A Pennsylvania data breach bill passed the House by a 199-0 vote Wednesday, after clearing the Appropriations Committee in a 37-0 vote earlier that day. SB-696, which earlier passed the Senate, would update notification timelines, expand the definition of personal information and require state data encryption (see 2206150027). The House amended the bill so it must return to the Senate.

Consumer Watchdog raised concerns with recent changes to draft California privacy rules required by the 2020 California Privacy Rights Act. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) board is scheduled to weigh proposed rules at meetings Friday, Saturday and Nov. 4 (see 2210240068). The agency “needs to get these rules right and these last-minute proposals would weaken otherwise tough rules in favor of California privacy rights,” Consumer Watchdog’s Justin Kloczko said Tuesday. One concerning change removes a proposed requirement that a business displays whether it processed a consumer’s opt-out, said the privacy advocate’s report. “But this simple notification will protect consumers from going through additional opt-out steps if they are unsure their rights have been honored” and will help them “flag websites for enforcement by the CPPA if those rights are not honored.” The consumer group is also concerned with the board proposing to delete a requirement that businesses identify third parties that collect personal information. “Consumers deserve to know who exactly will be handling their personal information when exercising their rights,” Kloczko said.

Vermont’s public service department sought conditions on a proposed three-year incentive regulation plan for Consolidated Communications to replace an IRP that expires this year. Consolidated Communications would get more pricing flexibility in the state under the Vermont Public Utility Commission’s Oct. 3 proposed order (see 2210030064). The department seeks conditions to address “remediation of host-remote isolation issues,” provide bill credits, add an emergency household service-quality metric and require 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for 98% of a municipality before it could qualify for rate and service-quality deregulation, it said in docket 22-0557-PET. They would “achieve an appropriate balance between deregulation and customer protections,” it said. Consolidated said it "has no substantive comments" on the PUC's proposed order. The telco submitted an updated IRP based on the draft's terms. It would take effect Jan. 1.

A federal judge weighing Maryland’s digital ad tax asked if she should still hold oral argument Nov. 29 at the U.S. District Court for Northern Maryland. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other plaintiffs told Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby last week that a state court decision to strike down the tax didn’t moot the federal court’s review of the state’s ban on passing the tax’s cost on to customers (see 2210210068). Maryland should file a status report by Oct. 31 on whether it agrees the oral argument should proceed, Griggsby ordered Monday.

The California Public Utilities Commission wants “a big tent approach” as it collects input for developing a five-year plan for spending federal infrastructure support under NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment program, said CPUC President Alice Busching Reynolds during a state webinar Monday to kick off BEAD planning. Reynolds wants to bring as broad a group as possible to the table since California is a big, diverse state, she said. Expanding internet services will improve access to government services, which is especially important for “historically disenfranchised” groups, the CPUC president noted. More than 2 million Californians lack access, said state Chief Information Officer Liana Bailey-Crimmins: Those at the table should be "reflective of those individuals.” The CPUC expects to receive BEAD planning funds in the next couple of weeks, said CPUC Communications Division Director Rob Osborn: California filed its application for that support Aug. 12 and the application moved to formal NTIA review Sept. 1. Meanwhile, the agency is “working through the bulk challenge process” for the FCC’s broadband fabric, Osborn said. “It’s quite labor intensive.” The CPUC plans to share a summary analysis either through the FCC or the CPUC website at a later date, he said.

The California Privacy Protection Agency board adjusted its schedule for considering draft changes to state privacy rules required by the 2020 California Privacy Rights Act. The CPPA said Monday it will meet Nov. 4 at noon PDT. The agency also plans to meet this Friday and Saturday. It had planned to meet last Friday and Saturday but the meeting was canceled.

With a Maryland court striking down the state’s digital ad tax, federal plaintiffs challenging the same law urged the U.S. District Court for Northern Maryland to rule quickly on the state banning companies from passing the tax’s cost on to customers. In a Friday letter to the federal court, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other plaintiffs attached Anne Arundel Circuit Court Judge Alison Asti’s short Friday order, which was based on her Oct. 17 bench ruling (see 2210170076). The state court’s order (case C-02-CV-21-000509) said the tax violates the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause and the Internet Tax Freedom Act because the tax is discriminatory; flouts the Constitution's Commerce clause because it discriminates against interstate commerce; and defies the First and 14th amendments “because it singles out the Plaintiffs for selective taxation and is not content-neutral.” Although that decision “was a step in the right direction, its lack of reasoning and the State’s intent to appeal have introduced problematic uncertainty for the regulated public,” the federal plaintiffs told the district court (case 21-cv-00410-LKG). “Companies engaged in digital advertising in this State need firm and final guidance on whether they will have to pay the tax and whether they may say anything about it on their invoices and other customer statements.” The state court’s judgment doesn’t moot the federal case, said the plaintiffs, noting Asti didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the pass-through prohibition. “Plaintiffs’ members have paid estimated taxes under the Act, and the question whether they may identify increased customer pricing with express fees or surcharges related to those estimated payments remains a live issue, regardless of any appeal.” The federal court earlier scheduled Nov. 29 oral argument (see 2209070026).

Keep the existing challenge process for the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure grant account, telecom companies commented last week at the California Public Utilities Commission. The CPUC received comments Thursday in docket R.20-08-021, before a possible Nov. 3 vote on a proposed decision to adjust rules for the broadband support program (see 2210030069). Proposed challenge process changes would “result in legal and technical error,” said the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. "Comparing a challenger’s existing service plans with the plans proposed in an application is inapt and practically impossible," including because the proposed plan might not materialize, said CCTA. Requiring challengers to provide billing statements for all customers in the challenge area raises privacy concerns and would make it tougher to submit timely challenges, and requiring them "to commit to serving all locations 'in perpetuity' is vague and holds similarly situated carriers to different standards," it said. The proposed challenge process “remains deeply flawed, and should be reconsidered to avoid enabling inefficient overbuilding projects just because existing providers cannot reasonably navigate the rigid and expedited challenge procedure,” said Frontier Communications: It's too fast and includes "tangential" requirements to the task of ensuring adequate infrastructure. Proposed changes would put "unreasonable and unjustified burdens on potential challengers that are likely to invite overbuilding projects and encourage a misuse of limited CASF resources simply because challengers cannot efficiently navigate the onerous challenge process or because the Commission rejects valid challenges based on policy issues or tangential information that does not relate to whether an area is already adequately served,” said CalTel and other small telcos. The Utility Reform Network, Center for Accessible Technology and the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office mostly supported the draft rules. They "implement statutory requirements and are tailored to encourage providers to use the public funds to serve communities that have historically been left behind, including low-income and Environmental and Social Justice communities,” said TURN.

The California Public Utilities Commission awarded $14 million in broadband technical assistance grants to 28 local governments, the CPUC said Friday. Each grant is about $500,000 and can be used to reimburse localities for network design services for unserved areas. The CPUC earlier this month announced $4.82 million through the $50 million state fund, which was part of last year’s $6 billion California broadband law (see 2210110038).

New Hampshire one-touch, make-ready draft rules met a roadblock in the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) Thursday. The panel refused to clear the Department of Energy’s pole-attachments plan, after the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) raised several concerns including that it contains too much ambiguity by not defining terms like just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The department read a 2021 state law as directing it to adopt “nearly verbatim” the FCC’s one-touch rules, said David Wiesner, the department’s legal director, at the JLCAR’s webcast meeting. “We believe it’s important to do that in order to effect the legislative intent to facilitate broadband expansion in the state by making it easier for new attaching entities to install fiber, cable and other facilities on existing utility poles.” The FCC rules are “well understood by the regulated community … most of whom are sophisticated telecommunications carriers,” added Wiesner. Raising concern with OLS’ copious comments, JLCAR Chair Sen. John Reagan (R) said he preferred that “we object to this and give them a month to hash out these language differences.” The state energy department must respond to the panel’s objection by resolving the OLS comments and refiling its proposal with that office and the committee, Wiesner told us after the meeting. “I expect that we should be able to do that and have the revised version of the rules considered for approval at the next regular JLCAR meeting” on Nov. 17. The California Public Utilities Commission adopted a one-touch proposal Thursday (see 2210200073).