11. California High Cost Fund-A
Section 275 creates, among other things, a committee to advise the Commission on the development, implementation, and administration of a program to provide for transfer payments to small independent telephone corporations providing local exchange services in high-cost rural and small metropolitan areas.117 The program is referred to as the California High Cost Fund-A. Section 275 also delegates to the Commission the responsibility to develop a funding mechanism for this program.
The pertinent statutory language provides as follows: "[a]ll revenues collected by telephone corporation in rates authorized by the commission to fund the program...shall be submitted to the commission pursuant to a schedule established by the commission."118
In D.94-09-065, the Commission found that "The funding for the CHCF [California High Cost Fund] will be by use of a surcharge on all end-users as adopted by this decision."119 In D.94-09-065, the Commission explained that it adopted an "all end-user" base to include to the following: "All end-users of every LEC, IEC, cellular, and paging company in the state, including basic exchange customers...."120
Similar to the universal lifeline surcharge, discussed above, the Commission in D.94-09-065 explicitly included cellular service, such as TracFone's, as one of the services subject to the California High Cost Fund or CHCF, including the California High Cost Fund-A.
TracFone argues that it is not responsible for the payment of the California High Cost Fund-A surcharge for the same reasons that it is not responsible for the universal lifeline surcharge. TracFone's central argument is that the debit card exemption, discussed above, serves to exempt its prepaid wireless services from the California High Cost Fund-A surcharge. TracFone makes other more minor arguments as well. These arguments are all addressed above. We disagree with TracFone's reasoning.
We find that TracFone is ultimately responsible for payment of the surcharge to fund the California High Cost Fund-A set forth in §§ 275 et seq. The relevant statutory framework for the California High Cost Fund-A surcharge and the universal lifeline surcharge are the same. As a result, our decision finding TracFone's service subject to the California High Cost Fund-A surcharge and responsible for payment of the surcharge is based on the same reasoning set forth above regarding the universal lifeline surcharge. We further find TracFone acted unlawfully by failing to pay the California High Cost Fund-A surcharge.
117 § 275(a).
118 § 275(b).
119 D.94-09-065, 1994 Cal. PUC LEXIS 681 *82.
120 Id. *130.
