Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 740 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 740.
You're tracking SB 740
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 740 — Telecommunications: universal service programs: California Advanced Services Fund.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 522, Statutes of 2013.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 22, 2013. Enacted.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow 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
- Chaptered 10/03/13 - Chaptered Current pdf October 03, 2013
- Enrolled 09/17/13 - Enrolled pdf September 17, 2013
- Amended 09/06/13 - Amended Assembly pdf September 06, 2013
- Amended 08/07/13 - Amended Assembly pdf August 07, 2013
- Amended 06/26/13 - Amended Assembly pdf June 26, 2013
- Amended 05/07/13 - Amended Senate pdf May 07, 2013
- Introduced 02/22/13 - Introduced pdf February 22, 2013
- SB740 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 522, Statutes of 2013.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1 p.m.
-
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 34. Noes 3. Page 2381.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
-
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
-
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 59. Noes 16. Page 3187.) Ordered to the Senate.
-
Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. (Page 2948.)
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 4.) (August 30).
-
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (August 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Reconsideration granted.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & C.
-
Set, first hearing. Failed passage in committee.
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on U. & C.
-
Referred to Com. on U. & C.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 1. Page 1108.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 1019.) (May 23).
-
Set for hearing May 23.
-
Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 20.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0. Page 750.) (April 30).
-
Set for hearing April 30.
-
Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Set for hearing April 16.
-
Hearing postponed by committee.
-
Set for hearing April 2.
-
Referred to Com. on E., U., & C.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.
-
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Stephen C. Padilla · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 5 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 31 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 34 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 54 | 14 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 59 | 16 | 0 | 3 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Republican | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 5 | 3 | 0 | 7 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 33 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 36 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % 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 |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Not Voting |
| Steinberg | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Walters | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 91% | 0% | 0% | 9% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Wright | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Not Voting |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Knight | — | Yea |
| Corbett | — | Yea |
| DeSaulnier | — | Yea |
| Pavley | — | Yea |
| Wolk | — | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
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 →