Background - California



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACommunications DivisionRESOLUTION T- 17549Carrier Oversight & Programs BranchFebruary 9, 2017R E S O L U T I O NResolution T-17549. This Resolution Adopts $25.461 Million in California High Cost Fund-A Support for Calendar Year 2017.__________________________________________________________________SummaryThis Resolution adopts a total of $25.461 million in California High Cost Fund-A support for calendar year 2017 to be disbursed to seven of ten Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers that draw from the fund. The 2017 CHCF-A funding for Kerman Telephone Company, Siskiyou Telephone Company and Volcano Telephone Company will be addressed in a separate resolution. This Resolution directs the Communications Division, in concert with the Administrative Services Division, to issue the authorized CHCF-A support payments to each of the Small ILECs on a monthly basis within 30 days after the close of each calendar month. The CHCF-A support payments for CY 2017 are contingent on the availability of funds and subject to final appropriations in the annual Budget Act. BackgroundThe California High Cost Fund (HCF) was implemented by Decision (D.) 88-07-022, as modified by D.91-05-016 and D.91-09-042, to provide a source of supplemental revenues to three mid-size and 17 Small ILECs whose basic exchange access line service rates would otherwise be increased to levels that would threaten universal service. These decisions provide program guidelines, referred to as Implementation Rules, as well as an annual filing process to adjust straightforward and non-controversial program adjustments. In D.96-10-066, the Commission renamed the HCF to CHCF-A. There were originally 17 Small ILECs. Through mergers and consolidations, there are now 13 Small ILECs eligible for CHCF-A funding, 10 of which currently receive CHCF-A support:1) Calaveras Telephone Company (Calaveras); 2) Cal-Ore Telephone Company (Cal-Ore); 3) Ducor Telephone Company (Ducor); 4) Foresthill Telephone Company (Foresthill); 5) Happy Valley Telephone Company (Happy Valley); 6) Hornitos Telephone Company (Hornitos); 7) Kerman Telephone Company (Kerman); 8) Pinnacles Telephone Company (Pinnacles); 9) The Ponderosa Telephone Company (Ponderosa); 10) Sierra Telephone Company (Sierra).Three Small ILECs currently do not request support: 1) Happy Valley Telephone Company (Happy Valley); 2) Hornitos Telephone Company (Hornitos); and 3) Winterhaven Telephone Company (Winterhaven).Public Utilities (P.U.) Code § 275.6 requires the Commission to implement the CHCF-A program to reduce any rate disparity in rural areas charged by small telephone corporations that are subject to rate-of-return regulation. Rate-of-return regulation provides the Small ILECs with an opportunity to earn up to a specific rate-of-return. To facilitate that opportunity, the CHCF-A program funding bridges the revenue differential between the basic service rate revenue paid by the Small ILECs’ customers and the revenue requirement needed by a Small ILEC to achieve its authorized rate-of-return. The CHCF-A program is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2019. D.10-02-016 established the CHCF-A as a funding mechanism to close the gap between the costs of serving customers residing in high-cost rural exchanges and the revenue collected from those customers under Commission-approved rates. In this decision, the Commission ordered Communications Division (CD) to draft an Order Instituting Rulemaking to address all relevant issues regarding high-cost support for Small ILECs. On December 18, 2014, the Commission adopted D.14-12-084 and established a new rate floor and rate ceiling for basic residential service. D.14-12-084 also ruled that actual basic service rates would be determined in individual general rate cases. On June 25, 2015, the Commission adopted D.15-06-048, which established a general rate case (GRC) plan for the Small ILECs. The decision adopted an annual application cycle for the Small ILECs’ GRC submissions and established a timeline for processing the GRCs. The decision also held that the Small ILECs’ cost of capital would be examined in a consolidated proceeding and the results would be applied in individual GRCs. On December 15, 2016, the Commission adopted D.16-12-035, determining the Small ILECs’ cost of capital, which authorized individual rates of return for each of the Small ILECs that draw from the CHCF-A Fund. This will be discussed in more detail below.Notice of Advice LettersDuring August, September and November, 2016, all 13 Small ILECs submitted their respective annual CHCF-A Advice Letters (ALs), including two supplemental AL filings in accordance with D.91-09-042.Ten Small ILECs requested a total CY 2017 CHCF-A support of approximately $29.078 million. Three Small ILECs did not request CHCF-A support: Happy Valley, Hornitos and Winterhaven.Table 1 provides a summary of the AL requests: The 13 Small ILECs’ CY 2017 CHCF-A AL filings appeared in the Commission’s Daily Calendar during September and November 2016.DiscussionCost of Capital The Cost of Capital proceeding concluded on December 15, 2016, with the adoption of D.16-12-035. In this decision, the Commission adopted the cost of capital (or rate of return) to be applied in pending and future GRC applications initiated before the year 2021 for Calaveras, Cal-Ore, Ducor, Foresthill, Pinnacles, Ponderosa, and Sierra. This decision also established the cost of capital for the recently concluded Kerman, Siskiyou, and Volcano GRCs.The Commission directed Kerman, Siskiyou and Volcano to file compliance ALs within 30 days of the adoption of D.16-12-035 to update their respective revenue requirements as adopted in the cost of capital proceeding. The CHCF-A draw for these three carriers will be addressed and determined by a separate resolution following those filings. The specifics of their requests will therefore not be discussed further by this resolution. Nor does this resolution make any determination about the validity of any respective adjustments for these companies.2017 CHCF-A Rules and Orders ConsideredCD reviewed the AL filings made by the 7 Small ILECs for CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirements and, in many cases, revised their respective requests after reviewing data updates, as discussed in greater detail below. Seven of the 13 Small ILECs requested a total of $24.576 million in CHCF-A support for CY 2017. The $.885 million differential between the 7 Small ILECs’ cumulative request of $24.576 million and CD’s recommended CHCF-A support of $25.461 million is due to final Net Interstate Expense Adjustment data provided by the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), adjustments due to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Commission decisions and rulings, and calculation errors made by the Small ILECs. Table 2 provides requested support, Commission adopted support, difference and monthly support for CHCF-A. The Commission adopted support column includes CHCF-A support authorized by this Resolution for the seven Small ILECs that requested CHCF-A support for CY 2017: CD’s total recommended amount is also based on the following FCC and Commission rulings and decisions:Means TestD.91-09-042 requires that each Small ILEC’s CHCF-A support request be subject to a means test so that forecasted intrastate results of operations and the total intrastate revenue requirement do not exceed an authorized rate of return of 10%. The Commission’s means test calculation results indicate that Ducor, Foresthill, Pinnacles, and Ponderosa forecasted earnings exceed a 10% rate of return.Additionally, the Small ILECs provided an estimate for Line 5b USF-HCLS (High Cost Loop Support, under Line 5 Net Interstate Expense Adjustment in Attachment A) in their respective ALs. CD uses these final NECA USF-HCLS numbers to determine the funding amount, which may result in the Small ILEC receiving more or less funding than originally requested.The means test includes state operating fixed charges (interest). The forecasted earnings must be based on at least seven months of recorded financial data, annualized for the year that the advice letter is filed. D. 91-09-042 also provides that the means test is not required in determining a Small ILEC’s CHCF-A funding for the first 12 months after a decision or resolution is issued by the Commission in a GRC proceeding, stating “Such a forecasted rate of return shall not be applied to determine a company’s HCF funding levels following 12 months after a decision or resolution is rendered by the Commission in a company’s general rate review proceeding.” Net Interstate Expense AdjustmentD.91-09-042 authorizes the Small ILECs to include any changes to their federal Universal Service Fund (USF) funding in the annual CHCF-A filings. In addition, Resolution T-16117 states that any change in USF funding level must be determined for each carrier by the difference between the forecasted USF support for the current year and the forecasted USF support for the coming year. The current year's forecasted USF support is the amount adopted by the Commission for the current year CHCF-A revenue requirement. The coming year's forecasted USF is the amount projected by NECA, the administrator of USF. In response to the NECA funding changes, we have adjusted each Small ILECs’ CHCF-A CY 2017 support by incorporating the final NECA adjustment data in the means test, as described in Section B, titled “CHCF-A Support Summary by Carrier.” The resulting adjustment, if any, is reflected in Line 5c of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet.Revenue Adjustment Associated with California LifeLine Decision 10-11-033The Commission by D.10-11-033 modified the California LifeLine program. That decision limited the amount carriers can receive for administration and bad debt losses. The Small ILECs may be reimbursed for their administrative expenses up to $0.50 per weighted average customer count as provided monthly by the California LifeLine Administrator until their next GRC. This was reinforced in a subsequent LifeLine decision, D.14-01-036, which states “Therefore, rate-of-return companies, operating under Commission-approved tariffs, may seek lost revenue recovery as limited by D.10-02-016 for monthly recurring residential basic telephone service rates from the CHCF-A through the GRC process (or through an annual advice letter until the GRC filing year) for monthly recurring residential basic telephone service rates that neither the California Lifeline participant nor the California LifeLine Program will reimburse. CD staff has reviewed each Small ILEC’s LifeLine-related reimbursement request and finds the amounts reasonable. The resulting adjustment, if any, is reflected in Line 3c of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet.Revenue Adjustment Associated with Connect America Fund – Intercarrier CompensationThe FCC’s Connect America Fund (FCC 11-161) instituted a comprehensive intercarrier compensation reform and established that “For rate-of-return carriers, recovery will be calculated initially based on rate-of-return carriers’ fiscal year 2011 interstate switched access revenue requirement, intrastate access revenues that are being reformed as part of this Order, and net reciprocal compensation revenues. This baseline will decline at five percent annually…” The CHCF-A program allows for annual recovery of the difference in the reduction in intercarrier compensation. The resulting adjustment, if any, is reflected in Line 4a (National Broadband Plan (5% reduction Intercarrier Compensation) of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet.Revenue Adjustment Associated with Rate of Return ReformThere are three new non-recurring revenue effects for CY 2016 discussed below. The impacts of these effects, if any, are shown on lines 3a and 3b of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet.Rate of Return Represcription (FCC 16-33, Section III.B.6.) In the first part of line 3a of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet, in FCC 16-33, Section III.B.6., the FCC will reduce the rate of return for rate-of-return carriers by 0.25% annually from the current 11.25% to 9.75% on July 1, 2021. Effective July 1, 2016, the rate of return will be reduced to 11.00%.High Cost Loop Support Reimbursement Rates (FCC 14-190, Section VI.A.)In the second part of line 3a of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet, FCC 14-190, Section VI.A., the FCC’s April 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) sought comment on several proposals for near-term reform of high-cost universal service support for rate-of-return carriers. The FCC noted in the April 2014 NPRM that they have significant concerns regarding the structure and incentives created under the existing high-cost mechanisms for rate-of-return carriers, such as the “race to the top” incentives that exist under High Cost Loop Support. Under the current High Cost Loop Support rules, rate-of-return carriers receive reimbursement for a fixed percentage of their unseparated loop expenses to the extent that they exceed a benchmark set in relation to the national average cost per loop (NACPL). Carriers with the highest loop costs relative to the national average have minimal incentive to reduce their expenses and eliminate waste. Carriers with costs close to the ever rising NACPL risk losing all HCLS for prior investments, while carriers with higher cost per loop are sheltered from the impact of the HCLS cap. The FCC adopted a revised methodology for applying the cap on high cost loop support so that support is distributed more equitably among all high-cost carriers, and to incentivize carriers with the highest loop costs to curb waste in the operation of their study areas. (FCC 14-190, Section VI. 99)Budget Control Mechanism (FCC 16-33, Section II.B.6)In line 3b of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet, the FCC previously adopted an overall budget of $4.5 billion for the high-cost program, and a budget within that amount of $2 billion per year for high-cost support for rate-of-return carriers. It did not, however, adopt a method for enforcing the budget for rate of return carriers. The FCC now adopts a self-effectuating mechanism for controlling total support distributed pursuant to High Cost Loop Support and Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support to stay within the budget for rate-of-return carriers.WaterfallPursuant to the Implementation Rules in D.91-09-042 and D.15-06-048, the phase-down of the CHCF-A funding percentage level is reinitiated effective January 1 following the year after the completion of a Small ILEC’s GRC, and follows a six-year course. A Small ILEC’s CHCF-A funding level remains at 100% for the first 3 years after GRC completion; the funding level is then reduced to 80% during the fourth year if no subsequent GRC application is submitted. The funding level then drops to 50% during the fifth year if no GRC application is submitted, and the funding level is further reduced to 0% during the sixth year. This 6-year phase down of funding level is known as the Waterfall.The funding percentage levels for the seven Small ILECs for CY 2017 are summarized in Table 3, as well as line 12 of each carrier’s Appendix A calculation sheet:Pursuant to the GRC cycle adopted in D.15-06-048, we expect that Ducor, Pinnacles, and Foresthill will file a Notice of Intent to file a GRC in 2017 for Test Year (TY) 2019. Happy Valley, Hornitos and Winterhaven do not draw support from the CHCF-A fund as their respective funding levels pursuant to the CHCF-A waterfall criteria have reached 0%, and none of these carriers have requested further support from the CHCF-A fund.Sierra’s waterfall will remain at 80% until its GRC is completed for TY 2018.Results of GRCs affecting CHCF-A SupportIn D.16-09-047, the Commission adopted Siskiyou’s CHCF-A support of $7,647,647 for TY 2017. In D.16-09-049, the Commission adopted Volcano’s CHCF-A support of $6,180,949 for TY 2017. In D.16-06-053, the Commission adopted Kerman’s CHCF-A support of $4,177,111 for TY 2016 based on a revenue requirement of $8,795,090. Due to the cost of capital and changes in the authorized rate of returns and revenue requirements adopted in D.16-12-035, the Commission will determine Siskiyou, Volcano and Kerman’s CY 2017 CHCF-A support in a separate resolution.CHCF-A Support Summary by CarrierCD reviewed the AL filings made by the seven Small ILECs for CY 2017 CHCF-A funding. CD’s recommended support amount for each of the Small ILECs is summarized below and itemized in Appendix A.Calaveras, Page A-1 of Appendix ACalaveras’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $2,434,476.48 (at Line 6, Page A-1 of Appendix A). After applying the means test, Calaveras’ revenue requirement remains at $2,434,476.48 (at Line 11, Page A-1 of Appendix A). Thus, Calaveras should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $202,873.04, i.e. one-twelfth of $2,434,476.48 for January through December 2017. Cal-Ore, Page A-2 of Appendix ACal-Ore ‘s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $1,011,878.43 (at Line 6, Page A-2 of Appendix A). After applying the means test, Cal-Ore’s revenue requirement remains at $1,011,878.43 (at Line 11, Page A-2 of Appendix A). Thus, Cal-Ore should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $84,323.20, i.e. one-twelfth of $1,011,878.43, for January through December 2017.Ducor, Page A-3 of Appendix ADucor’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $3,075,672.38 (at Line 6, Page A-3 of Appendix A). After applying the means test, Ducor’s revenue requirement is reduced to $2,133,401.29 (at Line 11, Page A-3 of Appendix A). Thus, Ducor should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $177,783.44, i.e. one-twelfth of $2,133,401.29 for January through December 2017.Foresthill, Page A-4 of Appendix AForesthill’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $2,667,619.57 (at Line 6, Page A-4 of Appendix A). After applying the means test, Foresthill’s revenue requirement is reduced to $2,625,604.88 (at Line 11, Page A-4 of Appendix A). Thus, Foresthill should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $218,800.41, i.e. one-twelfth of $2,625,604.88 for January through December 2017.Happy Valley, Page A-5 of Appendix AHappy Valley’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $2,844,073.27 (at Line 6, Page A-5 of Appendix A). In its AL 356, Happy Valley stated that it not requesting any CHCF-A funding. Its waterfall funding level is already at 0%. Thus, Happy Valley will not receive any CHCF-A support for CY 2017.Hornitos, Page A-6 of Appendix AHornitos’ authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $584,870.00 (at Line 6, Page A-6 of Appendix A). In its AL 326, Hornitos stated that it is not requesting a draw from the CHCF-A. Its waterfall funding level is already 0%. Thus, Hornitos will not receive any CHCF-A support for CY 2017.Pinnacles, Page A-7 of Appendix APinnacles’ authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $446,408.44 (at Line 6, Page A-7 of Appendix A). After the means test, Pinnacles’ revenue requirement is reduced to $241,890.19 (at Line 11, Page A-7 of Appendix A). Thus, Pinnacles should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $20,157.52, i.e. one-twelfth of $241,890.19, for January through December 2017.Ponderosa, Page A-8 of Appendix APonderosa’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $6,618,367.85 (at Line 6, Page A-8 of Appendix A). After the means test, Ponderosa’s revenue requirement is reduced to $3,941,699.79 (at Line 11, Page A-8 of Appendix A). Thus, Ponderosa should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $328,474.98, i.e. one-twelfth of $3,941,699.79, for January through December 2017.Sierra, Page A-9 of Appendix ASierra’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $16,339,609.42 (at Line 6, Page A-9 of Appendix A). After the means test, Sierra’s revenue requirement remains at $16,339,609.42 (at Line 11, Page A-9 of Appendix A) before incorporating the waterfall adjustment. Sierra’s waterfall will remain at 80% for CY 2017; therefore, its revenue requirement after incorporating the waterfall calculation is reduced to $13,071,687.54 (at Line 13, Page A-9 of Appendix A). Thus, Sierra should receive monthly CHCF-A support in the amount of $1,089,307.30, i.e. one-twelfth of $13,071,687.54, for January through December 2017.Winterhaven, Page A-10 of Appendix AWinterhaven’s authorized CY 2017 CHCF-A revenue requirement is $329,437.60 (at Line 6, Page A-10 of Appendix A). In its AL 250, Winterhaven stated that it is not requesting a draw from the CHCF-A. Its waterfall funding level is already 0%. Thus, Winterhaven will not receive any CHCF-A support for CY 2017.D. Evaluation of CHCF-A Support Level to CHCF-A Budget The Commission adopted $43.485 million for FY 2016-17 (Resolution T-17491) and estimates $49.611 million for FY 2017-18 (Resolution to be issued in early 2017) for CHCF-A program budgets. Of the budgeted amounts, $41.813 million and $47.939 million (pending approval) are allocated for Local Assistance to the Small ILECs for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, respectively. There are sufficient funds in both the FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 budgets to cover CY 2017 CHCF-A support payments to the Small ILECs. These adopted budgets and the associated program support payments are contingent on the availability of funds, and the State’s adoption of the CHCF-A budgets.E. SummaryAs shown in Table 4 and Appendix A, the total approved CY 2017 CHCF-A draw for Calaveras, Cal-Ore, Ducor, Foresthill, Happy Valley, Hornitos, Pinnacles, Ponderosa, Sierra, and Winterhaven is $25,460,638.60. Table 4 also shows Small ILECs customer counts as of December 31, 2015, and subsidy per customer for CY 2017. The Commission finds CD’s recommended CHCF-A support amounts for the seven Small ILECs for CY 2017 to be reasonable. CD, in concert with Administrative Services Division, shall make the monthly support payments within 30 days after the close of each calendar month subject to the availability of CHCF-A funds and final appropriations adopted in the annual Budget Act. In the event that the monthly support payments due to the Small ILECs are not paid within 30 days after the close of each calendar month, CD shall include in those payments interest equal to the three-month commercial paper rate. Safety ConsiderationsThe Small ILECs are required to adhere to all Commission rules, decisions, General Orders and statutes including P.U. Code § 451 by undertaking all actions “…necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public.” The CHCF-A subsidy provides the Small ILECs with financial resources to provide safe, reliable and affordable telephone service to their customers in rural, high cost areas.Reliable telephone service is essential in rural, remote and isolated areas that the Small ILECs serve. The CHCF-A fund provides rural customers with access to 211 for essential community services, 311 for non-emergency municipal services, 511 for traffic and transportation information, 811 for public infrastructure underground location information, and 911 to reach police, fire and emergency medical responders when fire, natural disasters, medical emergencies, or other crises occur.The CHCF-A fund also promotes customer access to advanced services and deployment of broadband-capable facilities. It has allowed the Small ILECs to locate their facilities underground and use fiber optic cable which protects equipment in case of fire and allows for the quicker deployment of broadband-capable facilities. In some Small ILEC territories, emergency responders set up emergency command centers and the Small ILECs must quickly provide responders with access to high quality voice communications and broadband. This Resolution ensures that the CHCF-A program continues to promote the goals of universal service by subsidizing essential communications links in high cost, rural communities.Findings and ConclusionsThe California High Cost Fund (HCF) was implemented by Decision (D.) 88-07-022, as modified by D.91-05-016 and D.91-09-042, to provide a source of supplemental revenues to three mid-size and 17 Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) whose basic exchange access line service rates would otherwise be increased to levels that would threaten universal service.D.91-05-016 and D.91-09-042 provide program guidelines, referred to as Implementation Rules, as well as an annual filing process to adjust straightforward and non-controversial program adjustments.In D.96-10-066, the HCF was renamed as the California High Cost Fund-A (CHCF-A).There are currently 13 Small ILECs that are eligible for CHCF-A funding.D.10-02-016 established the CHCF-A as a funding mechanism to close the gap between the costs of serving customers residing in high-cost rural exchanges and the revenue collected from those customers under Commission-approved rates, resulting in the CHCF-A Rulemaking 11-11-007. In D.15-06-048, the Commission adopted a general rate case (GRC) plan, established an annual application cycle for the Small ILECs’ GRC submissions, and also established a timeline for processing the GRCs.The cost of capital proceeding concluded on December 15, 2016, with the adoption of D.16-12-035, and issued revised rates of return for the ten Small ILECs.Kerman Telephone Company (Kerman), Siskiyou Telephone Company (Siskiyou) and Volcano Telephone Company (Volcano) must file compliance ALs within 30 days of the adoption of D.16-12-035 to update respective revenue requirements resulting from their respective adopted costs of capital. The CHCF-A draw for each of these three carriers for Calendar Year (CY) 2017 will be determined and addressed by a separate resolution.The $.885 million differential between the 7 Small ILECs’ cumulative request of CY 2017 support of $24.576 million and Communications Division’s (CD) recommended CHCF-A support of $25.461 million is due to final Net Interstate Expense Adjustment data, provided by the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), adjustments due to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Commission Decisions and Rulings, and calculation errors made by the Small ILECs. A proposed CHCF-A program expense budget resolution for $49.611 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 is expected to be mailed out in early 2017.There are sufficient funds from the FY 2016-17 and proposed FY 2017-18 budgets to cover CY 2017 CHCF-A support payments to the Small ILECs.CD’s recommended CHCF-A support for CY 2017 of $25,460,638.60 for the seven Small ILECs as summarized in Appendix A of this Resolution is reasonable and should be adopted.The monthly support payments from January 2017 through December 2017 shall be paid by CD in concert with the Administrative Services Division within 30 days after the close of each calendar month.The CHCF-A support payments are subject to the availability of CHCF-A funds and final appropriations in the annual Budget Act. If monthly support payments due to the Small ILECs are not paid within 30 days after the close of each calendar month, CD should include in those payments interest equal to the three-month commercial paper rate.P.U. Code § 275.6 and the CHCF-A program promote universal service by subsidizing essential communications services and customer access to advanced services and deployment of broadband-capable facilities in high cost, rural areas.THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:The California High Cost Fund-A support for the Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, as described in this Resolution and summarized in Appendix A of this Resolution, is adopted.The total approved California High Cost Fund-A support of $25,460,638.60 for the Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers for Calendar Year 2017 is itemized in Table 5:Communications Division, in concert with the Administrative Services Division, shall pay monthly support payments to the seven Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers as shown in Table 5 for January 2017 through December 2017 within 30 days after the close of each calendar month. Late payments shall accrue interest at the three-month commercial paper rate. The California High Cost Fund -A support payments totaling $25,460,638.60 for the seven Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are contingent on the availability of funds.This Resolution is effective today.I hereby certify that this Resolution was adopted by the Public Utilities Commission at its regular meeting on February 9, 2017. The following Commissioners approved it: TIMOTHY J. SULLIVANExecutive DirectorAppendix A ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download