Counties Back California Plan for 72-Hour Backup Power at Cellsites
A California proposal to require 72-hour backup power at many cellsites would help in wildfires and public safety power shutoffs, local government officials told us this week. The California Public Utilities Commission may vote July 16 on a proposed decision giving wireless providers 12 months to deploy generators in tier 2 and 3 high-fire-threat districts (see 2006110071). Generators that last days are better than batteries that last hours, and localities don't mind giving some leeway to industry in places where deploying is difficult, the local officials said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“Having 72 hours is going to be a huge change for the better,” said Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) Legislative Advocate Tracy Rhine in an interview. Members got hit hard by wildfires and power shutoffs, she said. Some shutoffs lasted longer, but the longer time frame would give companies more time for companies to refuel generators, she said. Giving providers 12 months to deploy means many longer-lasting generators may not be ready for this year’s fire season, she noted. The Assembly-passed AB-2421, pending in the Senate, could speed rollout by streamlining permitting of emergency generators, she said.
California commissioners seem likely to support the proposed decision, barring “any real legal concerns,” said Rhine. A large chunk of the PD defends the agency’s authority, and no commissioners raised problems about acting during the proceeding, she said. At a November hearing (see 1911200002), every commissioner “really seemed to take this seriously,” asking pointed questions to industry, she said.
The proposal is a “good first step,” said Central Coast Broadband Consortium Chair Joel Staker in a statement. “There are many details yet to be worked out and consequences to be assessed, including who it applies to, who is responsible for providing backup power for customer equipment and what the cost impact on consumers will be.” The group’s members, which include Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties, suffered extensive wildfires in recent years, and earthquakes pose significant danger with the San Andreas Fault, said the Carmel-by-the-Sea chief information officer. “Many communities in our region lost wireless communications service during last year's public safety power shutoffs.”
“Wireless providers have successfully pushed to become a new essential service, replacing traditional landlines, but have done little to ensure the same resiliency and redundancy that existed in traditional communications methods” within their systems, emailed Santa Cruz County Second District Supervisor Zach Friend. “Given the reliance on wireless communications for life safety communications and information it seems fair that these providers provide backup systems that can maintain basic services during emergencies.”
The CPUC draft would reject legal opposition including by T-Mobile saying the agency lacks authority, but agree with CTIA and Wireless Infrastructure Association concerns that 72-hour backup might not always be feasible. “Despite best efforts, there may be factors that come into play over which the wireless provider has very little control,” it said. The agency proposed a process whereby wireless providers can identify facilities that can’t comply due to “significant risk to safety of life or health” or a certain law, and where the requirement is “objectively impossible or objectively infeasible to achieve.” They could also list facilities that don’t require 72-hours backup to ensure people can access 911 and 211, receive notifications and do basic internet browsing.
WIA will “continue working with the CPUC on this important proceeding to ensure that Californians have access to wireless services, especially in emergencies,” a spokesperson said. CTIA declined comment. T-Mobile didn’t comment.
The local representatives didn't mind some flexibility for industry. RCRC’s 37 counties have areas where it may be “very difficult” to deploy, and “having a process for that is reasonable," but it should be the exception, not the rule, said Rhine.
“It’s very reasonable,” agreed Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum, a consultant for local governments. “If it's not practically possible to upgrade a wireless site to full resiliency, then it wouldn't be reasonable in the near term to require it,” he emailed. “It also makes sense to require service availability, rather than telling wireless operators how to achieve it in every circumstance.”
“The lack of resiliency in our area has been for lack of investment by wireless providers, not due to conditions on the ground that would make it impossible or infeasible,” noted Santa Cruz County’s Friend. “It should be a high standard for the wireless providers to prove that is the case.”
Sonoma County is seeing more generators deployed to cellsites, emailed Calvin Sandeen, broadband department analyst at the county’s Economic Development Board. They are “included in permit applications for new cell tower proposals, mostly large diesel generators,” he said. “We have been having meetings with the ISPs and WISP communities who have all been proactive on installing their own backup power.” Sandeen cautioned that smaller companies mightn't have enough capital to comply.
A bill would also require 72-hour backup power. SB-431 sits in the Assembly Communications Committee, after last year clearing the Senate. Sponsor Sen. Mike McGuire (D) didn’t comment now. Rhine heard from the author’s office last week that the bill remains active, but the RCRC official said “it’s very late in the legislative schedule” to still be in a policy committee.