CPUC staff detail BEAD subgrantee selection process, maps, bonding and challenge rules in office hour

The California Public Utilities Commission held an online office hour (date not specified) to answer applicant questions about the BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) subgrantee selection process, including timeline, mapping, bonding/guarantee options, project-area definition and how the commission will prioritize technologies.

CPUC program and project supervisor Ali Shaghi opened the session and introduced CPUC staff and contractors, saying the session would focus on questions from the first four BEAD webinars and that answers and the recording will be posted to the CPUC’s FAQ. Shaghi also directed attendees to submit questions by chat or email for inclusion in the FAQ document.

The session clarified several procedural and technical points applicants had raised. CPUC staff member Jonathan Vakritz said California’s BEAD allocation is “about $1,800,000,000,” and described a dynamic evaluation process in which the state will aim to reach 100% coverage while maximizing fiber deployment where feasible. As Vakritz summarized, the state will evaluate submitted projects, and then “optimize along two parameters. First and foremost, we have to reach a 100%. And then secondly, we’re going to try to maximize the amount of fiber that’s being deployed consistent with the NTIA requirements.”

CTC Technology and Energy representative Ziggy Lifting Fish answered technical questions about cost allocation and project definition. On whether applicants can assign the full cost of a shared feeder road to a single census block group (CBG), Ziggy said, “the costs are really calculated on a project level and then assigned, in terms of the relative cost weight to the particular CBG based on the relative proportion of BSLs that are included… it isn’t really a question of what will we take, you know, 95% of the total cost and plot it all into one CBG. It’s allocated on a proportional basis.”

On project-area definition, CPUC staff explained that the commission defines the project unit as a census block group (CBG) and that applicants aggregate adjacent CBGs to form project areas. Applicants may submit multiple projects with different boundaries, but each project’s CBGs must be adjacent. Staff noted applicants can propose costs for serving both 100% of block-served locations (BSLs) in a project area and alternative percentages (for example, 90%) to reflect trade-offs between coverage and cost.

Staff confirmed the application platform will be provided by Redi; as Jonathan Vakritz said, “the platform that we’ll be using is, being provided by Redi.” That platform is distinct from the platform used for prior federal funding competitions. CPUC staff also said timelines, maps and additional clarifications will be published in the coming weeks and that the commission is developing a dedicated FAQ for the subgrantee selection process.

On bonding and financial guarantees, staff said both options discussed in questions are available: a surety or bond can cover 100% of project costs and then be reduced as milestones are met, or an applicant may post a 10% bond but be required to maintain that level until the project is satisfactorily completed. Staff flagged that bonding and matching-fund details will receive fuller treatment in an upcoming webinar on matching.

Technology and award sequencing were discussed in detail. Staff and contractors described a sequential evaluation that prioritizes “priority broadband” (fiber-first where feasible) and reliable broadband proposals before considering alternative technologies. As explained in the session, reliable broadband proposals (for example, licensed fixed wireless or fiber where appropriate) will be evaluated before unlicensed fixed wireless or low-earth-orbit satellite options; an alternative-technology proposal would only be considered if higher-priority proposals cannot be assigned.

Mapping, fabric versions and the challenge process were repeated themes. Staff said the challenge process and enforceable commitments will be used to mark locations as served: locations with an enforceable commitment from a federal or state award (for example, awards from a federal funding account program, ARPA/other federal grants, or the California Advanced Services Fund) will be treated as served and generally excluded from BEAD awards. Staff noted the public challenge process includes standards of proof and a later realignment/true-up process before final awards; applicants and providers will have opportunities to submit evidence that locations have been served since the challenge-map snapshot.

Multiple participants raised conflicts between different data sources (for example, FCC Broadband Data Collection reports and CostQuest fabric versions). Staff said challenge- and post-award realignment processes exist to resolve such conflicts but acknowledged applicants will need to provide evidence and may face additional design or cost iterations during true-up.

The CPUC reiterated outreach and next steps: the commission plans weekly office hours and webinars (Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1–2 p.m.), will post timeline and map updates in the coming weeks, and will publish the first version of the subgrantee-selection FAQ soon. During the session staff read multiple contact addresses for BEAD inquiries and encouraged attendees to sign up for email updates and to submit remaining questions to the addresses given during the call (as read on the call). The recording and Q&A will be posted on the CPUC website when available.

No formal votes or policy actions were taken during the office hour; staff said several program details remain under development and will be clarified in future guidance and webinars.