again, set a standard date that everybody has to meet? Because it's not fair either to you nor to the constituency, it's the whole state that you're managing and non participation looks for, whatever the reason is, when we look at it, we just look at the numbers. And so if I'm looking at the numbers, they don't look very, very good.
Right.
And so I don't want to either attack or call you out about it. If there are valid reasons and if there are, we would like to know those. But if, and what can we do? Because this is critical. We've been doing a lot of work in this space, especially with the wildfires and everything. It's critical that we have all the commissioners attend and participate. We can't do it without you, and that's why you're here. And so if you can help us figure out a system where everybody does
participate, I do appreciate that. And I should note that our commissioners do ultimately vote on policy at our voting meetings where we do have very consistent attendance. And we also do produce transcripts of our different kinds of hearings that are available to all of us. Even if a commissioner doesn't attend each hearing across all the different cases that each of us are leading, we do produce transcripts for many of our different hearings.
So my chief consultant was clever and looked it up. It's section 304, is that correct? And what we think is the differential
is the president makes a little bit more than the other commissioners.
So all the commissioners make the same.
The president gets a little bit more. It's like we have all assembly members get a little the same salary and our speaker gets a little bit more.
So I think that's the differential we're
looking at, not something else. So it's not like each commissioner gets paid by attendance or anything like that.
And it's a full time job.
There aren't other. I don't think you have other. I hope you don't have other jobs.
No.
I'm sorry for your work life balance if you do so.
Any other questions from my committee members? Yeah, close.
Thank you. Chair, I know we went over this. One of the topics that we didn't get a chance to talk about was some of the resiliency as it relates to emergency. I know my colleague, assembly member Harry Bedian is here and did a lot of great work for the enrollment fires which my district was next to. Can you talk a little bit about how you know the CPUC's like current rules and regulations are being implemented to ensure more resiliency as it relates to some of the emergencies that the state has gone through. How are you implementing that in the rulemaking process? If you can just elaborate.
Yes. So we've established a 72 hour backup power requirement and we've actually gone through a process of auditing sites. So we have inspections of different locations to see whether or not carriers are meeting those requirements. We've seen some areas where carriers do meet those requirements and others where they don't. And so we've, we've been working to see progress in getting those, getting those sites up to the regulatory requirements and anything you Want to add?
Ms. Johnson just wanted to add a couple of items. Assemblymember on top of ensuring compliance with network resiliency, which for Wireline it's around 51 entities we get information on and for wireless is four main providers, total is around 18,000 assets that we ensure compliance with. In 2025 we carried out over 50 sites and inspections, as President Reynolds said, and we're currently working on our schedule for 2026. But our mere presence of going to the sites, we have seen an increase in compliance with the backup power and high fire risk area. Also, what the CPUC requires is during a declared state of emergency, wireline and wireless companies are to immediately put in place customer protections for wireline. It includes waiving installation fees, extending payment for service for wireless, and includes providing WI fi hotspots in areas where the community is gathering, but also free phones, free mobile phones if necessary, in addition to extension of payment plans. We receive compliance information from companies immediately shortly after a declared state of emergency is called by the governor to share with us what it is that they're offering the communities and where. So it's a multi pronged strategy to ensure resilient networks across California.
Thank you for sharing that and glad to see more compliance with some of the battery backup requirements and the high fire risk areas from these sites that you have observed. What are you seeing and is there going to be a report that's going to be issued for us to take a look at to see where the spots that are weak spots in the states for resiliency? Is it Northern California, Southern California so we can get ahead of where maybe you need support, where providers need support?
We have a report and we're happy to send it to you that has that observations and information about our work from staff in going to those sites. But for some examples, when we go in with the company they may say they may report that they are compliant, but when we show up it's like well where is the battery backup? And so that helps in ensuring that they actually are in place and also confirm the site locations. And it's across Northern California and Southern California. We are beginning, as I mentioned, to identify locations in 2026 to attend. Something that is very important is to keep in mind also are we seeing disparities in areas where the income levels are lower than in some other communities? And those are the more focused analysis that we really want to take on in this round to understand if there are such disparities at the moment. But I must say I was impressed to see the every time I talk to the team, it's like the police officer just watching as you drive and someone is speeding, the cars just kind of slowed down. Just the mere presence of our staff being there sends the signals to the companies to comply and come up with compliance. I always reminds me of that, of the importance of being there and having presence.
Thank you for sharing that and I'm sure as you look at the 20, 26 locations, I'm sure my colleagues who have helped us weather the fires last year have some recommendations about some places
to look at for the state.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Good.
Okay. Thank you for all your responses and to our questions. Thank you for my colleagues for all your very insightful questions and comments. As we conclude panel, as we conclude panel one, we'll transition to the next panel wherein the CPUC leadership will likely
need to leave the room due to conflicts of interest and in active proceedings.
President Reynolds, do I have that right and can you share more about that?
Yes, that is correct. And we, we have ex party rules about communications with different parties to our proceedings and appearances of propriety about being being influenced in our formal proceedings by matters that are not part of our record.
Okay, thank you. Well, I know this is common practice and partially a result of our statute. It does seem to me that good
governance would include public officials. It seems to me that public officials shouldn't have to leave the room when
a statewide elected official comes to advocate
on behalf of school age children.
As you know, the Department of Education is an active party in the proceedings. But I wonder about the other schools
and other folks that will be here in public comment or their representatives.
So before we wrap up and move
to the next panel, do you want
any to make any closing comments about the active proceeding and to any of
those who may make public comment when you will have to leave the room.
Thank you for the opportunity. I will certainly say that our focus in the California Teleconnect Fund program is making sure that anchor institutions throughout the state, including our schools, have better access to broadband service. They have subsidized broadband service so that they can deliver aerated access as anchors to their communities. And I look forward to our work continuing that area and making continued progress.
Thank you very much for your participation today and answers. I know this will not be our last conversation. We'll wrap up this panel and give you some time to leave before we call up.
So Superintendent to Tony Thurman.
Thank you again.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you members.
Thank.
You. So moving on, I think we're now all clear. We'll continue on with panel two, the California Department of Education. Joining us today is the honorable Tony
Thurman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Thank you for being here. And you may begin.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And members, I'm joined today by Kimberly Rosenberger, who is our Director of Government affairs, who also has been monitoring some of the details with the California Teleconnect Fund. Look, I know you've had a lot of conversations, so I'll keep this brief. The CTF is a game changer. Anything that provides a 50% discount to our school districts for Internet related products is huge. To put it in context, during the pandemic, we learned that in our state there were more than a million students who did not have access to any Internet. These were mostly low income students, black and brown students, students in rural communities who didn't have access to broadband, period. And we established a task force to close the digital divide. And it was able to get donations of hotspots and devices. But California kids deserve more than hotspotting their way to their needs. And so I sponsor legislation that you all pass. Thank you. That provide $6 billion for the broadband that we're discussing today for the middle mile and the last mile connections. And so we're grateful for that. What we don't understand is why there would be any change in how the fund is allocated. And I appreciated your question to the CPUC folks, but they didn't give a reason for why they would move from funding directly through county offices of education and going directly to any of the individual 10,000 schools that exist in our district. This funding is no different than any other set of funding that school districts receive. Nowhere in the state does a school, individual school, receive funding that goes outside of the district or the county office of education. And that's not to prevent them from getting it. But only the district has the full view of all the things that are needed for each of the schools. And as was pointed out by Assemblymember Rogers, any district that you. Any school that you ask to now take on additional reporting in addition to managing behavior, in addition to supporting teacher development, in addition to any myriad of things that will come up on any given day is really unrealistic for any school, especially a school that has three staff. So again, I don't think that the CPUC folks have really envisioned a real rationale for why they pursue it. And they certainly haven't spoken to anybody at the California Department of Education. We'd love to speak with them about it because we work and interface with the 2,000 districts in the 10,000 schools. And I can tell you from the conversations we've had with districts and county offices of education, each of them say this is a very important program. They see making any changes to this program as creating additional burden that will get in the way of them doing the things that are important, making sure that there's A teacher in every classroom that there's classified staff ready to assist, that parents get support with helping our kids. And so we would invite the members of this oversight committee to give that feedback to the CPUC directly to say, hey, let's not try to fix what's broken. And if there is an issue that needs to be addressed, share what that issue is. And I would just add this in closing that everything that is being proposed with making changes to the fund goes against the conversations that have come from this legislature this year. Everything about conversations in education has been how do we help to create more clarity, how do we help to create cohesion? And this moves away from that conversation. This moves exactly against what school districts and schools have asked for. Less reporting, less onerous burdens on them, more resources and more ability to do the work. And so we believe that what is proposed here creates a burden with no obvious benefit. But if there is one, we'd like to hear it. And we would love to work with the PUC on how to manage it. And so with that, I always want to say, respectfully ask for your I vote
old habits die hard.
Habits die hard. Especially when I'm back on the move the bill. But we do ask and appreciate your concern about making sure that access is equally distributed through all communities, whether they be rural, urban, suburban, frontier, wherever they are. We ask that you use your influence to help redirect this conversation to protect this very important resource and make sure that it's not underutilized because of administrative burden.
Ah, thank you so much. And that was a very concise summary of I think the problem position that we're hearing.
The one thing I would say is I am hearing the only change people
want is quicker reimbursement. I would say they do want change,
but they don't want this change.
They want to have quicker reimbursement.
I would say that's the only thing
that I've heard it would definitely be
slower if you ask schools to have to. I mean there's no question of that.
I, I personally find it mind boggling
when you look and I'm sure there are committee members in this room that could speak more eloquently than I can to this. But when you look at the and equity and grant making capacity by school, we have tried in this legislature for many legislatures before me to have more equity in schools and to make it by school will only benefit the wealthier districts and only exacerbate the inequality in our state. And I can't fathom a reason and have not heard a reason why that would be meaningful for the students of California.
And so one of the things, if
they haven't talked to you, then maybe you can't answer this question.
But do you believe the CPUC understands
the complexity of technology procurement for schools?
We know that they don't. The fact that they didn't really even have the ability to talk to the California Department of Education says that they don't. And whether or not they've spoken to any county office of education or district leader would suggest that they don't. And if there is a desire to reduce the time for reimbursement, then there should be efforts like the ones that we're pursuing to figure out how do we help districts automatically qualify for grant funds so that small districts don't have to have a grant writer? Small districts where the principal, where the superintendent is sometimes the principal or sometimes the principal is also teaching classes, to ask them to have the right grants at the same time is an onerous burden. And so, you know, this proposal, as envisioned by the CTC shows that they don't understand the complexities of education, and it's moving against what we're trying to do, and that is create less burden and more resources.
I just want to make one clarifying point. We are a formal party. We have engaged through that manner, but we weren't consulted to the superintendent's point in the initial decision making. And we have provided clarity on the distinction between local education agencies, county office of education, districts, et cetera, but they don't seem to understand that discrepancy. So I just want to make the clarifying comment that we are a formal party, but we weren't like in the early planning process.
We've had to interject ourselves into that process through the rulemaking hearings, not, hey, can we talk about this? How do we help our districts?
And has the department ever had to
take that onerous step before with any other state agency
in terms of, well,
you've had to become a formal party to this proceedings. Have you ever had to do that level of engagement? Not in recent history to coordinate with other agencies?
Not in recent history, no.
And do you think that the complexity
of becoming a party disadvantages local schools that might also have a strong opinion about this?
Absolutely. I think our schools will tell you they want the resources, but they don't want to be saddled with additional burden. And so, yeah.
Before I ask my final question of
the superintendent, are there any other questions from my committee members? Okay. So do you believe this topic is of urgency and importance that it's something that this committee should undertake as a committee bill.
I do. Now I finally get to say respectfully as for your I vote when you think about the amount of funds that go to our schools upwards of $105 million and that 50% of the claim funds go directly to schools, that lets you know that the impact is significant. Even with the $6 billion that this state is making available for broadband, there is tremendous lack of equity in terms of availability for access to be connected through many parts of the state. And so I would say that this is an urgent matter for this oversight committee to take up and the benefits will be tremendous. There's no downside to your taking it up, but making sure that a very important resource doesn't go underutilized or in some cases by some schools simply not used because they just don't have the people, power and capacity to utilize them.
I'm supposed to do this.
Thank you, Mr. Thurman for joining us to discuss this important topic and for
advocating on behalf of of our public school children. I'm committed to ensuring that this program is protected.
So with that I want to thank you. Second panel is closed and I will
move
to public comment. So with that, thank you, thank you, thank you. With that we can move to public comment. You may approach your mic. Approach the public MIC with name, affiliation and concerns. Please limit to your comments. Emilio will keep track. I'll count down. Please limit your comments to two minutes.
Thank you very much and good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Really pleased to be able to speak today to the issue related to California Teleconnect Fund. Los Angeles County Office of Education is currently involved in the rulemaking process initiated in 2020 by the CPUC to update and modernize the California Teleconnect Program. And also since 1997, we've been actively engaged with the Cup's current rulemaking proceeding. LACO supports the adoption and needed clarifications to CTF program that would allow LACO to fully participate in the program for the benefit of Los Angeles county students. In particular, LACO supports the California Department of Education's recommendation that CTF extend eligibility to all local education agencies, including school districts and county offices of education, and authorize LEAs to complete recertification on behalf of all schools within their jurisdiction. LACO is the largest regional education agency in the nation and we are currently supporting the education and well being of of nearly 2 million Los Angeles county children. LACO's mission is to improve the lives of students and educational community through service, leadership and advocacy, which includes facilitating students education and development through broadband access and telecommunication services. LACO recognizes CTF program as an important financial resource that helps support this work. Lastly, I'll state that these changes that are being recommended would better align CTF program with the Federal E Rate program and release administrative burdens that arise when broadband and telecommunications services are supported through multiple state and federal funding programs. LACO looks forward to continued progress of the CPUC's rulemaking, which is currently projected to conclude as early as the first calendar quarter of 2027. Madam Chair, thank you for your time today. Thank you members. We also wish to thank the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and Deputy Superintendent Mary Nicely and the team at CDE for their recommendations. And we also like to thank the Chair and the committee for all of their work over the years on broadband and teleconnectivity for schools across the state. Thank you.
Thank you. You're lucky that you're the only public comment.
We let you have three minutes.
Thank you again for the public comment. I want to thank all the members who have participated in the hearing today and the members of the public who tuned in. I think we learned a lot and more than ever I'm committed to having a conversation about what reforms are needed to improve the structure of the cpuc. Our kids depend on it, underserved communities depend on it, and I think it
would be smart to be proactive.
As you know, I've introduced AB 2289 and ACA 9 that I hope will help us address some of these problems
and I hope to talk to all about it a lot more.
Thank you to our witnesses for sharing their knowledge with this committee and with that, this meeting is adjourned.