Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bead Ntia topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State staff: NTIA "excessive cost" reviews could make some BEAD locations ineligible
Summary
Public Service Commission staff updated the task force on preliminary BEAD awards, saying NTIA has issued curing notices for high per‑passing costs that could force projects to change technology, renegotiate or become ineligible; staff emphasized the data are preliminary and under federal review.
Alyssa, a PSC staff presenter, told the Governor's Task Force on Broadband Access that preliminary BEAD award data are subject to NTIA review and that projects with high per‑passing costs have been flagged for additional scrutiny.
"On September 18, Wisconsin received a curing notice from NTIA about projects that have excessive cost," Alyssa said, adding that the state was given a per‑passing threshold (she cited $12,500 per passing for Wisconsin) and that projects above that level must submit cost justifications, make revised offers or could be made ineligible.
Why it matters: Task‑force members heard that the state's initial BEAD awards are not final. Alyssa said the review affects a relatively small number of expensive awards—she noted roughly 22 projects flagged at about $185 million in total—and warned that NTIA may require changes ranging from converting the planned technology to disqualifying particular locations.
Support for the update: Staff showed a preliminary technology mix for the state's awards and said fiber represented the top share of preliminarily awarded passings (about 76%), with fixed wireless and low‑Earth orbit satellite accounting for smaller shares. "Everything's preliminary," Alyssa said repeatedly.
Questions and context: Members asked what happens if NTIA rejects a cost justification. Alyssa said NTIA had not provided a single uniform remedy: some locations could be marked ineligible, some projects could be shifted to a lower‑priority technology, and in some cases applicants might be asked to renegotiate with another proposer. She also warned that federal administrative issues could affect timing: the state's review was expected to continue through December with grant agreements and contracts hoped to be executed in December–February, followed by a four‑year performance period for deployment.
What the task force may do next: Members used the update to weigh where the task force should focus recommendations—monitoring award adjustments and advising on future‑proofing standards or procurement approaches were discussed. Staff emphasized they will continue to post updates and that the numbers presented were the most up‑to‑date as of Oct. 14.
Ending: The presentation closed with staff advising caution about treating the data as final and urging members to consider the potential downstream effects on deployment timelines and affordability.
