CPUC staff say timeline, final challenge map and high-cost rules for BEAD subgrant selection coming in weeks

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff told participants during an office-hour Q&A that they expect to post a timeline and final challenge results for the state—s BEAD subgrant selection process in the next several weeks and clarified how high-cost census block groups will affect applicants— matching requirements and scoring.

The details matter to counties, Internet service providers and prospective subgrantees designing project areas and budgets: the CPUC staff said the final challenge map will be published with CSV location files, that high-cost census block groups are exempt from a 25% requirement, and that the proportion applied to mixed census block group project areas will be calculated by the number of broadband serviceable locations.

Jonathan Lackitz, a manager in the CPUC—s communications division, said, "We anticipate in the next several weeks, we'll be posting a timeline, which will include, some more details about when applications and prequalification rounds will start." He also told attendees the CPUC is "working with NTIA to finalize our results" and that the final map and CSV files will be published in a similar multi-week timeframe.

Staff warned that the published list of eligible locations will not be updated in real time. "The federal funding account about every 2 weeks has had, been making new awards," Lackitz said, and those subsequent awards can change whether particular locations remain eligible if they receive an enforceable commitment from another federal program.

On how to treat mixed project areas that include high-cost census block groups (CBGs), a staff member identified as Ziggy said that NTIA-designated high-cost CBGs are exempt from the 25% requirement and that for mixed areas "the final percentage, is essentially weighted by, the relative amount of of broadband service eligible broadband service locations in your project areas." Ziggy added he would check the precise calculation after the meeting and post a correction in the FAQ if needed.

The CPUC—s staff said there are no current plans to split large census block groups. Instead, applicants can submit an "alternative percentage proposal" or remove the most costly locations from a project area. Staff noted that choosing a different, lower-cost technology is also an option where fiber would be financially untenable.

On the mix of technologies the state will fund, staff described an optimization approach: "first maximizing the amount of, fiber per fiber investments we can make. And then next we will look at other reliable broadband services, primarily fixed wireless, but also hybrid fiber coax. And then we would move to alternative technologies," Lackitz said. Ziggy said the selection process is based primarily on scoring, with technical or cost thresholds used to exclude projects that exceed "the extremely high cost per location threshold."

Regarding whether California has enough BEAD funding to reach all unserved and underserved locations, Lackitz said, "yes, we believe that we have a sufficient funding to be able to fund all locations, all unserved and underserved locations as a result of the determined as a result of the challenge process through a combination of reliable broadband service and alternative technologies," but he added the ultimate mix will depend on the applications the CPUC receives.

Other matters attendees raised and CPUC staff commitments

- Recordings and FAQs: Adi Shaghi, program and project supervisor for the BEAT program at the CPUC, said recordings and answers from today—s session will be posted; earlier she said recordings from prior sessions would be available "in the next few days or by next week." Staff said outstanding questions will be compiled into a specific FAQ document for the subgrant selection process.

- Challenge map data and fabric version: staff said the challenge map they will post uses "fabric version 4" and that detailed data vintages and dataset choices will be documented when the map is published.

- Double-funding and overbuild protection: staff referred to NTIA—s NOFO and the federal mechanisms intended to prevent double funding, and said states have some flexibility to reconcile awards and updates prior to and after state selections. They noted that providers claiming they already serve locations must provide proof similar to the challenge process.

- $0 bids and compliance: staff said NTIA has proposed mechanisms for bidders to offer $0 proposals for locations already served, which can be competitive; whether such $0 awardees would be exempt from post-award reporting and compliance is unclear and "a question we'll need to take back and look at."

- Audited financial statements: staff did not confirm whether audited financials are required at application submission or only for awardees and said they would review Volume 2 and add the clarification to the FAQ.

- Tribal entities: staff said materials for tribal applicants are still being developed and that some aspects may look different when consent from tribal authorities is required, but that tribal subgrantees will generally be subject to the same types of requirements as others.

What staff committed to next

CPUC staff repeatedly told attendees they would publish a timeline for prequalification and application phases in the next several weeks, post the final challenge map and CSV location files when NTIA steps are complete, and consolidate open questions and answers in a FAQ. Staff also said they will continue webinars and office hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1 to 2 p.m., and gave two contact emails: beatgrant@cpc.ca.gov for BEAT subgrant selection questions and bead@cpuc.ca.gov for other BEAD program inquiries.

Ending

Staff emphasized several items remain under development and that the FAQ and timeline will be the primary places to look for finalized details. Attendees with follow-up questions were directed to submit them via the provided emails or to raise them at future office hours.