California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted 1 D cosponsors

SB 740 — Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 522, Statutes of 2013.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.

Prognosis

Advancing 56% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Mixed recorded votes

    9 passed, 1 failed in recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, establishes a program of cooperative federalism for the regulation of telecommunications to attain the goal of local competition, while implementing specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, consistent with certain universal service principles. The universal service principles include the principle that consumers in all regions of the nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high-cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas. The act authorizes each state to adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and standards to preserve and advance universal service within the state, only to the extent that they adopt additional specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms that do not rely on or burden federal universal service support mechanisms. Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations, as defined. Existing law establishes the California High-Cost Fund-A Administrative Committee Fund, the California High-Cost Fund-B Administrative Committee Fund, the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund, the Payphone Service Providers Committee Fund, the California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund, and the California Advanced Services Fund, referred to as the CASF, in the State Treasury and requires that moneys in the funds are the proceeds of rates and are held in trust for the benefit of ratepayers and to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service and may be expended only to accomplish specified telecommunications universal service programs, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act or upon supplemental appropriation. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the CASF to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies, as provided in specified decisions of the commission and in the CASF statute. Existing law requires that moneys collected by the commission, pursuant to a specified surcharge, after January 1, 2011, are to be deposited into 3 separate accounts within the CASF. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect a sum not to exceed $125,000,000, after January 1, 2011, and requires that $100,000,000 of that amount be deposited into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect the sum through the 2015 calendar year. This bill would increase the amount the commission is authorized to collect to a sum not to exceed $215,000,000, after January 1, 2011, and instead would require that $190,000,000 be deposited into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. The bill would authorize the commission to collect that amount until 2020. The bill would provide that the goal of the CASF program is, no later than December 31, 2015, to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households. In approving infrastructure projects, the bill would require the commission to give priority to projects that provide last-mile broadband access to households that are unserved by an existing facilities-based broadband provider. The bill would require the commission to provide each applicant, and any party challenging an application, the opportunity to demonstrate actual levels of broadband service in the project area, as prescribed. The bill would provide that, notwithstanding the requirement that moneys in the funds are to be used to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service, an entity that is not a telephone corporation is eligible to apply to participate in the CASF program to provide access to broadband to an unserved or underserved household, as defined, if the entity otherwise meets the eligibility requirements and complies with program requirements established by the commission. Existing law requires the commission to conduct an interim and final financial audit and an interim and final performance audit of the implementation and effectiveness of the CASF and to report its interim findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2011, and its final findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2017. This bill would require the commission to conduct an additional interim financial audit and interim performance audit and to report these findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2017. The bill would instead require the commission to report its final findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2021. Existing law requires the commission, until January 1, 2016, to provide an annual report to the Legislature that includes specified information. This bill would extend this reporting requirement until January 1, 2021, and would require the report to include information regarding the status of the CASF balance and the projected amount to be collected in each year through 2020 to fund approved projects. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 281 of the Public Utilities Code proposed in AB 1299, that would become operative only if AB 1299 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2014, and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 522, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 3. Page 2381.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 59. Noes 16. Page 3187.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. (Page 2948.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (August 30).

  11. Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (August 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. Reconsideration granted.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & C.

  15. Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & C.

  17. Referred to Com. on U. & C.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 1. Page 1108.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 1019.) (May 23).

  22. Set for hearing May 23.

  23. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  24. Set for hearing May 20.

  25. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  26. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 750.) (April 30).

  27. Set for hearing April 30.

  28. Hearing postponed by committee.

  29. Set for hearing April 16.

  30. Hearing postponed by committee.

  31. Set for hearing April 2.

  32. Referred to Com. on E., U., & C.

  33. Read first time.

  34. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.

  35. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 5 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 34 Yea · 3 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 31302
Democratic 3000
Total 34302
% of votes cast 87%8%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wright — Yea
De León — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Cannella — Yea
Evans — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Knight — Not Voting
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 59 Yea · 16 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 541403
Democratic 4000
Republican 1200
Total 591603
% of votes cast 76%21%0%4%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Not Voting
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Medina — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Daly — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Logue — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Hagman — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Bocanegra — Yea
Levine — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Allen — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Perea — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Conway — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Wilk — Nay
Williams — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 4 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11401
Democratic 1000
Total 12401
% of votes cast 71%24%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Holden — Yea
Linder — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Weber — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Donnelly — Nay
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7004
Democratic 1001
Republican 1001
Total 9006
% of votes cast 60%0%0%40%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Bonilla — Not Voting
Skinner — Not Voting
Chávez — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 4 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9200
Democratic 2000
Republican 0200
Total 11400
% of votes cast 73%27%0%0%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Failed 5 Yea · 3 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5204
Republican 0101
Democratic 0002
Total 5307
% of votes cast 33%20%0%47%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Buchanan — Not Voting
Quirk — Yea
Bonilla — Not Voting
Chávez — Nay
Rendon — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gorell — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Not Voting
Garcia, Robert Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Passed 36 Yea · 1 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33102
Democratic 3000
Total 36102
% of votes cast 92%3%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Price — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wright — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Wyland — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Cannella — Yea
De León — Yea
Evans — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Correa — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Beall — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4002
Democratic 1000
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
De León — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 740 do?
Existing law, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, establishes a program of cooperative federalism for the regulation of telecommunications to attain the goal of local competition, while implementing specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, consistent with certain universal service principles. The universal service principles include the principle that consumers in all regions of the nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high-cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas. The act authorizes each state to adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and standards to preserve and advance universal service within the state, only to the extent that they adopt additional specific, predictable, and sufficient mechanisms that do not rely on or burden federal universal service support mechanisms. Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone corporations, as defined. Existing law establishes the California High-Cost Fund-A Administrative Committee Fund, the California High-Cost Fund-B Administrative Committee Fund, the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Trust Administrative Committee Fund, the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund, the Payphone Service Providers Committee Fund, the California Teleconnect Fund Administrative Committee Fund, and the California Advanced Services Fund, referred to as the CASF, in the State Treasury and requires that moneys in the funds are the proceeds of rates and are held in trust for the benefit of ratepayers and to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service and may be expended only to accomplish specified telecommunications universal service programs, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act or upon supplemental appropriation. Existing law requires the commission to develop, implement, and administer the CASF to encourage deployment of high-quality advanced communications services to all Californians that will promote economic growth, job creation, and substantial social benefits of advanced information and communications technologies, as provided in specified decisions of the commission and in the CASF statute. Existing law requires that moneys collected by the commission, pursuant to a specified surcharge, after January 1, 2011, are to be deposited into 3 separate accounts within the CASF. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect a sum not to exceed $125,000,000, after January 1, 2011, and requires that $100,000,000 of that amount be deposited into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. Existing law authorizes the commission to collect the sum through the 2015 calendar year. This bill would increase the amount the commission is authorized to collect to a sum not to exceed $215,000,000, after January 1, 2011, and instead would require that $190,000,000 be deposited into the Broadband Infrastructure Grant Account. The bill would authorize the commission to collect that amount until 2020. The bill would provide that the goal of the CASF program is, no later than December 31, 2015, to approve funding for infrastructure projects that will provide broadband access to no less than 98% of California households. In approving infrastructure projects, the bill would require the commission to give priority to projects that provide last-mile broadband access to households that are unserved by an existing facilities-based broadband provider. The bill would require the commission to provide each applicant, and any party challenging an application, the opportunity to demonstrate actual levels of broadband service in the project area, as prescribed. The bill would provide that, notwithstanding the requirement that moneys in the funds are to be used to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service, an entity that is not a telephone corporation is eligible to apply to participate in the CASF program to provide access to broadband to an unserved or underserved household, as defined, if the entity otherwise meets the eligibility requirements and complies with program requirements established by the commission. Existing law requires the commission to conduct an interim and final financial audit and an interim and final performance audit of the implementation and effectiveness of the CASF and to report its interim findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2011, and its final findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2017. This bill would require the commission to conduct an additional interim financial audit and interim performance audit and to report these findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2017. The bill would instead require the commission to report its final findings to the Legislature by April 1, 2021. Existing law requires the commission, until January 1, 2016, to provide an annual report to the Legislature that includes specified information. This bill would extend this reporting requirement until January 1, 2021, and would require the report to include information regarding the status of the CASF balance and the projected amount to be collected in each year through 2020 to fund approved projects. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 281 of the Public Utilities Code proposed in AB 1299, that would become operative only if AB 1299 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2014, and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Who sponsors SB 740?
SB 740 is sponsored by Padilla, Stephen C. (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 740?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 740?
Track SB 740 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 740

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of SB 740

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →