---------- Forwarded message --------- From: WISPA <sschwer...@wispa.org> Date: Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:51 AM Subject: Urgent - Help WISPA Address California's BEAD Plans To: Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>
Dave, As you may have seen, the California Public Utilities Commission has begun its discussion of how to write its BEAD rules by releasing an Order Instituting Rulemaking <https://members.wispa.org/ct.php?lid=198739649&mm=73901165771> (OIR). The OIR asks 14 questions about how the program should be structured: the responses they receive will help shape the CPUC’s final BEAD rules. Since the BEAD NOFO was released last year, WISPA has actively engaged both the federal and state policymakers who will be influencing the final BEAD rules. To continue that advocacy, WISPA will be submitting comments in response to the CPUC’s OIR to highlight the needs and contributions of our members across the state. *To do that, we would like your input on several questions in the OIR. *Please send me your thoughts on the following questions *by COB tomorrow (April 11)*: *OIR Question 2: *Geographic Level. The (BEAD) Notice of Funding Opportunity gives flexibility to states to solicit proposals from prospective subgrantees at the geographic level of their choosing—for example, on a per-location basis, per-census block basis, per-town, per-county or another geographic unit. States may alternatively solicit proposals for project areas they define or ask prospective subgrantees to define their own proposed project areas. What is the best, or most appropriate, geographic level for subgrantee proposals? *OIR Question 3: *Overlapping Project Areas. What mechanism should be used for overlapping proposals to allow for a like-to-like comparison of competing proposals? *OIR Question 4: *Selection Among Priority Broadband Projects. In addition to the Primary Criteria and Secondary Criterion required in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, which additional prioritization factors should be considered? How should they each be measured, and should they be weighted in prioritization? *OIR Question 5: *Selection Among Other Last-Mile Broadband Deployment Projects. In addition to the Primary Criteria and Secondary Criteria required in the Notice of Funding Opportunity, which Additional Prioritization Factors should be considered? How should they each be measured, and should they be weighted in prioritization? *OIR Question 7: *Match Requirement. The IIJA expressly provides that matching funds for the BEAD Program may come from federal regional government entities and from funds that were provided to an Eligible Entity or a subgrantee for the purpose of deploying broadband service under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the CARES Act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, to the extent permitted by those laws. What state funding should also be allowed to be used as matching funds? *OIR Question 11:* Grant Applications. How many application cycles should there be in a calendar year? Your insight into these questions will help WISPA draft comments that represent the fullest picture or our members’ needs across the state. Please consider taking a moment to share your thoughts. Thank you, Steven Schwerbel Click here to change your subscription, or unsubscribe <https://www.viethconsulting.com/members/optout.php?orgcode=WISP&msg=120147941&mid=1959771181> Message sent by Steve Schwerbel, sschwer...@wispa.org WISPA | 200 Massachusetts Ave NW | Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20001 <http://www.viethconsulting.com> -- AMA March 31: https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
_______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat