Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Thank you, everyone who is joining us for the Communications and Conveyance Committee's first hearing of the year. My name is Tasha Boerner and I serve as the chair of the Committee. I'd like to thank Speaker Robert Revis for reappointing me to lead this important Committee, especially at this pivotal time in addressing Digital Divide.

Joining me on the dais today are Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, Assembly Member Leticia Castillo, Assembly Member Robert Garcia, and I think Jessica Caloza was here and she'll be right back. Just let everybody know our restrooms on this floor are closed, so you need to go down a couple levels or go over to the Senate.

And we're also being joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, and Daniel Ballin as the Republican policy consultant. Before we begin our presentation, I'd like to take care of some housekeeping as we proceed with witnesses and public comment.

I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We will apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints that they express.

We seek to protect the rights of all participants in the legislative process so that we can effectively deliberate and make decisions on the critical issues facing California. You can all exit the hearing room once you're 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 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 the legislative proceeding proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearings include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment that may may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the Chair. That's me. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing.

And please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to removal or other enforcement actions. I'd like to refocus the attention on the primary reason we have convened this hearing, which is legislative oversight of California's broadband programs. Over the last few years.

As California has responded to and emerged from the pandemic, a great deal of public investment and legislative focus has been paid to addressing the digital divide and advancing digital equity across the state. For example, California has responded.

For example, the California passed a Digital Equity Bill of rights pursuant to AB 414 Reyes and directed the California Department of Technology to develop the state's first state Digital Equity plan pursuant to AB 2750 Bonta.

Further, California has budgeted billions of dollars to be invested in broadband infrastructure projects across the state, including Last Mile and Middle Mile infrastructure. During today's hearing, we will have an opportunity here from the California Public Utilities Commission to provide an update on implementation of the state's Last Mile broadband programs.

On a second panel, we'll also hear updates on the Middle Mile and digital equity programs administered by the California Department of Technology and we look forward to hearing from our participants today and thank them for being available to participate. Collectively, this Committee's membership represents the voices of nearly 5 million Californians.

Some of them are directed directly impacted by the digital divide and some are not. However, they elect us to ensure that the state's affairs are running smoothly and provide accountability when it's needed. I take this duty as an elected official and as chair of this Committee seriously and I want to thank my colleagues for doing the same.

I also know that our state's civil servants who are present today represent their agencies, are also taking their duties seriously. At the national level. The federal workforce has been under attack and the work of career public servants continues to be devalued.

I believe it's important that in California we express our gratitude for our state workforce and the jobs they do to help us meet our shared goals for a more just prosper, prosperous and sustainable California. Nevertheless, sometimes we ask tough questions of leadership of our state agencies and they will be put on the spot. In this Committee.

We will demand accountability, highlight errors, make recommendations and change the law when necessary. This is part of our democracy. Sometimes it's messy and a lively process, but we have a commitment to serve Californians above all else. This work is only possible when we insist on accountability and sometimes their physical presence at hearings.

In my view, it's a privilege to participate in legislative affairs and my honor to conduct oversight on behalf of the people of California. I want to thank the representatives from California Department of Technology for being present today, including their Director, Leanna Bailey Crimmins.

I also want to thank the California Public Utilities Commission, including Commissioner John Reyes, for being present. Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues who are present and will be present throughout the hearing as well as the Members of the public. We have people coming in.

I know there are other oversight hearings today, so people may be coming in and coming out. Before we begin, do any other Committee Members want to make some initial comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity to serve. This will be my very first time in this Committee. And so I look forward to long, great conversations on how we can make California Californians lives better. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking forward to working on the issue on CNC. Yep. Okay. @ this point, I'd like to invite up our representatives from the California Public Utilities Commission. We'll start with panel one. The California Public Utilities Commission CPUC representatives, please post the DUs.

We have John Reynolds, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Rachel Peterson, Executive Director, CPUC and Anna Maria Johnson, Deputy Executive Director, Broadband and Communications. The pcp. The PC CPUC has prepared some slides which were provided to Members in advance and have been posted on our Committee website.

CPUC representatives, thank you for your attendance and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you and good afternoon, Chair Berner and honorable Members of the Committee. It is wonderful and an honor to be with you this afternoon to talk about the Public Utilities Commission's broadband and communications programs.

I'm John Reynolds, Commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission, and with me today are Rachel Peterson, Executive Director of the CPUC, and Anna Maria Johnson, Deputy Executive Director for Broadband and communications. The mission of the CPUC is to ensure the provision of safe, reliable and affordable utility service for all Californians.

And this mission, importantly, includes voice and broadband services in addition to other sectors under the CPUC's purview.

While there have been tremendous advances in communication services deployed to meet the needs of the people that we serve, those advances have remained stubbornly uneven, with some communities enjoying robust deployment of advanced communications networks, while others have seen much more limited investment.

And there remain Californians who are unable to pay the full monthly cost of communication service plans. In addition to the deployment of advanced networks, the affordability of service can be an important barrier to Californians accessing high quality communication services.

Access to high quality voice and broadband service is increasingly essential for Californians today to access education, health services, work opportunities, and for broader social enrichment like connecting with friends and family. Reliable voice and broadband service is also a critical pillar for maintaining public safety. As reliable communications with emergency first responders depend on reliable and resilient communications networks.

These services are important for life safety when disaster strikes. Part of my role at the CPUC is to serve as lead Commissioner in a number of key communications and broadband initiatives in including the carrier of last resort proceeding review of the proposed Verizon Frontier merger and the voiceover Internet protocol proceeding.

In these initiatives, we are grappling with important policy issues of how we can update and improve our rules and requirements to ensure universal service to communications services in the 21st century.

Many changes in the communications sphere have arisen since the last carrier of last resort rules were adopted in the 1990s when the majority of phone users were still using plain old telephone service or landline service on the traditional legacy phone networks.

Whereas now many users also use other forms of voice service, including mobile voice and voice over Internet protocol using broadband on advanced networks.

Additionally, pursuant to the directive of Senate Bill 156, I have had the privilege to vote with my colleagues to approve broadband broadband investment in 108 projects across 51 counties up and down the state, totaling over $1.0 billion that will directly benefit the lives of 2 million Californians by delivering better access to advanced communications.

These projects will connect more unserved and underserved communities in our state to the statewide middle mile broadband network with fiber.

And the majority of these projects will will bring affordable broadband service to communities by offering either Low cost or Low income plans or will include participation in a lifeline program which brings down the cost of communications plans for qualifying Low income customers.

With that introduction, I turn now to Rachel Peterson and Anna Maria Johnson to provide a more detailed overview of the broadband and communications programs at the California Public Utilities Commission.

Thank you, Commissioner. Good afternoon Chair Boerner and honorable Members of the Committee. It's very good to be here. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm going to continue the Commissioner's remarks with an overview of the programs that we have at the CPUC. And then Deputy Executive Director Anna Maria Johnson is going to go into more specifics.

We are going to walk through the slide deck. So. And I understand. So is someone there. Excellent. So next slide please. All right. So our overarching mission, as the Commissioner said, is to deliver access to reliable and affordable voice and broadband services for all Californians. And there are three major ways that we do this.

Public safety and carrier oversight, universal service and broadband deployment and adoption. In the themes that you'll hear from us today, what stands out is our commitment, as stated on this slide, to access and equity.

There are flourishing markets for services in many parts of California, but we all know of people and communities where such access is very hard to come by. It might be unreliable or unaffordable. And that is exactly where our programs are focused. The CPUC just published our annual report for 2024, and there's a link on that slide.

I realize you have it on paper, but we're happy to send you the link to our annual report if you'd like to see the regulatory work we do across numerous sectors. On next slide, please. Thank you. On this slide, we wanted to just show a little bit up front.

We have a lot of great news and progress to share today. And so we provided a couple of slides up front with some photos and maps of where some of the projects that we have funded are occurring right now. I want to highlight just one on this slide.

The Mobile Learning Lab in Oakland that is providing digital literacy services to people right where they live. And next slide, please.

And on the next one, we chose to highlight both a tribal broadband project, which with the Hupa Tribe, as well as the last mile grants that have been funded in San Bernardino county that are soon going to connect 27,000 Californians who were unserved to actually have reliable, affordable Internet service once those networks are built.

But while we're also sharing progress, we know that the reason that we're here is that there are continuing needs. We know that public safety and carrier oversight is still essential as California faces the constantly evolving impacts of climate change. And communication services being delivered during those impacts is of ever greater importance.

We also know that universal service is not universal yet. And I know we'll spend a fair amount of time on that during the hearing today. And then third, even as broadband grants and infrastructure builds are occurring in every single county in California, we know that some locations will remain unserved.

And to just give you one way of looking at the question of unmet need, the program that we are responsible for is a $2 billion last mile program. We've made 1.1 billion in grants from August 2024 to January 31. But a year ago, we received 484 applications for projects all across the state that would total 4.8 billion.

So more than double the amount that even with this generational investment that the Legislature has made, more than double the amount of need is out there. And so that's why we're here today. So thank you again for the opportunity to be here, Chair Berner. And I'll turn to Deputy Executive Director Johnson.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Berner and Assembly Members. Hello. I will now go into a little bit more detail, into the important work that the CPUC does to make sure Californians are receiving access to safe, reliable and affordable broadband services.

I will touch upon three main segments public safety and carrier oversight, universal service and broadband deployment and adoption. Thank you. So let's start with public safety and carrier oversight.

We all know that communication services are key to public safety and Californians need a reliable connection to be able to dial 911 to receive emergency alerts, evacuation notices, access information, work, health care, and simply put, live our lives.

In this slide before you slide number six, I'm going to provide three examples of the work we're doing to ensure public safety is carried through with the communication companies.

First, I'm going to mention that back in 2020 and 2021 the CPUC adopted a number of strategies and requirements for wireless and wireline providers to make sure the communications network is resilient and operating, especially during declared State of emergencies.

Part of those requirements are for facilities located in high fire risk areas to have 72 hours of backup power. These requirements are consistent with a prior Bill from 2021, Senate Bill 341.

There is still a significant amount of work to do to ensure communications providers are compliant with these requirements, but also bottom line, making sure the networks are working. On this photo you will see three pictures of our team carrying out site visits in Humboldt County.

Our team carried out 186 site visits between 2021 and 2023 and what you find here are different types of backup power sources. That includes batteries, fixed generators, but also the hookup for mobile generators.

The second example I wanted to provide is that during a declared State of emergency, customer protections go into effect right away for both wireline and wireless customers.

The CPUC requires communication providers such as mobile companies to deploy equipment to enhance coverage and capacity in areas impacted and this allows customers to be able to access 911 and continue receive information.

Wireless companies are also required to provide device charging stations, WI fi access and mobile phones for customers impacted by the fires or emergency situations who are seeking shelter, sometimes in evacuation centers.

And the third example I wanted to share with you on the public safety carrier oversight that we do is a suite of projects that we engage in that include service quality for phone service. We oversee the licensing and registration of over 1,000 communication providers in the state.

That includes 25 video franchise holders and that is under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition act or difca. We carry out General rate cases across multiple telephone companies in our state and we also carry through the public interest review of mergers and acquisitions between communication service providers. Next slide please.

The second element of the work that we do is universal service and this is the principle of ensuring that no California is left behind from receiving access to safe, reliable and affordable services.

The CPUC is tasked with developing and implementing policies and programs that deliver access to this essential service and we have statutory mandates that require us that customers must have access to this service in rural areas, inner cities, to Low income customers, to people with disabilities, and anchor institutions as well, such as schools, libraries and health care organizations.

This is not just for voice service, but it also includes broadband services. We manage six legislative mandated programs that help us strive towards achieving this program and this is funded by a surcharge on access lines of communication customers. Next slide please.

The six programs that we manage are listed here and I'm going to focus on the California Lifeline program. The California Lifeline program, along with the federal Lifeline program provides a combined $28.25 for eligible Low income customers in California to access phone service or a bundled voice and broadband service as well.

There are an estimated 1.6 million Californians currently participating in the program, 1.6 million Californians who are participating in the program, but we estimate that there are 3.6 that are eligible.

So we have a lot of work to do and we are continuing our efforts to ensure that our programs, the six public public purpose programs you see here, are actually meeting the needs of Californians today. And what are those needs? That includes broadband service.

While broadband bundled with voice is currently allowed in our Lifeline program to get a Lifeline discount, the option of a standalone broadband service is currently not allowed. Our team continues to explore the options in order for us to bring this essential service to customers.

Especially due to the sunset of the Federal Affordable Connectivity Program or acp, which was a federal program that provided a discount for broadband connection to eligible customers of $30 per month or $75 for customers located in tribal lands.

Affordability of communication services is necessary to ensure that customers are actually realizing the benefits of a once in a generation investment that California is making today on deploying broadband. We continue to look at our programs very closely and adjust as necessary to increase broadband adoption. Next slide please.

The third element I'm going to touch upon is broadband deployment and adoption. We all can agree that broadband is an essential communication service and is the bedrock to innovation, public health and safety, education, economic development and civic engagement.

The CPUC manages a suite of programs aimed at delivering this essential service and to get broadband on the hands of customers, which that's the main goal. We go through a journey of different phases. That journey begins with the planning phase.

The planning phase is the necessary step to assess the community need to look at what is the existing infrastructure in the area, where are the gaps, Putting plans and grant proposals together to make sure that that essential investment is going to those communities. We have three programs to help us in that planning phase.

The Local Agency Technical Assistance Program or LADA is the one I want to highlight today where we funded $50 million across 106 projects for each of our 58 counties in the state.

And these projects really are for public entities, local government, tribes and not profits to put projects together to then propose the deployment in the communities that they live. Executive Director Rachel Peterson mentioned the overwhelming Amount of projects we received over 400 totaling $4.6 billion.

This planning phase was a necessary step to get a high demand of those projects coming in. The next phase is the deployment phase. And the deployment phase is where you put into action the planning phase.

We have six programs that we manage under this critical phase and this is where the broadband infrastructure gets to the ground the construction. I will touch upon some of these key programs very shortly. The last phase is the adoption phase and this is the most critical because this is where you subscribe the customer.

Without this phase, the customers will not sign up to the broadband service.

We have a number of programs that help us with the adoption phase to bring broadband to customers that include the California Advanced Services Fund adoption account, the Fund's digital literacy programs, but also digital navigators that help customer actually sign up for broadband plans from various companies.

Our public purpose programs such as the Lifeline that I touch upon, the California Teleconnect Fund which is a program that provides 50% discount for Internet connection to schools, libraries, community based organizations and healthcare institutions.

And our California Connect program, also known as the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program, provides devices and services for people with disabilities to connect to the services that they need.

Lastly, on this adoption phase, our team has incorporated terms and conditions as part of our grant programs to either require or provide sufficient incentives for grantees to offer affordable broadband plans to eligible customers. Next slide please.

I will now touch a bit more on the four major infrastructure programs that we manage and I will begin with the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program which is referred as bead. And this is a national program designated to Fund infrastructure across the Nation.

California received $1.86 billion in federal funding to bring broadband service to an estimated 372,000 eligible locations across the state. We will be accepting applications March 25. So just around the corner and our map showing the eligible locations have been published for grantees to begin putting those applications together.

The next one is the California Advanced Services Fund which is the suite of programs and this is a state funded program that has around $138 million per year. The funds, adoption accounts, infrastructure accounts and a number of programs to help us bring broadband.

Next is our loan loss reserved program which is a $50 million program that provides collaterals to public entities to be able to get more better terms and conditions for their financing. $50 million have already been awarded from this program.

And lastly is our federal funding account which is a one in a generational program created in the summer of 2021 under Senate Bill 156 that allocated $2 billion funded both by the state but also federally partially funded under the American Rescue Plan act of 2021. Next slide please.

This FFA program, the Federal funding account is a multi year program. And to date 108 projects have been awarded totaling 1.1 billion funds across 51 counties. 2 million Californians will benefit from these investments. But what's most important is that these investments are actually bringing affordable broadband to communities in the state.

With the vast majority of the projects offering a Low income broadband plan. 67 offering a generally available Low cost plan. And you may be asking yourself what's the difference? And a generally available Low cost is a plan that's available to all customers. You don't have to qualify or be income eligible for it.

And then 65 projects will participate in our Lifeline program. Next slide please. We at the CPUC are working on the Last Mile projects. And I do want to mention the vital role of the statewide Middle Mile network. Our partners at the California Department of Technology will go into more detail into this initiative.

But without the Middle Mile, we cannot achieve the Last Mile. And we work very closely to make sure this is happening. 55 of the 108 projects that have been funded today will be connecting to the statewide Middle Mile. That's total of 726 million of the $1.1 billion that we have awarded today.

That's the vast majority of those funds are for projects connecting to Middle Mile network. Out of the over 2 million customers benefiting, 1.6 of million are for projects connecting to the Middle Mile. And what's really important here that the type of entities that are connecting to the Middle Mile are very Diverse.

It includes 18 public entities, seven tribes and a number of new entrants. Next slide please. This last slide really shows our work on the ground. The photo here represents a groundbreaking event in Tulare county that is benefiting 35,000 Californians.

And also we included a quote because we hear directly from our grantees such as Siskiyu Telephone Company on how instrumental these grants are to bringing broadband in their communities, especially when there's a diverse population in it.

I want to conclude that the main categories that we have walked through are all interconnected elements to ensuring that Californians are going to receive access to safe, reliable and affordable broadband service.

We have a dedicated team of staff, analysts, engineers, supervisors, managers that work hard every day to carry out our mission and take our work very seriously to bring the service to everyone. We thank you for the opportunity to share with you a bit and a glance of the work that we do.

And we're happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation of this informative for the new Members of the Committee especially. I'm very familiar with all this data. And you know, looking back at a year ago when we had this hearing, I think with budget sub 7 and the number of green on that dark green is a good movement. Very good.

And I wanna thank you for your presentation. And before we get to some of the substantive questions and comments, I wanna address what is for me and maybe some Committee Members in this room and those watching from their offices or their staff watching what I think is the elephant in the room.

The Committee essentially had to organize an opposition campaign in order to have the CPUC to agree to have a Commissioner here today. It shouldn't have to be this way. We have different rules in government. This is how our democracy is made up as the Executive and legislative and the judicial balance. We have our checks and balances.

But it's no surprise in this room that I have not been pleased with how the state broadband programs have been administered over the past several years. One of my personal priorities is fundamentally to change how we administer broadband programs in the state. And I think it deserves its own agency. But that's a separate conversation.

While that's a longer term project, in the meantime, I'm interested in making sure that the current structure is accountable for our share of goals to connect all Californians. That's the reason for having this hearing and that's why I invited the agencies to attend.

I speak for many of the legislators when I say that on behalf of our constituents and the people of California, we must be able to speak to our perspectives directly to the decision makers. And that's why we demanded that a Commissioner make themselves available. So Commissioner Reynolds, thank you for stepping up.

I appreciate you making yourself available today and being present with us. And we will have substantive questions about the program of the CPUC. But I do want to ask you about the Commissioner's attendance for the CPUC's own hearings. As you know, the CPUC has a number of proceedings open that address broadband and the digital divide.

And hearings occur regularly to hear from the public about implementation of these programs on an annual basis. The CPUC is required to report to the Legislature on the CPUC Commissioner attendance at those hearings. And I think you all got the packet in the annual report.

And I've shared this with our Committee Members in the appendix of the report and asked your staff to prepare you to speak on it. So hopefully that's happened. But if I'm reading this report correctly, Appendix L shows that of 273 hearing days, the CPUC commissioners attended only 65 hearings.

That data suggests that commissioners were absent for more than 75% of these hearings. And if I'm understanding this correctly, maybe you can help me understand what's going on because it is one of my worries that the CPUC has such a broadcast scope of what you have to do, that broadband kind of falls by the wayside.

And the commissioners, you know, and it's maybe it's just appearances, maybe it's how it perceives to us.

But to have to fight to have you here today and then to see that you guys don't go to the hearings and, you know, preside or attend even the hearings that you have on broadband is really concerning in terms of our constituents getting the services they need by the decision makers who are appointed for that decision making capacity.

So if you can comment to that, that would be helpful, of course.

Thank you, Chair Boerner, and it is an honor to be here with the Committee. I do want to talk a little bit about the PUC process and simply note that the hearings described in our annual report are one component of the larger decision making process.

So we as an agency have dozens of administrative law judges who are trained in the rules of evidence. And many of our hearing days are in fact evidentiary hearings where our judges determine whether or not evidence is admissible. And those are questions that they are, they are trained to analyze and consider and move forward with.

We also have a broader analysis process that happens outside of the hearing. So we have industry division experts, including examples like the Communications division led by Ms. Johnson, who can analyze some of the testimony prepared by different experts entities, including both industry representatives as well as non industry stakeholders.

And who we as commissioners work with in determining what are the, what are the key issues and how should we be thinking about them as we're evaluating what to do in the broadband space?

For example, ultimately, as a result of the evidentiary hearings that we hold, in cases that do have evidentiary hearings, we will also have stakeholders for file briefing. Those are legal and policy briefs focused on the key issues as the different parties see them. And then we will move to a decision making phase.

In many of our cases, administrative law judges are responsible for drafting an initial proposed decision.

And we as commissioners have an opportunity to draft alternate proposed decisions where we differ with the judges on what the appropriate outcome is depending on the circumstances of the Underlying case, we as commissioners will then ultimately all five of us will vote on the proceedings before us and we hold votes every three weeks or so.

I hope that's helpful.

It's a very process answer to a leadership question and I think that should be noted because if we were to have a town hall and basically send our staff in to handle the town hall, none of us would be sitting here. That's what I basically heard.

As you have staff going in, summarizing it, giving you things, we ultimately make decisions. I do continue to doubt the current structure of five commissioners and with such a breadth of responsibilities, I'm now going to turn the floor over. I think Assemblymember Rubio has a question for you.

Thank you. I appreciate the comments. However, you know, all of us are responsible. That's why we're here. And I completely understand we're pulled in many directions, but the actual question is, you know, we do have a list of attendants from each one.

Then if that's the case, then if the law judges are the ones that are doing the regulations, then why have a meeting? You know, and I'm, I've been saying this not just to my staff, to my colleagues, then I don't need another meeting just to have a meeting because I have plenty of meetings.

So it looks like this is, it feels like, especially from what I'm seeing is that you're just having meetings to have meetings and the inconsistency of attendance is what's concerning.

And I think the Chairwoman stated, then why have these processes if the law judges or whoever it is is attending and you're not, we are accountable to our constituents. And she is correct. If we send staff and, and mind you, during the week we're here and our staff does in our districts take care of all of that.

But that is because we're physically here and we can't be in our districts. But you know, I would like to know, well, why have the meeting in the first place if you know that the attendance is not going to be there?

I don't mean to put you on the spot because we and our new colleagues will see come Committee time we're all being pulled in different directions. But it just feels like this is not that important because of the lack of attendance.

When we are delivering this message to our constituents or to the public, then do we say, zero, they have too many meetings or do they just not care about what the process is? Especially these programs that you just mentioned are for our Low income communities for the most vulnerable.

Well, if we're not attending, then what we're signaling is that we don't really care about that population because these are the very to my community, and I won't speak for everybody, but I know that all of us have a very diverse community.

What we're saying is we don't really care about your needs because people are not showing up. So it's not necessarily a question, it's more of a General comment. But. But who can fix it, I guess, is the question, because if you're just having meetings, to have meetings, then you don't need another meeting.

And if you're allowing or the process is, as you stated, that other people are the ones that are attending your meetings and you have the opportunity to have an opinion or write something different, then why have a meeting?

If I could briefly address that, I do want to emphasize that I and the other commissioners are deeply committed to delivering on the, on the policy objectives outlined by the Legislature and on delivering high quality broadband service to all Californians.

I do want to note that many of our processes are really designed to ensure that all of the interveners and stakeholders who participate in our process have their due process rights respected and they have the opportunity to present evidence.

They need to have that opportunity in order to make sure that we can conduct our administrative process consistent with the due process rights of all the interveners who participate.

And so I, I do want to emphasize that while we may not have Commissioner presence at every hearing that require that is required to deliver on the due process needs of the interveners and stakeholders, we certainly do have a Commission that is deeply committed to serving Californians and delivering the best possible policy outcomes.

Right. But you do understand that you have people. You mentioned due process. You mentioned all of that. But who are they presenting to if there's nobody there? So the due process, I believe, should be both sides. Somebody's presenting to somebody and you're having a dialogue or conversation about the due process.

But if they're presenting, again, they're just having a meeting to have a meeting if there's nobody there. And so how is it due process if they're just presenting to either staff or to empty chairs? And that's, I think, the concern.

I appreciate you saying that there is commitment, but again, the due process means you're presenting and somebody's actually listening. Because if you're not there, then what I'm saying here hearing is you're just checking a box of having a meeting.

I, you know, bring that back up just to check the box that there was due process, even though there was nobody on the other side participating.

And I make the point that 75, according to your own report, 75% of the hearings did not have a Commissioner attending. So the discrepancy is not 75% of the time there was a Commissioner and 25% of the time there wasn't the discrepancies. The other way around.

That leaves doubt in my mind and as I'm hearing from my colleague, our minds of the real commitment, because commitment is shown by action and not just words. But I want to recognize that another one of my new Committee Members, Assemblymember Arends, has just joined us. So thank you, Patrick, for joining us. Okay.

Any other questions around Commissioner participation and broadband issues? And if not, we'll go to some substantive issues that were raised in the Committee or in the Committee presentation. Sorry, Assembly Member Caloza, thank you so.

Much to our Madam Chair and thank you for organizing this. Thank you so much for being here. This is my first Committee hearing. I'm an incoming Member, represent Northeast la, East LA in South Glendale. And so maybe I can just ask you a few questions about the makeup of the CPUC.

I used to be a public works Commissioner in the City of Los Angeles. I was one of five commissioners. It was very unique in that it was the only full time paid Commission within the city, which kind of gave me an advantage to other commissioners. I know because it was my full time job.

And this is just from my background and knowledge being before the CPUC for the first time. Is your Commission full time, part time? Can you kind of explain that breakdown to me? So I'm aware, of course we are.

A full time Commission.

You're a full time. Okay, so this is your full time job. Yes. Okay. That changes a lot of things.

But one of the things, and I echo the concerns of my colleagues that's kind of top of mind for me is really around how we as a state are going to lead on these issues around broadband, given what's happening at the federal level.

So I think that what would be helpful, and I don't expect you to have some of these answers now are some of the things that you're forecasting as impacts and cuts to from federal programs that are going to have really dire impacts to a lot of our constituents.

I know one of the ones that was recently cut was Affordable Connectivity Program, which is, you know, $30 reliable broadband, which is really the question that a lot of my constituents ask, which is really around affordability.

And so those are the things that as we engage with your Commission and I know that your attendance before our Committee will be much better moving forward.

Those are the things that would be really helpful for us to hear is how do we get ahead of a lot of these issues that are happening, are going to happen that you foresee? I guess I didn't really ask a question, but please respond if I can.

Summarize the question, what I think the question is and I'll build on this so you can just give one answer. I think you were specifically thinking about what programs generally would be cut. I'm more interested when we look at the buckets that you presented between the bead, the FFA program.

What what do you looking into your crystal ball. Right. What funds are in the state coffers and which are yet to be appropriated? I think Assembly Member Coloza was asking a bigger question of, of more cuts. You know, what is going to happen with the Universal Service Fund. If you have some comments about that.

But I think, you know, it's the bigger thing. What do we think about that? And then what do we specifically think? What's already in the state, what's safe from federal money that we've gotten before and what could be in jeopardy.

So thank you, Chair Boerner. Assemblymember Caloza. I'll go ahead and step in if that's all right. I realize you directed towards the Commissioner, but since we're responsible for implementation, if that's okay, we'll go ahead and respond all excellent questions.

So I will start with the crystal ball and please know that it truly is a crystal ball and we simply do not know all facts right now as of today. The one very important piece of the Last Mile Network program is called the capital projects Fund. That is 540 million in federal dollars.

That is in California's coffers and 540 million and we are encumbering it. It is the piece that has a liquidation deadline by December 312026. It is fully encumbered at this point towards the awardees from the grants that we've been awarding from August to today. So that's firmly in California's hands. Correct. The the commitment to bead.

The 1.86 billion commitment to bead is, is appropriated to California at the federal level. I would say that we've seen events that many of us couldn't have predicted in the last three weeks. So it is appropriated as of today. And then I'll turn to universal service and the questions of the Affordable Connectivity Program.

I'll actually turn to Deputy Executive Director Johnson because She's been doing a lot of thinking and working with the team on affordability and ensuring continuing to ensure affordable universal service.

Can I ask just a clarifying question? So the 1.86 embed, is that in our coffers now or is it appropriated and parameters could change?

I'm going to have a hard time answering that question, Chair Berner, simply because the, the events in Washington D.C. are unprecedented. It's, it's appropriated to California. All right. And if we can turn to the universal service questions, I'm going to try.

To get your title right. I'm horrible at titles. Everybody who's in the audience who knows me knows that I get everybody's titles right or wrong. Deputy Executive Director Johnson, thank you.

Did I get it right? You got it right.

Okay, thank you.

Chair and Assemblymember Colossa, you mentioned the Affordable Connectivity Program, which was a federal program that came to an end last year that provided $30 subsidy for eligible Low income customers and $75 for customers in tribal lands. That was a very popular program in California. 3 million Californians enrolled in it out of ineligible 6 million.

No substitute has been developed to date. So the way we try to meet the needs, that's our goal, meet the needs of Californians today is work within the programs we have. And I mention the Lifeline program which provides the discount to voice and also the bundle, voice and broadband.

So what our team is really looking and exploring and researching is how do we modernize that program to allow for standalone broadband service to bring subsidies for a home connection, a connection to the home that will allow customers to have that reliability of service? Definitely.

The rest of our public purpose programs, such as the California Teleconnect program, has a, I call it the federal sibling that is called E Rate. We have no control of the E Rate program, but we are keeping a close lookout of what's happening federally on E Rate.

The funds discounts for schools, libraries, health care institutions to understand what the impact may be. Because if there is an impact to a federal program where we jointly give subsidies to Californians, we're going to have to figure out how to take care of our communities and making sure that they continue to get the services that they need.

So it's an ongoing assessment, but definitely with a priority of making sure affordable services is instituted to the extent that we can in our public purpose programs.

And could you comment piggybacking on that on the Universal Service Fund in the Supreme Court right now, what you anticipate that decision could have on any federal funding?

I don't have anything to add there. We will see what happens. Right now, our focus is really on what we can do within the parameters of the statutory mandates we have before us and really modernizing our programs to bring broadband to Californians.

Thank you. And do we believe that the Trump administration's Executive order on diversity, equity, inclusion, dei, which we always forget, also impacts women and girls, will affect program rules or the ongoing implementation of any of your programs?

So, Chair Berner, thank you for that question. One point I forgot to add when I was speaking about BEAD is that the CPUC is part of California's unified response to events at the Federal Administration level. And so that goes for both the BEAD program and the Executive orders you just mentioned.

My crystal ball does not allow me to see the potential impacts. I think it's an excellent question, and I simply can't really forecast well.

And what I would say is, you know, I think the Legislature shares the CPUC's concern about especially California being a donor state in terms of federal tax dollars and us losing tax dollars that we desperately need in California. And so I would continue to encourage us to work together rather than.

Sometimes I feel it's unnecessarily oppositional on how to close that gap, because I think it's generally the sentiment of most of my colleagues that we want to close the digital divide once and for all.

And I don't know if there's anybody in the Legislature who doesn't understand the impact of somebody not being able to get on the Internet. My daughter is on a flight up here, and she couldn't get on WI Fi at the airport, and both of us nearly had a meltdown on the phone. So that was just.

And that's two very connected people. So when we think about people not being able to get health care, you know, any of the kids who were in the LA fires, not being able to get online to have their education, I think it's a shared priority, that it's a priority that we all share.

And with that, are there any other things on the Federal Administration before I go to the next kind of line of questioning? Okay. Sometimes you have to, like, raise your hand high if you want to say something. Sometimes I miss stuff. Emilio's usually really good about poking me if I miss something.

But when we look at budget and funding, the CPUC will be awarding nearly $5 billion in broadband infrastructure projects through 2032. And can we expect to reach 100% of households by then? And if not, how much funding would we need? What do we have what's need, what's the gap?

Thank you also for that question, Chair Berner. It is an excellent question and one, as you know, we have been working on for several years. As I mentioned, with the Last Mile network programs, with the generational investment, we also received project requests that were more than double the amount of the $2 billion program.

So that's one way of looking at the continuing need. By the time the Last Mile networks are fully built, we're anticipating that they are going to change 95,000 locations from unserved to served. And that alone that directly will provide service to an estimated nearly 500,000 Californians.

As deputy Executive Director Johnson pointed out, those locations and those new entrants into the Internet service provider arena will benefit an additional 2 million Californians because they will have access and the ability to go on to a Low cost plan provided by an entrepreneur, a local government, a tribe.

So we anticipate that broader consequence and beneficial effect of the Last Mile networks then for bead. Deputy Executive Director Johnson knows the technical details of BEAD much better than I do. So I'll turn to her for that same question of moving from unserved to served.

Thank you. Okay, so where are we? Recent Data as of June 2024 shows that around half a million locations in California continue to be on serve. Around 560,000. That already accounts for the enforceable commitments that we have made in federal funding account in bed, we have an estimated 372,000 locations that are eligible.

So we are making a dent in bringing unserved locations to served. You mentioned 2032. That is our goal for the California Advanced Services Fund infrastructure where 98% of households need to be connected by year in 2032, will we get there? That is our goal. But we must recognize also how technology evolves.

What is considered CERB continues to change. When I started in this industry, a serve location, believe it or not, was 3 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. And even before then it was even below 1 Mbps per second. And now broadband is really 100 Mbps. So the speed continues to increase.

The innovations and the platforms and services that are run over those connections to continue to be very high capacity that increases that number. So that is the number that we're trying to bring served status to half a million. And we are making progress to that, towards that.

And we will continue to work with our three main programs, FFA Beat and the CSF infrastructure, to achieve that goal.

I Don't know if I missed some numbers because I'm a very visual person.

Okay.

500,000 unserved.

Yes.

372,000. With all of our programs.

Just Bede.

Just Bede, yes. And the 500,000 is taking into account FFA.

Yes. To date.

So we still have a gap. I'm not gonna do my math. 120. 120.

Right. And that's, you know, where we continue to make progress with our CSF Infrastructure grant account. FFA is continuing. We haven't allocated all the funds yet. Do we have enough money? That was one of your questions that we're going to get that done. I don't think we do because of the high demand of projects that we got.

You know, we received $4.6 billion in request and that was to cover, I believe, around 400,000 locations based on the applications that came in. So it's hard to say and I don't want to commit to say, yes, we have enough money other than.

I'd love you to say that.

Other than at this moment in time, we are working with what we have, we will be as effective and efficient as we can to bring broadband to as many locations as possible.

So with that, I guess process wise, maybe the Commissioner wants to. He likes process, so he wants to weigh in on this. When I think about it, there's always been this kind of challenge with how we set up the CASF program, FFA bed.

And it's like not your choosing that it was set up this way, but this is how it was set up because of federal grants. And they all have slightly different requirements. So when you think about that, we still have more. Okay, as long as it's not my daughter. Sorry. We have these different accounts, they have different requirements.

And one of the challenges is applicants on the ground who didn't get the first. Haven't been allocated an FFA grant. Haven't been allocated Casa grant yet. Do they automatically get put in the bead pool? Do they? Are you in contact with the bead applicants, say you should apply to this grant.

I mean, the latter grants were really important because I think people, unless you work in this space, you don't know how difficult one of these applications really are. Like, it's really hard to put together an application for the FFA or for the bid or the Casa funding. So do they. What is your process there?

So that people aren't Applying, getting rejected. Applying, getting rejected. Applying, getting rejected. Because all the parameters for each program are slightly different. What is your approach there?

Do you Want me to. I'll start and then you're asking the right person because she's in the technical details. But I think I'll just start by saying, number one, I've said this at hearings in the past. Our staff team has a complete open door policy.

At my request, they are meeting and working with grantees from, from and applicants from every single county in California. So I've required them to do that and they are actively in communication with everyone who is applying.

And then I would just want to note that what we're also doing is following the facts with every county and application and set of projects that are sometimes in competition with each other.

And what we're constantly looking for is what is the best Last Mile Network project for that community, considering all of the terms and conditions that we're placing on the applicants as well as this, our broad desire to convert from unserved to served in order to find the best fit for the county, the communities in the counties that are each applying.

So those are the, that's the broad principles with which our staff team are working with every single applicant.

With that, you're correct that there's a lot of complicate complexity as far as these programs and the awards being made and the Last Mile networks being built under FFA now transitioning over to bed so that applicants can begin to say, all right, I know there are still unserved locations in my, in this particular area, I want to submit a bead application.

And then CASF will continue to pick up the slack. There are a lot of complicated implementation details associated with that. I'll let Deputy Executive Director Johnson take it from there.

Thank you. You know, broadband is like a living organism. It continues to change day in and day out what is happening in the ground. And we completely recognize how much time and effort applicants put together in putting their applications. And we are thankful for them for that. Without them putting that effort, we would not have programs.

We need them. However, I cannot say that applications would just be rolled into other programs because they need to be refreshed. Data that have been utilized to put applications together may be needing updates to reflect what actually happening in the community.

Because remember, when we have a finite resource, we must figure out how to utilize this to the best of our ability. We don't have infinite amount of dollars to invest in this network, so we want to make sure that we're using the most recent and accurate information to assess what the best projects for the communities are.

Our team is committed to being very transparent and working with applicants Answering their questions.

For beat, for example, a number of webinars have already been started even before we announce our application windows, we started out in December, beginning to prepare and share with applicants what the requirements are going to be, what to keep in mind, how to put a successful application together.

Similar with ffa, as we continue to look at the counties that remain to be announced for awards, we will communicate to grantees or applicants in those areas what the next steps are going to be. And same for CASF infrastructure, we are looking to determine the best timing of that particular program in 2025.

We are wanting to open a window in infrastructure, CSF Infrastructure, and we will make sure that we are communicating what those requirements will be to those applicants.

Okay. My consultant's telling me we have to. I have to stop asking questions and we have to move on to the second panel. But I do have a question. Okay. Ffa, correct me if I'm wrong, was given out. Each county got an allocation correct. So that's probably good information for our new Committee Members.

Each county got an allocation for ffa. What happens if it turns out that a grantee can't build, doesn't pencil out, the middle mile, doesn't get built, which is in cdt, which you guys are assuming it's going to be built. But there's some challenges with the middle mile as well and timing, and that doesn't get built out.

What's the process for reevaluating? You know, there's one thing, there's a significant delay in getting the money out the door. And so now we're at this place where now we're going to see when the rubber hits the road, can they be built? And if the middle mile can't be built, what does that mean for the grantee?

And how do you go back to the counties? Can other counties steal other people's money? How are you going to ensure that there's done? How are we going to deal with that? Because I think that's a real possibility and only a couple years away like this isn't. This isn't a far off scenario.

I'll start with that. I wonder if you'd like to talk eventually.

Eventual Commission decision. But so for in the first instance, we are interested in having every single awardee succeed. We really want everyone to succeed. Everyone signed grant agreements once they received the award that have terms and conditions in them.

They also have a series of gates by which they are engineering and preparing and constructing the networks that they received this public money to do.

And so we're very aware of the awardees making it through those gates, and we're also very aware if they're starting to have trouble, supply chain issues, labor, perhaps finding the right contractors, et cetera. So we are here to help people be successful in this if failure occurs, hopefully in only a tiny number of projects.

We already have an equal split between urban and rural counties, and every county does have their allocation. It will be forecasting, like you said, a couple of years into the future.

But maybe the Commissioner wants to speak on how the Commission might approach a fairness question, which is what I think might be at the heart of what you're asking.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we designed the program with the aim of being fair to Californians across the state and making sure that we are really maximizing our ability to reduce the unserved population.

I also think it's fair to say that we have a considerable track record as an agency of working on broadband deployment programs. And I can't agree enough that I certainly hope we don't see failure.

But we have experienced project failure in the past and we have been able to move from a failed awardee to having projects picked up by alternative awardees in past programs.

Okay. They never get these buttons right. You think after four years of being in Jr, I know what how to press the buttons. So you have that past experience with redirecting after a failed project?

I think what I would suggest is that it has a more robust plan because we are going to talk in the next panel about some challenges around the Middle Mile, and I think the likelihood of failure is probably higher.

And you probably not dealt with this further volume of money and this volume of grants in the past in this. So having a plan for getting back on track might be a good plan and a good approach. And I want to thank Assembly Member Rogers for joining us.

And with that, I want to look around the Committee room, see if there's any other additional questions for the cpc. Otherwise we're going to move to the cdt. Assemblymember AR thank you.

Madam Chair. Hello. This is also my First Committee and looking forward to working with this Committee and the chair and the chair's direction and working closely with you all.

I just wanted to sort of underscore just the point being made by the chair and some of the Committee Members how important it is to work closely with you all to receive as maximum amount of participation in these hearings as possible. But I also underscore that your success is our success is Californian success.

And I know that we have a very large incoming freshman class, and I think the chair even noted in some of the correspondence how many of us are even new to this Committee.

And so there's a renewed desire to work with our Committee chair and work with you all to help with the transparency efforts that I know that you. You all have mentioned, help make sure that we're working on these.

These issues so that we can get not only questions answered that we need, but also to provide proper oversight and support. Because, like I said, we want you to be successful. But for you to be successful requires that participation with the Committee.

And so I hope that you receive that anecdote as it's intended, which is we need you to participate for us to get the questions answered for you to be successful. And that is the desire that I know that I would like to share with you, that I'm sure we're all here to do that.

There are tough questions that we want to ask, but I hope that you see it as a desire to get the answered questions and a desire to move California forward, whether it be broadband issues, whether it be working with our utilities, whatever the issues may be. We need you to be successful.

We need you to be more successful and more transparent than ever before. I know we can get there, but we need to have at the base, you know, proper communication with our chair. And so I would like to say I'm excited, I'm energized to be working with you all here in the Legislature.

And I'm looking forward to diving deeper as the Committee moves forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing other questions. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your participation today. Really appreciate all the information you have. I know we're going into very uncertain times and on a number of fronts.

So I think, you know, as much as it makes sense, we go through our normal legislative Committee hearings, but we'll also do oversight hearings just so that we could officially all touch base. So you know where we are. We know where you are. Because I think this is an unprecedented investment.

You know, we are seeing things get on the right track in terms of speed, but doesn't mean it's not a bumpy road Ahead. So, thank you so much to our panelists. And now we'd like to. I'd like to invite up panel two, the Department of Technology for my new Committee Members.

If you recall, Last Mile programs are with the CDC CPUC, and some genius decided that Middle Mile would be with cdt. And so they're constantly trying to work together to make it all happen. So we have to do two different panels. So now we have panel two, the Department of Technology.

We have Leanna Bailey Crimmins, who's the State Chief Information Officer and Director. We have Scott Adams, Deputy Director of Broadband and Digital Literacy, Mark Monroe, Director Deputy Director of Middle Mile Broadband Initiative, and Mike Keever, Chief Deputy Director of Caltrans. Members, I'd like to ask you to hold your questions at the end of the presentations if possible.

If you must ask a question during a presentation, I'll give the presenters flexibility to either provide a brief response or hold the answer to the questioning period. With that, please begin. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Assembly Communication and Conveyance Committee. I am Liana Bailey Crimmins, California State Chief Information Officer and the Director of the Department of Technology. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about Broadband for All, an initiative where California is committed to closing the digital divide.

The need for broadband for all became painfully obvious during the pandemic as we saw major disruptions across society and made us very aware of this digital inequality. CDT has multiple programs and initiatives underway. This includes the Broadband Middle Mile Initiative and the Broadband and Digital Literacy Program.

Through the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, the Legislature, the Middle Mile Advisory Committee and the California Broadband Council, we work to ensure that Californians have access to high performance affordable broadband services along with the skills and the devices necessary to take full advantage of our digital world.

In July 2021, SB156 created an open access Middle Mile Network to bring equitable high speed broadband services to all Californians. And we have heard loud and clear from our communities this is a priority. From urban centers to rural communities at every corner of California, we are pleased to report significant progress.

In partnership with CPUC, Caltrans and our third party administrator. We have also secured partnerships and contracts with tribal entities, local governments and private providers and are in a construction phase for over 3,000 miles of the approximate 8,000 mile network. We also leverage a modern Requests for Innovative Ideas also known as RFI Square.

This is a procurement process and so we're in contract with more than a dozen providers to basically construct, lease and purchase more than 7,300 miles of that 8,000 mile network.

Furthermore, in 2022, AB 2750 directed the Department of Technology to develop the state's first first Digital Equity Plan to identify strategies and key activities to promote digital equity and eliminate barriers for Californians.

In our efforts to bridge the digital divide, cdt, in partnership with the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, is implementing a Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program which provides services and inclusive efforts via sub grants to all counties throughout the state. With me today is Mr. Scott Adams, the Deputy Director of Broadband and Digital literacy, and also Mr.

Mark Moreau, the Deputy Director of the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative.

Thank you. Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.

Thank you. That concludes my opening remarks. I'm available for questions and I will turn it now over to Mr. Scott Adams to provide additional information on the Broadband for All initiative. But, Madam Chair, it sounds like you.

Yeah, sorry. I just want to recognize that Assemblymember Lowenthal, or Assistant speaker of Pro Tem Lowenthal, I have to get used to that long title, as I said before, I'm bad at titles, has joined us. So thank you with that, please.

Ma'am. Chair, we'll go ahead and go to the next slide.

Thank you. Director. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Berner and Committee Members and Members of the public. I'm Scott Adams. I'm the Deputy Director of Broadband and Digital Literacy at the California Department of Technology.

Our office manages the ecosystem of stakeholders in the state working to close the digital divide, and we staffed the California Department of Technology on its efforts coordinating the implementation of the state's Broadband for All program. As you can see on this slide here, we wanted to provide a primer of Broadband for All.

It's the state's overarching program to close the digital divide and acknowledges that access and availability of infrastructure, affordability, adoption and digital literacy are all critical components of digital equity. Broadband for all includes the work of the California Broadband Council and its Member entities, CDT, PUC, the Department of Education, the state libraries, etc.

It also includes the implementation of the Governor's Broadband Executive Order and the California Broadband for All Action Plan, both of which were developed in response to the COVID pandemic.

Further, it includes the Middle and Last Mile broadband initiatives that were really framed by the historic Senate Bill 156 and leveraging the broadband programs that were included in the Federal Investment, Infrastructure and Jobs act legislation.

Those programs include the Affordable Connectivity Program, which we've heard about today, the Digital Equity act programs, the Planning Grant, the State Capacity Grant, and Competitive Grants. The BEAD program and others. Next slide please. So the goals of broadband for all are pretty clearly outlined in the state's Broadband Action Plan.

And that includes three long term goals for all Californians that they have high speed or high performance broadband available at home, schools, libraries and businesses. They have access to affordable broadband and necessary devices and then can access the training and support to enable digital inclusion. Next slide please. I wanted to touch on the State Digital Equity Plan.

Building upon the Broadband Action Plan and developed to comply with federal and state guidelines, the State Digital Equity Plan focuses on eliminating digital equity barriers for eight covered populations, implementing seven key activities to overcome them, and achieving improved outcomes and key policy priorities for this state. Next slide please.

And so wanted to tell you a little bit about the development of the plan. The State Digital Equity Plan was developed through an extensive statewide process over the last two years in collaboration with the California Public Utilities Commission that garnered input from over 50,000 residents and stakeholders throughout the state to ensure inclusiveness and accessibility.

We leveraged CDT, utilized ASL translation and language translators at over 48 virtual convenings and when requested at 21 in person regional workshops and consultations when requested. We also translated the Digital Equity public survey into 14 different languages.

And when we posted the draft Digital Equity Plan for public comment, we made it available in over 100 different languages to ensure accessibility. Next slide please.

So I wanted to briefly kind of point out the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant, which is the the next step in the federal kind of package of programs that upon receiving approval from the Federal Government on our State Digital Equity plan in early 2024, the state applied for and received our statutory allocation of 707.70.2 million state digital equity Capacity Grant to implement the Digital Equity Plan.

Now, given the size of our state and population, that amount is not sufficient to achieve all the objectives in the plan. However, we are designing the program to maximize its reach across the state. Next slide please.

So in terms of the program structure, we've been structuring the Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program to achieve the objectives noted in the Digital Equity Plan, to meet federal expectations and to attempt to address the unique needs of our communities.

We will provide, you know, with that grant, centralized services to support ecosystem partners, to conduct activities that align with the plan, to Fund state managed digital inclusion efforts and launch a subgrant program, as the Director said, to Fund entities to conduct activities in alignment with the state plan.

Now, where this program is different, this funding is not intended to go to infrastructure, but to Fund local planning and ecosystem building. Digital navigation services, digital literacy training, targeted device distribution and workforce development training. Next slide please.

And while there's certainly a lot of uncertainty when implementing federally funded programs, this tentative timeline provides a snapshot of the next steps in implementing the state Digital Equity Capacity Grant.

Wanted to note that it's kind of a seeing eye chart that stakeholder engagement is persistent throughout the process, not just this year, but over the life of the program.

But would draw your attention to row three there where we have nine months from the beginning of the period of performance of the capacity Grant, which was December 1st of 2024, to enter into contracts and grant awards with the full amount of funds.

Further, we'd like to draw your attention to row number four in that we intend to launch the 60 day subgrant program request for application period by the end of this quarter to ensure that those funds go out. I want to thank you. That's the end of my presentation.

Happy to answer questions at an appropriate time, but wanted to hand the microphone over to my colleague Mark Monroe.

All right, thank you, Scott. Good afternoon, Chair and Members, Mark Monroe, the Deputy Director for the Middle Mile Broadband Initiative at the California Department of Technology. To start with, we've already heard about the last mile, the infrastructure and the providers that connect homes and businesses to a community. Can we go to the next slide?

The Middle Mile Broadband network CDT is building instead serves as sort of a freeway system for broadband that connects these unserved and underserved communities and serves these last mile providers. We can go to the next slide.

Since 2021, CDT has been appropriated a total of $3.78 billion to develop a statewide open access Middle Mile Broadband network to connect unserved communities.

This network will be more than 8,000 miles long, serve every county, reach every FFA grant location that we just heard about, and will connect almost all of the communities the CPUC has identified as unserved. Go to the next slide.

SB 156, enabling legislation we've heard a bit about that created MMBI established specific roles in developing this Middle Mile network. As noted, CPUC identified the unserved communities that needed an affordable middle mile connection. As the owner, I'm sorry, CDT is the owner and operator of the network.

And then as the owner of the state highway system, Caltrans is constructing parts of the network as well as providing encroachment permits to other lease and joint build partners who are building the other network segments for CDT.

And statute requires CDT to partner with a third party administrator to help develop the network and Golden State net has been CDT's development partner since 2021.

Go to the next slide SB156 also provided some efficiencies to really facilitate the project, including a streamlined CEQA process and alternative contracting methods such as job order contracting to achieve efficiencies in constructing in construction contracts. It also envisioned the potential for partnering with other entities to make use of existing infrastructure to facilitate faster development of the network.

Next Slide this project has a deadline of December 2026.

Starting in 2021, CDT worked with CPUC and Golden State Net to establish the statewide network route and purchased the fiber and other materials and equipment needed to construct and operate the network, signed agreements to facilitate permitting and signed contracts for construction, purchase and lease of the entire 8,000 mile network.

So here you can see the MMBI route map on the right. This is also available on our MMBI website and as the Director noted, we finished 2024 with more than 3,000 miles having gone to construction. We jump to the next slide.

Lastly, as CPUC talked about its FFA Grant program for last mile projects, CDT worked with CPUC to develop the network to prioritize implementation or prioritize connection to the FFA grant locations that will connect mmbi.

CDT and CPUC have formalized and implemented a process for both entities to meet with FFA Grant awardees and to generate the necessary information and conversations about how best to connect the MMBI network. So it's been a useful handoff. And here we can see the MMBI network map with the FFA grant locations in blue.

It might be hard to see there, but you can see this is a good illustration of how many of the communities in the state will benefit from the mmbi. And then lastly, go to the last slide. We wanted to point out this one pager that we post on our website every month.

You can see there's a QR code down at the bottom that can take you to the site. And we also want to invite Committee Members to follow our progress in tuning into the MMAC meetings that we hold every quarter, with our next next MMAC meeting scheduled for April 18th. And that ends my presentation on the MMBI program.

And we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Were you here for questions or did you want to make a presentation?

If I could make some opening remarks. Thank you Chair. So good afternoon Chair Boerner and Members of the Committee. I'm Mike Keever. I'm the Deputy Director at Caltrans and appreciate the opportunity to talk about Caltrans role in Delivering this important program and what we're doing to streamline the encroachment permit process to accelerate broadband deployment.

Caltrans has many responsibilities, some you're very likely familiar with. You're seeing our maintenance teams out on the roads every day.

As well as providing for the safety and operation of the state highway system, we also deliver, design and construct projects while meeting environmental requirements, manage the right of way in some of our newer roles, which includes supporting the broadband middle mile network.

So Caltran's role for the middle mile started off primarily as the design and construction arm of cdt, and this was mentioned earlier. But as CDT identified opportunities to leverage the available funds through different partnering agreements, a lot of the broadband middle mile now instead will be built by others through these partnered agreements.

And so our role now becomes more in facilitating that through the encroachment permit process. When others build on the state highway system right of way, their right to enter is through the issuance of an encroachment permit.

There are multiple state and federal laws that govern the issuance of encroachment permits, but their use is to do a number of things and includes ensuring the safety of the traveling public and the people that are out there doing this work to protect the existing infrastructure, to coordinate on traffic control, ensure the work is built to required standards, and verify compliance with state and federal environmental laws and other associated laws.

Caltrans receives many requests for encroachment permits. We are currently tracking 37,000 permits covering 78,000 different activities. We have a well established process and once a completed application is received, the encroachment permit is often provided in less than three business days. Broadband encroachment permits are unique.

They are granted special consideration through SB156 and other laws, as well as third party agreements that CDT and Caltrans have negotiated with state and federal permitting agencies specifically for this program. As a result, Caltrans has now created a separate streamlined encroachment permit process just for broadband middle mile encroachment permit applications.

But recognizing, and we've seen this, and I'm sure there will be questions regarding this, recognizing that with that streamlining that meant there were changes, changes to the process and the potential complexity of the process if the changes are not well understood both internally and and externally.

Caltrans has taken several steps, therefore, to not only streamline the process, but also provide a higher level of support.

And so, although the broadband middle mile network has a statutory CEQA exemption, other state and federal laws still apply, including environmental laws and in many cases, though, I want to point out these projects will not have significant environmental impacts or those that can be avoided. In that case, the encroachment permit submittal process can be fairly straightforward.

However, if there are environmental impacts, projects may require permits from state or federal environmental resource agencies and Caltrans. With cdt, we worked with state and federal resource agencies to create these programmatic agreements to streamline the process for acquiring permits. In addition, we're providing pre applications consultation.

Each CDT partner receives four hours of consultation to clarify the encroachment permit requirements. We're holding statewide Middle Mile Summit and weekly Q and A sessions with the Partners.

We hosted a summit in January to hear concerns, answer questions and further refine the streamlining of the permit approvals and we're now holding ongoing weekly Q and A sessions as well as partner by partner individual project meetings for real time issue resolution.

We're creating a dedicated permit management system to track and prioritize the broadband permits separately in its own system to ensure faster approvals and better coordination. And as they're flagged as Broadband Middle Mile, they will go to the top of the list.

The Partners have been provided a dedicated Broadband Middle Mile email address and if any of them have questions or run into any roadblocks, they have a dedicated email monitored by our Caltrans Headquarters Broadband Middle Mile team to help resolve issues quickly.

With the intent of being, in a way, a sort of concierge service, Caltrans has created a Headquarters Strike Team to support our 12 regional districts that are responsible for issuing the encroachment permits. If they run into any problems, they're called, they are to call the Strike Team for help to resolve issues.

Caltrans is committed to issuing encroachment permits within three business days once all requirements are met. In addition, we have strong support by Calsta, who remains committed to closing the digital divide along with Caltrans, leveraging all available resources to accelerate broadband expansion and ensure equitable Internet access for all Californians.

We appreciate the leadership from the Legislature in this Committee and look forward to continuing to work together to advance broadband infrastructure statewide. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I have so many questions and I'm sure my Committee Members do too. I want to say that we're joined by Assemblymember Bonta, who I am sure has questions too and unfortunately missed the whole implementation of the digital equity.

Presentation that we have and we didn't get a handout. So, she may ask questions that were answered. But, you know, I think you should just ask whatever you need to do. But I'm going to start by asking the same first question I asked the CPC because I didn't really hear an answer about it.

As we know, recently the Trump Administration has threatened to claw back federal funds and try to halt federal grant programs, has had executive orders on diversity, equity, inclusion. What money is securely, that we planned from the Federal Government, what money is securely in California for what we need to do and what you've been asked to do and what money are we worried about?

Madam Chair, the first item I'd like to point out is Department of Finance recently had converted. Originally we were funded via ARPA and they had recently changed that so that it's now majority of the funding come from broadband is now general fund. So that is good news. But there are still two areas.

There is an NTIA grant for 73 million that Mr. Monroe can talk about and then the 70.2 million is also NTIA grant, which is a capacity sub-grant. We have been in conversations with NTIA. We believe at this point the money from a finance perspective is a drawdown, but we don't have a crystal ball.

So we believe we're going to continue proceeding as planned. But I would say, you know, the Administration has done everything possible to ensure that there is the least amount of risk to this very important initiative on behalf of the Administration and on behalf of the Legislature.

Yeah. And on that. About an hour before this hearing started, the Governor's office did send me a letter that, that I've never seen. The letter was dated November 14th and states the federal funding portions of the MMBI have been switched to general fund.

The implication is that California is not at risk of losing federal funds as we might have thought. But this letter wasn't. It's actually nice to see you all in person. Usually, I'm in a box on Zoom, so it's nice to see you all in person.

I sit down in the Middle Mile Advisory Committee and I always Zoom in because it's a Friday, and so, nice to see you in person, but we haven't. That was never flagged in the January meeting.

I think it's something if there was a switch which had a deadline switch, as you know, I'm not sure if you're all aware, especially new Committee Members, all FFA, all ARPA money which was divided between FFA and Middle Mile had to be expended by December 31, 2026.

So that switch to the general fund means that deadline isn't as relevant. But I do want to point out that in our budget agreement is still December 31, 2026. And I'm not sure anybody wants to re-up more general fund money in the future if that deadline is not met.

So I think, while that money may not go back to the Federal Administration, the deadline is still relevant. And the questions that I brought up on the Middle Mile of my advisory council, which I'll bring up again today, are still relevant.

And I think we don't want to miss the fact that there was an agreement that all pre-construction, including encroachment permits, was supposed to be done by December 24th. And until I asked the question at Middle Mile Advisory Council, it wasn't brought up that that deadline isn't met.

And my fear is if that's not, if we don't have those encroachment permits by March, I don't know how any applicant will finish their Middle Mile Project by December 26th. That's just putting an unrealistic expectation on people. So I appreciate getting new information.

I don't think it changes the fact that the deadline is still the same because I'm not sure as Chair, I would support extending out a deadline because we can't get encroachment permits to applicants because those, if you show up, if we could pull up the map with the Middle Mile and the blue dots.

If we could pull that up. I don't remember which presentation. I think it was your presentation. Your presentation. Map of the blue dots. Those are real people. Those are real people who aren't connected and that's what we're serving. So the deadline, whether we shifted pots of money or not, the deadline is still the deadline.

So I think we have to remember that. But I'm, you know, we have the crystal ball. You didn't comment on the diversity, equity, and inclusion part, which of course also means women and girls. You know, when we think about that and we think about our Digital Equity Program, are we concerned at all? Should we be concerned?

Should we be doing anything else? I know the Administration is equally as committed as the Legislature to that goal.

So the Digital Equity Sub-Grant Program is $70.2 million. Like we were saying, NTIA is still committed at this point. It is a drawdown. We are moving forward. We are establishing the grant program and meeting the nine-month deadline that we have. We are proceeding as planned.

So I'm going to go ahead and maybe turn over to Scott Adams, who has a little bit more details on where he is on that whole process.

Thank you, Director. Just for a little more context, the Digital Equity Capacity Grant Funds were allocated by statute. They were authorized by Congress at least the first tranche, and we do have a signed obligation between us and the Federal Government on those.

As the Director indicated, we haven't made any drawdowns on those funds yet, but intend to do so quickly. In terms of the care, we very much share the concern about any impacts that diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives might have on digital equity funds. We're meeting with the NTIA, you know, twice per month.

We're in constant communication with our Federal Program Officer. And, you know, at present we're told to proceed as planned and just really can't speculate what might happen in the future.

So as the Director said, we're moving forward, heads down, because as you indicated, we know how critically urgent this is and how important the work is to, you know, the vulnerable populations that the Digital Equity Plan and the Subsequent Dollars will fund.

Okay. Before I move on to Middle Mile, are there any questions, comments from my Committee Members? Assemblymember Bonta

Thank you, Chair. Can I just pick up a little bit on, and apologize if this was addressed in the first panel, but perhaps it wasn't, the NTIA State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program you were just referring to that. There is a requirement essentially that 54% of the funding is allocated to regional and local digital equity ecosystems and implementation plans, and no less than 9% is allocated to targeted statewide ecosystems.

As of last count, do you have a sense of whether or not you're actually going to be hitting those targets, or is there something that we should be concerned with where we are not actually pushing as much funding as we can to the local entities?

Given the fact that there could be a situation where CDT is funding and perhaps overfunding itself around administration, evaluation, planning activities, and centralized services.

Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember and thank you for authoring 2750 as well. In response to your question, do you mind if I break it up into two separate pieces? So the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant has not to exceed limits on what administering entities are able to use funds for.

And so that's the NTIA imposes restrictions on what the Department of Technology can spend that. No more than 3% on Administration, no more than 5% on evaluation, no more than 20% on updating and maintaining the State Digital Equity Plan, and then no more than 10% on subsidies. So CDT is committed to minimizing costs in every one of those categories and putting as much into the ecosystem as possible to conduct the work, to develop the metrics, or to come up with the results that, you know, we're required to from Congress.

Now, the percentages that you had mentioned earlier were not prescribed by the Federal Government. Those were approximations or no less than percentages that we included in the draft subgrant program guidelines that we put out for public comment. And so as I said previously, we're doing everything we can to minimize our cost, to potentially increase those percentages.

And really some of those are going to be based on, you know, what market costs are for procurements and other things.

Because 37% is a fairly large portion of the total funding. I think that is going right now to a program that was intended to make sure that local entities had the resources that they needed to be able to support the implementation of these programs.

I think one of the things that I would say is that this Capacity Grant was part of a three-part grant program, including the Digital Equity Act. There's the State Planning Grant, the State Capacity Grant that goes to the states to implement the Digital Equity Plan, and then there's the Competitive Grant Program.

And so we've tried to balance the needs of meeting the federal requirements and commitments that we have, you know, for those funds while addressing the unique needs of the population.

And when we've structured the program, we did it not so much in the context of a standalone grant, but really in the context of. The PUC said they have the California Advanced Service Fund Adoption Account, which I believe the authorization for this year was about $36 million.

There was the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program that, you know, 13 California serving entities were recommended to be awarded over $130 million through that program. All of those are intended to work together in coordination to achieve the Digital Equity Plan. And so wanted to, you know, provide that context.

Thank you. And then I do have just a broader question around the centralized services requirement. Can you, for my sake and others, just define, well, outline how you are defining centralized services right now and why there is a need to be able to, well, how we can ensure that local agencies have much more ability to develop their own kind of models that would be helpful to them as opposed to this kind of a centralized approach.

Got it. Thank you. Well, as I had shared at the top of my comments that we did an extensive almost year-and-a-half-long stakeholder engagement process that included 48 virtual meetings, 21 regional workshops across the state and consultations, and hundreds of listening sessions and market research meetings.

And the notion of centralized services is something that stakeholders recommended as a strategy and activity during the planning process and were included in the draft Digital Equity Plan and in the final Digital Equity Plan and all those references.

Knowing that these Capacity Grants are in some cases going to go to folks that don't have capacity, that the state could leverage its purchasing power and expertise to develop some tools and resources to support our sub-grantees in the ecosystem to do activities that align with those that were agreed on by the stakeholders in the digital equity plan.

And so, when we mention centralized services, there's kind of three buckets. There's those that we would develop, those that we would procure, and those that we would curate, and an example of developed centralized services.

Or we, you know, have a low-cost offer finder that we put up on the Broadband for All portal to help individuals and organizations find low-cost offers which will be critical to implementation of the plan. Procured services would be something like, you know, a Digital Literacy and Assessment Training Platform.

And as part of our development of the Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program, we've done eight stakeholder briefings, two program design questionnaires to solicit input from stakeholders on what they would like to see in a Digital Literacy and Assessment Training Platform. That's one example of what a centralized service would be.

So we understand that the state is limited in what it can do and the heavy blocking and tackling is going to be done at the regional and local level. We do think, and the stakeholders have told us over the years that there is a role for us to play.

And we feel like we've designed the program and the centralized services to be responsive to what stakeholders have told us.

Just that program, the Digital Literacy and Equity Program that you are supporting. And I appreciate the idea of developing, procuring, or curating as the primary functions that you all are able to play. Given the fact that California is such a language-rich and diverse state, there have been primary offerings that are just in English and Spanish only.

So if we're talking about digital equity, and we're also acknowledging and recognizing the incredible richness and diversity of languages spoken throughout the State of California, what is your plan to make sure that from a digital equity perspective, the tools and capacity that we are building is happening in more than just two languages.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And I want to reiterate that we said at the top of my comments that CDT and our office take inclusiveness and the diversity of our state very seriously. That's why we work painstakingly to develop one of our three surveys during the planning process into 14 different languages.

And we embedded voice-to-text accessibility technology into that that was accessible by phone and computer. And our digital equity plan and all the materials we put up online are translated into over 100 different languages. We appreciate that.

What was on the stakeholder gathering side of things? Is that what you're saying?

Well, the Digital Equity Survey that was used to receive input was translated, and the Digital Equity Plan, both the draft and the final, are available online and translatable into over 100 different languages.

To answer your question about centralized services, the grant is a relatively small amount and we're doing what we can to provide a base of centralized services to support local coalitions and grants recipients to conduct their work.

But we build in a lot of flexibility into the subgrant program where, you know, we're encouraging lead grantees to apply on behalf of coalition and using a small portion of the grant funds to just do local planning to make sure their efforts are aligned with the state plan because that's what we're all working towards.

But we've given built in flexibility for the local coalitions to develop interventions that meet the specific language or other needs of their communities.

I would just encourage you to, if the stance of CDT is to direct more funding towards centralized services and to the administrative and development procurement and curation operation of CDT as opposed to pushing it into local agencies, that we also take on the responsibility of being fully language capable, not only in the collection of information from different stakeholders, which is a laudable step in the right direction, but in the production of the materials that are put out on the website, for instance.

And I think we already have some observations that many of the guidelines and information that is posted are just being put out in English and Spanish. And so I would encourage us to continue to stretch to a much more linguistically inclusive paradigm.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I want to appreciate the comments from the Chair about encroachment permits. And there's a disconnect that I'm hoping you can try to help me with. What I heard from the Deputy Director was that typically you can turn around encroachments in three days or less.

Really important in my district, we've got about 650 miles of the projects that were in partnership either solely or jointly with Caltrans on, but yet we're almost two months beyond the deadline for all encroachment permits having been received. So where's the gap? Why are we so far behind the deadline?

If what I'm hearing from Caltrans is that you can turn them around pretty quickly?

Yeah, no, it's a very good question. And this is where. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. Assemblymember Rogers, thank you. The encroachment permits, as they're coming in, I mentioned we do 37,000 of these right now. 2,000 of them are broadband.

Most of those, I think something like 85 or 90 percent of them are either completed, some are withdrawn or they've been approved. But a lot of those are for other types of broadband work. So part of what has happened is through this, through the changes, through the streamlining, taking advantage of 156.

And I'm going to own some of this. I'm going to own this. We need to do a better job explaining what that streamlined process is. And that's what we've heard from the partners. There's confusion on what needs to be provided.

There are problems with consistency because we have 12 districts doing this and we've changed the process on them too. And we also heard can we get further streamlining, which resulted in more changes. So that's where we're trying to do this outreach.

What I characterized, if we're able to do it at the level we would like, characterizing it as, we really want to help people come through this encroachment process. I said concierge service, and I know you may say, compared to where we are now, how can you even be talking about that?

But this is where we want to go with this. And so instead of being a gatekeeper, we're here to say, how can we be an ombuds? How can we help you? Because we're going through this exact same process ourself on our own builds.

And so we want to be able to try to share what we are learning through this with those that are also experiencing it and be able to bring these encroachment permits through. Our part of this, it's really the preparation that takes time. Our part of this at the end is just to say the preparation is done.

And most of these should be very limited in their impact. You've looked at and addressed the issues to the satisfaction of all the. Mostly it's going to be saying, I don't have impact, I don't have impact, I don't have impact.

But you've done your due diligence in doing that and then that's what allows us to turn it around in the three days.

But what we want to do is do more in supporting the partners in doing that preparation, getting through all of the other permit requirements of the other federal and state laws so that we can receive that completed package and turn these around.

So when you say 85 to 90 percent are done, do you mean 85 to 90 percent of the permits or of the miles that we know are expected to be built?

I want to be clear because I know this is confusing. What we did is we looked at the broadband-related permits that we have that we're tracking currently. A lot of these were not Broadband Middle Mile, however. We do a lot of work with these same partners, right? We have a history with them.

And what I'm trying to, I guess, portray is there's a reason to have some optimism that we're going to be able to get through this. I'm going to own that we're right now we're going through a turbulent period but we are able to do other types of broadband permits with these same partners successfully.

And so in working with them going forward, going through the same process we're going through, I'm optimistic that we're going to be able to share, guide, provide to move these forward in the future.

So I have all faith that we'll get through this at some point. I think the question is you're two months beyond a deadline. How are we going to get through it today? Because it's going to impact people's delivery of projects. And I get you're still clarifying for each of your different districts.

I feel really bad for District 1 folks who have 600 and something miles worth of encroachment permits that they're working their way through. And I'm sure that that's not the same as other districts. But what's the plan?

So we're, I'm not actually sure of the deadline you're referring to.

The deadline was the December 2024 deadline that was in the Middle Mile Advisory Committee that said all pre-construction work would be done by December 2024, which it is not.

So I believe that's referring to the Caltrans builds that we're doing.

I will give this to Director Bailey-Crimmins because if I remember the Middle Mile Advisory Council meeting it was a clear slide that said December 2024 all pre-construction is done. We are moving forward.

Yeah. Mark will.

Absolutely. So when we talk about the December 2024 deadline, that was the encumbrance deadline for those federal funds. And so they had to be under contract. And so in order to get them under contract, we needed to have pre-construction done and move to construction by December of 2024.

So, as Chief Deputy Director Keever noted, that's part of the pre-construction process. That's part of the models that Caltrans is building. So that's one important piece. When we talk about the federal funding a few years ago about some funding was swapped out, I'll say roughly $1.4 billion was swapped out.

Where it was ARPA. We had ARPA and then we had general fund. And so there was some room to go past December 2024, I think is how that was perceived. But when we talk about pre-construction, we talk about being able, you have to be ready to go to construction and get that under contract.

That was what we were talking about in terms of going forward with construction. The other side of that is we have also encumbered the funds with our partners. And the Director noted that we have partnerships for an 8,000 mile network. We've got partnerships that are now making up more than 7,300 miles of that network.

And of those, about 4,000 miles are going to be along the state highway system and that's what requires those permits. So we did meet the encumbrance deadline by signing all of those contracts about 15 months ahead of schedule actually. So we did meet that schedule.

But the challenge that run into is that we have less than two years now to complete construction on 8,000 miles. And so we have about 3,000 miles that's currently in construction, arguably a bit ahead of schedule, but we have another 5,000 miles we've got to build in the next two years.

And if, when we talk about these, we talk about these RFI Squared partners, these are 7,300 miles. They're the ones who need these encroachment permits. And that's really, that it's kind of, I don't know if I've helped, if I've added to confusion.

I'll just tell you there was a slide that said the plan was all pre-construction, December 2024. It had nothing to do with encumbrance.

So what was presented in the Middle Mile Advisory Committee was that was the deadline by all pre-construction, which includes all pre-construction permits, which are the Caltrans Permits, that's our problem. So your encumbrance deadline, that might have been there. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that.

And what I'm hearing. And I'll summarize this. Or do you want to speak before I summarize what I think I'm hearing?

Yes.

Yes. Go ahead.

Because I heard a lot and so I would appreciate a summary. But did you finish in 2024? Let me ask it differently. What did you complete by December 2024?

So in terms of what we're talking about, the pre-construction that Caltrans was working on, I don't remember exactly how many miles. I want to say about 300 of those was done, were completed by December 2024 and the remaining 4-500 should be done by March.

Okay, but was that the goal? Was 300 miles of pre-construction. Was that the goal or is that what the Chairwoman is referring to that was supposed to be finished by December 2024?

No, the goal was to complete all pre-construction prior to December and to be able to go to construction by December, and to have our partners being able to have their encroachment permits and go to construction by December. And that's where.

Okay so, there's a lot of words and I don't want to sound, you know, but I'm getting frustrated because I'm not getting the answer. And I think that's if I may, what was the goal and what was completed by December 2024. Period. Simple.

The goal was to have all pre-planning done by the end of December. The current, what we were just had, the January MMAC was now it has gone to March. The end of March is where pre-planning is expected to be completed.

So it was not completed.

It was not completed.

That's what the question is. So it was not completed, but that was. Was it a goal? Was it a requirement? What was the exact wording? Because I'm new here, to this Committee, but I'm not new to the Legislature and I get a lot of words and not enough answers. So please.

It was a milestone. It was a specific task that was supposed to be completed by pre-planning and working with Caltrans. A lot of pre-planning has been done. They are basically a month and a half out.

And at this point, we are expected to have all pre-planning completed by the end of March, which means a three-month delay.

Okay, so three-month delay. So just to be clear, we are expected to finish by March of 2025.

Pre-planning.

Yes, the pre-planning. Are we on track to meet that deadline? Because I know we are saying that just like we said December 2024 and it didn't happen. So is this going to happen or, I mean, somebody's got to know.

Yeah so, that was the goal and we are working with Caltrans. So based on the encroachment risk that we have just talked about, we've established a mitigation plan to basically establish a strike team between CDT and Caltrans. As we pointed out, they are getting a lot of encroachment permits.

So to ensure that MMBI takes a top priority, we have taken a part of that strike team to flag every single one of the MMBI Encroachment Permits. And as such, Caltrans is committed with that strike team to fast-track those things and has actually signed a team.

That is their entire job to ensure that we meet the March deadline. If we for some reason are not going to meet that, we will bring that back and discuss that.

Okay. There's a lot of information today. Can you put that information that you just gave me into either a memo, a letter, email, whatever it may be so that we can recall this conversation today and then in March we can go back and to see exactly what is completed and what is not completed. That would make it easier for me and I'm sure my colleagues have other.

Yeah. And we can submit that. I think it would be wise to submit it to the entire Middle Mile Advisory Council as an update and then we can circulate it to the entire Committee Member. So I think I'm going to summarize and then I'll go back to Assemblymember Rogers.

What I think has happened. There was a deadline, a milestone, not a deadline, a milestone that was missed. There's been internal discussions. We have the new concierge service which I think everybody now wants Concierge Caltran Service. You've created a new standard there, Mr. Keever.

For MMBI projects, I appreciate the quickness with which we think we're going to meet that deadline. It just means three-month delay of shovels in the ground and that is. It was already ambitious to get it done by the deadline and it's even going to be more ambitious with a three-month delay.

And I think we'll take a three-month delay over twelve-month delay. That's great. It would have been better with no delay. It would have been better if it had been flagged and this had been flagged earlier because it's not like we didn't know that these permits weren't being issued in October.

We should have known that these permits had to be issued in September to meet the deadline or to meet the milestone. So maybe that's a learning that we could do going forward for other big projects. But that's my summary of what I think has happened. Is that an accurate summary?

If I could add. I'm probably going to invite more questions. Chair. Part of what we're going to try to do with the partners is to complete, and to Assemblymember Roger's question earlier, is to complete the information that's required in order to have it submitted and do this turnaround.

So the concierge service, if you will, is to try to help. Like I said, we're going through the same process ourselves to share with them, but we can't approve them until all of the information is provided. That's part of the process.

And so this has to be something that's collaborative between us in order to complete these encroachment permits.

I get that. But just like from a normal person perspective, if people have been asking for things for 18 months and they suddenly get it, we're putting it on the applicants and there are going to be some applicants that can't turn around. And if they don't have a year and nine months to build, they're going to exit.

And these dollars are going to be in jeopardy. And so I understand what you're providing them is not the guarantee of the permit. I think that's probably what you were getting at. It's not a guarantee of a permit.

But because we have been complicated and we have been delayed, we're going to ask applicants to suddenly move faster, more efficiently, go get information that they may have to go do research for. And so, it's putting a burden on the applicants, which could put. Where's my wonderful slide? Because I still have questions about this slide.

I know we have to get to public comment and I have to leave here by 4:15 or my staff is gonna come get me. But when we look at this slide, it will put segments of this in jeopardy, and that puts those blue dots in jeopardy.

And so I see that you are course correcting and I applaud that and I appreciate it. But it's putting a burden on the applicants that some applicants may not be able to fulfill, which puts our project in jeopardy. Right? I just think we have to put it out there in plain speak of what's going on.

Assemblymember Rogers.

You know, I think the Chair said it. Well, I was just going to say I'm highly skeptical of the three-day claim around the permits just because that's not the conditions that I'm hearing on the ground from folks that are trying to navigate this. And I'm sure we'll hear from folks in public comment that are having similar struggles.

And so I think that it is. If you're telling me the deadline now is going to be March, I think if you come back here in April and we haven't hit that, I think there's going to be a whole lot more questions about this milestone, deadline, whatever you want to call it, for December.

What I'm hearing is deadline by March for us to be able to do this, to be able to make sure that those funds are actually spent in and done. So I want to make sure we're really clear with that.

And I think we should be really clear. If we were to extend, even without money going back to the Federal Government, if we were to extend beyond December 2026 funding, this Legislature would have to approve it. And watching this doesn't engender a lot of trust.

And I know you guys have tried really hard and you've been given enormous hurdles. So I really hope that we have the flexibility. We have that concierge service that we're not just taking Caltrans, learning from their own joint builds.

But you're saying it's so easy to say no, but for the sake of all those blue dots, we have to find a way to yes. And we want to do it environmentally, we want to do it appropriately. We don't want to break any rules. Right?

But we're putting all the applicants in a position where they're going to scramble to meet that deadline. And they're the ones with the shovels. I don't know, I have questions about the blue dots. Do you want to make any comments on while we're on this thing?

We can go to blue dots too.

Well, an additional comment. I think the misunderstanding is that we're not here to get you. We're here to be partners. But if we don't get the correct information, then the trust eroded. And so, how can we help you if we're not getting the correct information?

Now, again, this is my first meeting in this Committee, but I keep getting the same information and the same kind of big words and all of that because we're trying to pretend that everything's fine. And it's not. We're not here. This is an oversight hearing, not to get you, but to see where we can help.

Because of the distrust, it feels like we're adversaries and we're not. We're supposed to be partners in this and we can't be partners with you if we are not getting a clear answer. The answers are sometimes very basic, like yes and no. And then we get all of this information to confuse the issue.

And that's where the trust erodes. We're here because we want those blue dots. We want people to have what they need. And we can't do it if we're not getting correct information. And if you need help, say it. We're not perfect. Obviously, the state has. Every organization has issues.

But if we're sitting here and not getting the right information and going back and forth, it's a waste of our time. And then in the meantime, we're 18 months, whatever it is, we need to build that trust for you to know that we're here to help, not to hurt you or to get you.

But if we keep getting this information, then the spidey senses go up and like, uh oh, red flags, as to why are we not getting the correct information. And I hope that this is the end, I guess, of going back and forth and more.

Be honest and say, look, we're not going to do it because of these reasons. Can you help us or we don't need help, we just need more time, whatever the case may be.

But when we ask a question and we get all of these fancy words that you all very well know, we don't understand because we're not experts like you are.

It just feels disingenuous and it feels like we're just trying to get through the Committee hearing so that you can check a box that you came and gave us the information. And that's what my plea is. Please. We're here to help, because at the end of the day, it's not about us.

It's about what we're doing for our constituents and all of our constituents. And so my plea is, please, just let's try to be simple and clear about what we can do and what we can't do and we don't understand those big words. I can look them up, but we don't understand them. Basic stuff. Please.

Assemblymember Bonta.

I just wanted to get clear. Thank you, Assemblymember Rubio. I wanted to get clear on the. Just a status check right now. This is somewhere in the packet. I had to completely dissect my packet. So you knew it. You knew it?

This one, what I'm looking at is a California for All, Broadband for All, MMBI fact sheet as of 12-30-24. So we have this deadline that we're still wanting to be clear about. December 31, 2026. It might have been something. Anyway, it says pre-construction. There's 5,028 miles or 62 percent of total miles completed.

Installation, 3,090 miles or 38 percent of the total miles completed. And we still have this deadline of December 31, 2026. So from a pre-construction standpoint, is it 62% what you are saying you've been able to have completed at this point? Would that be your estimate?

I would just point out this is from December 30th. We obviously have made significant progress. We can get you an updated version.

Okay. So we were at 62 percent just as of December 30th.

On pre-construction.

On pre-construction. Where are we now?

I'd have to go back and look at that, unless Mr. Monroe, do you have a more current update?

I don't.

Okay, so we'll have to bring that back to you.

Okay. I guess the part that is even more of concern for me is if we're at 70 percent even with a three-month deadline, that's a ways to go in a very short amount of time. The installation though, 38 percent of total miles. Installed.

That's in the installation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it's in the installation phase. So it means people are working on it, but it's not necessarily complete. Complete would be. I think we're saying it's connected is what we see that as a.

Right. So this is where they've started digging the ditches, putting the conduit vaults, fiber in it.

Say more, please. I'll be the opposite of what you were just asked to do. So the installation phase, you're at 38% of completion with the installation phase. And there's still another thing that isn't even articulated here, which is completion, right? Yes. And December 2026 is when we expect to have 100% completion, correct? .

So if we are in February of 2025 and we are only at 38% of installation phase being completed, how are we going to in less than a year get to completion of 100% based on the schedule.

So the schedule was pre planning was supposed to be completed by December. It has slipped to three months. Installation is between. We were expecting to actually do most of the installation in 2025, so we are somewhat on schedule. But Mark, maybe you can.

And then really the lighting up of the network is not till early 2025 on certain segments that are fairly easy because of like digital 395. But the whole network needs to be operational by December 31, 2026. So it needs to be operational with an operator with the Last Mile connected to it. So I just want to at least point that out. So these are different phases.

Yeah, that's helpful and also alarming.

We have three years to build the nation's largest broadband middle mile network.

Yes, yes. Okay. It would be helpful to just have the, this level of granularity around progress to date provided to us through the chair as time goes on.

And maybe when we get the answers to Assembly Member Rubio's questions, we can also have that updated map. If I remember from the mmb MM middle my Advisory Committee Committee, it's when we looked at pre construction, it wasn't 62% of miles. It was up of the work that needs for each of the permits.

So it wasn't even 62% of the miles. So it was of the pre construction work. So. And then Caltrans became this. Caltrans permitting became this bottleneck of getting to that final pre construction. If. Did I summarize that correctly?

That is correct. There has been challenges, but we are overcoming the challenges.

Sorry, we have challenges. We are overcoming the challenges, but that's my Version is.

We still believe based on a critical path based on 7,300 miles of the network being built simultaneously with vendor partners, Caltrans is responsible for 779 of those miles. They are on track with that. We haven't seen anything that would say otherwise that we would not meet the December 2026.

So even like any large project, you may have certain milestones delete, you know, missed. But as long as you are still working on mitigating risk, it doesn't necessarily jeopardize your end date. So at this point we're still committed. It's not linear. Things are running simultaneously.

Do the applicants think they're going to make the deadline? I haven't been 779of what did we have 8,000 miles? 779 are Caltrans and the rest are applicants. Yes, that's correct. Do the applicants think they're going to. Make it with yes, they are working towards that goal. That is not working towards the goal.

Do they think they're going to make it? I mean they're going to tell you you're going to make it because otherwise they lose their money. So I guess that's a dumb question. But.

But I, I, I would just worry that they're gonna say yes and then it comes down to it and there's just only so many things that you could crunch at the end of the day when you have shovels on the ground. I, I, I didn't want to say that on, on the record block but anyways. Yes.

So I have a question. Can we go back to my trusty ma? So last year we had a new budget trailer language that was passed to optimize the design of network ensure that the middle mile segments link up with. The last mile which is great in. Order to reduce the likelihood of underutilized segment.

But when you, Sorry, when you look at this map there's a lot of lines and there's little blue dots. How are we ensuring that we are optimizing the Middle Mile network? Because the lines are the Middle Mile and the blue dots are the last mile if I'm correct. So like you look at it and you're like that's a lot of black lines with little few blue dots. Can you explain that?

The, the design is based on following the the current Caltrans right of way freeways not based on a bird flying to us. We're following the the freeways and based on that we also need to build resiliency in there. Because if, as most of us know, if a fiber cut happens, we cannot have a community without any service.

So you will see redundancy. So if something happens that it could basically go another path in order to make sure that that community continues to stay lit up. So the design and engineering is based on resiliency and meeting the maximum of the 105 FFA grant recipients. And so that's where in order to and follow the right of ways of the Caltrans freeways.

Okay, thank you. So, yes, we have resiliency. We're going along the freeways. I still worry that we overbuild the Middle Mile and we don't have a lot of last mile that will justify the cost. But that's only time will tell. And this is a historic investment in our middle mile. I think we've talked about most things.

I'm going to look around the room. Are there any last comments by my Committee Members on anything? Okay. It sounds like we should have another meeting in April and to come back and check on this and see where we are to make sure that we. Have the confidence that General Fund money, our.

Our General Fund money that is invested in the middle mile are being used to the best of our abilities and see if we can course correct. So maybe we'll consider that. And of course, we're going to have changes at the Federal Government level that I'm sure that we will need to address. So we'll be in touch.

So I want to thank this panelist. For your comments and I want to thank Caltrans for, you know, seeing the problems course correcting. It's not always easy to get a state agency to course correct in the middle of something, and I see that. So thank you. With that, we're going to go to public comment.

I'm going to ask people to line up because I said my staff is going to pull me out in 12 minutes. So it depends on how many people line up and want to speak, how long you get to speak. If the microphone decides to stay up, only Paula Treat wants to speak. Is that right?

I'm the only brave one today. Okay.

So I want to say name, position. Oh, we have two. Yes. name, position and you each get two minutes.

Yeah. So Paula Treat with two hats on today. So as many of you know, I represent quite a few tribes. Tribes are last mile. If we don't get middle mile, tribes don't get last mile. And that's even for tribes who have spent already millions to try to Get Internet for their reservations.

I also represent one of the builders, not a joint build a builder for Middle Mile fiber. And I will tell you that I think CDT is trying really hard. I think CPUC is trying really hard. And the problem lies with encroachment permits. The majority of the lines that need to be built in California are.

Are built with encroachment permits. For Caltrans. They're not being given out. There isn't any streamlining. I know they're trying, but to streamline, you'd sit down with the vendors and you'd say, what do you need? What do we need? What does the law say? And you'd actually come up with a plan. And I'm sorry, that hasn't happened.

And I know that most people won't speak out on this because they're afraid of retaliation. I think this Committee is going to be very helpful in getting this moving. And I would say April's too late. You need to meet in middle March to see where they've gone with their streamlining and their concierge service.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Benson with US Telecom, the broadband Association. And I'll speak for some of the rural folks that are partnering with local government to try and get some of this Middle Mile done. For some of the areas where these are going, which are the farthest reaches of California, we're talking that there's bad weather.

So we're talking like Siskiyou County. They only have a window of where they can, how, when they can build. So if they have to wait and wait and wait for an encroachment permit, that just pushes their ability to do construction, although they're capable and certainly able.

And then mentioning something that Paula said is many of my Members are going to be very involved with Last Mile, and we're concerned that we may not have the concierge treatment that Middle Mile is getting, because right now, Middle Mile can't be built.

So with that, we're certainly wanting to work with all the Middle Mile folks, including CDT and Caltrans, but we obviously do have some very specific issues that we feel need to be addressed. And I think Paula said a lot of what I would be sharing as well.

So I appreciate the fact that you're asking questions, but we do need to figure out if these are partners that they've worked with for years and years and years and years. I don't know how much more information should be shared. They've been working with most of us for years and years and years.

So there's a lot of trust that should already be there. So thank you.

Thank you. And I think if anybody knows my reputation, I am. My mom used to call me a pit bull because when I latch on, I never give up. And I think one, a mother should never say that to their child and two, it's true. So this is an issue that is.

Really, really important to this jurisdiction of this Committee and it's important to every single Californian who we're investing in and we're investing in families and we're investing in children and we're investing in that connectivity. And so I think we have multiple things that we have to fight for.

We have to fight against the Administration coming after our money and our dollars and see how we protect California's interests that way. And we need to work with the CPUC, the CDT and Caltrans and our state agencies to ensure that we're on the right track.

So I will be in contact with the both the CPUC and cdt, make sure we have follow up to this meeting and make sure we have a timely another meeting. And I'll be updating you guys as we need to. And if I call hearing, we'll have a call hearing.