Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would expand Oregon low‑income telecom aid, add $100 device benefit and rename program
Summary
House Bill 3148 would rename Oregon's low‑income assistance program to the Oregon Lifeline Plan, raise the state subsidy, add a one‑time personal computing benefit and give the Public Utility Commission budget authority to implement the changes; the committee heard testimony March 12.
The House Committee on Economic Development, Small Business and Trade held a public hearing March 12 on House Bill 3148, which would make changes to Oregon's low‑income telecommunications assistance program administered by the Public Utility Commission (PUC). The bill would rename the Oregon Telephone Assistance Program (OTAP) to the Oregon Lifeline Plan, increase the customer subsidy and establish a one‑time device benefit for eligible households.
Representative Pam Marsh (House District 5) described the measure as a modest state response to the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). "This is a very modest bill that in no way will replace ACP," Marsh said, adding that the state plans to use existing program structure to stretch available resources. The bill would give the PUC authority to raise the state subsidy from the current $10 toward a monthly customer benefit to $15; combined with the federal Lifeline subsidy, proponents said the total would be roughly $24.95 per month. The bill would also create a one‑time device benefit of $100 toward the purchase of a computer, laptop or tablet, up to a device value of $600.
Nolan Plescia of the League of Oregon Cities testified in favor and said the change would reduce administrative burden by shifting device administration to the PUC rather than Internet service providers. The bill would also repeal the OTAP advisory committee and remove certain reporting requirements to reduce PUC administrative costs. Plescia said the bill includes a budget limitation increase so the PUC can add one full‑time equivalent position and complete a planned software upgrade; he emphasized the measure does not require new general fund appropriations and that the program is supported by a surcharge (the Residential Service Protection Fund) already collected from telephone users.
Supporters noted that the state is receiving significant federal broadband infrastructure dollars — roughly $150 million from earlier ARPA grants and an anticipated approximately $700 million from the federal BEAD program — but said infrastructure alone will not close the digital divide because affordability and device access remain barriers.
Industry witnesses including Brent Wolf of the Oregon Broadband Association and Sam Ackley of Hunter Communications expressed support for the bill and for continued affordability assistance, noting many customers remain unable to afford basic Internet service even where networks are built. "The Oregon Lifeline Plan and the continuation and expansion of the plan associated with this bill really represent crucial steps towards solving those challenges," Ackley said.
Committee members questioned how many households would be served, how device grants would be used by recipients and whether the program would reach remote areas where broadband access is not yet available. PUC and League witnesses said the Oregon Lifeline plan would likely serve fewer households than the federal ACP at its peak and that the legislation is designed to complement federal infrastructure funding rather than replace it.
The bill's dash-1 amendment moves some implementation deadlines to give the PUC additional time to adopt rules. No committee vote was reached at the hearing.
