2. Procedural Background
We opened this Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) to implement the expanded California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) funding provisions resulting from SB 1040 and to address other possible changes to the CASF program, including changes suggested in a petition by the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) to modify Decision (D.) 07-12-054.6 Opening comments on issues identified in the OIR were filed January 21, 2011, with reply comments filed February 14, 2011. The assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memo on April 19, 2011, determining that no evidentiary hearings were necessary. The record for this rulemaking has been developed through the filing of comments on designated issues.
The first phase of this proceeding focused on implementing the Consortia Grant Account. By D.11-06-038, we implemented measures to receive funding applications and to grant awards from the Consortia Grant Account. In this second phase of the OIR (which is the subject of this decision), we implement revisions to the existing CASF infrastructure grant program and implement the new CASF revolving loan program.
By ruling dated August 15, 2011, the assigned Commissioner issued a draft proposal for revisions to the existing CASF Infrastructure grant program and for initial rules for administering the CASF revolving loan account program. The Commission's Communications Division (CD) formulated the draft proposals, taking into account the comments on the OIR previously filed by parties in this proceeding.
Comments on the draft proposal were filed on September 12, 2011, with reply comments on September 26, 2011. Our adopted rules have been further refined in response to comments.
Parties filing comments included telephone corporations, cable companies, consumer groups, the California Emerging Technology Fund regional partners, and other regional and community groups focused on broadband adoption and deployment.7 We have further refined the updated adopted rules in Appendix 1 and 2 of this decision in response to parties' comments.
6 DRA filed its Petition to Modify D.07-12-054 in R.06-06-028, which is now a closed proceeding. We now resolve the DRA Petition to Modify in this decision.
7 Telephone corporations offering comments included: Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT&T California and its affiliates (AT&T), Verizon California Inc. (Verizon), Frontier Communications of California and its affiliates (Frontier),), and the Small Local Exchange Carriers (LECs), consisting of Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Company, Ducor Telephone Company, Foresthill Telephone Co, Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Company, Pinnacles Telephone Co, The Ponderosa Telephone Company, Sierra Telephone Company, The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano Telephone Company and Winterhaven Telephone Company , and DTS of CA, Inc. (DTS), a satellite-based provider that has sought authority to be a Small ILEC in all of the unserved areas of California.
The cable companies offering comments included: Cox Communications and Comcast Phone of California, LLC.
The consumer groups offering comments included: DRA, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and Greenlining Institute.
Comments were also filed by regional groups associated with the CETF, including: the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, the Sierra Economic Development Corporation, the Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency, Shepherds Crook Enterprises, the Contra Costa Council, California State University-Monterey Bay, Valley Vision, and the California Center for Rural Policy.
Other regional and community groups offering comments included: the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), the Regional Council of Rural Counties, Spiral Internet/Nevada County Connected, and Camino Fiber Network Cooperative, Inc.
