SB142 charges the California Public Utilities Commission (the commission) with designing and running a suite of programs that deliver telecommunications devices, dual‑party relay service, speech‑generating devices, and other specialized telephone equipment at no extra charge beyond the basic exchange rate to eligible individuals and qualifying organizations. The measure establishes the commission as the program administrator, makes the commission the provider of last resort for devices classified as durable medical equipment, and requires ongoing review of program scope to match evolving technology.
To fund these services the bill authorizes a dedicated surcharge on telephone service revenues, requires that the programs be separately identified on subscriber bills, and directs that collected funds be deposited into a named administrative fund subject to annual legislative appropriation. The statute also builds in insurance coordination rules and a Medi‑Cal reimbursement ceiling for device costs, while giving the commission rulemaking, investigatory, and enforcement powers to implement the programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates PCUC design and implement: (1) free telecommunications devices and single party lines for certified deaf or hard‑of‑hearing individuals and certain organizations; (2) a dual‑party relay system linking deaf users and offices of qualifying organizations to hearing callers; (3) specialized telephone equipment for certified disabled subscribers; and (4) access to speech‑generating devices for certified speech‑disabled subscribers.
Who It Affects
Directly affects certified individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, visually impaired, have speech disabilities, and statewide organizations representing those populations; also affects telephone corporations under CPUC jurisdiction, insurers (for coordination), and all telecom subscribers who may pay the surcharge.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a centralized, commission‑run delivery and funding model for assistive telecommunications across the state, tying eligibility to professional certification and insurance coordination and embedding a dedicated funding stream that can be up to tens of millions annually.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute requires the commission to build several complementary programs that expand access to the telephone network for Californians with hearing, vision, speech, or other communication disabilities. For individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing the commission must provide a telecommunications device suited to their needs plus a single party line at no additional charge beyond the basic exchange rate; the commission must also make dual‑party relay service available so that deaf or hard‑of‑hearing users and designated organization offices can communicate with hearing people through a third‑party intermediary.
Eligibility rests on professional certification. The bill lists who may certify which disabilities: physicians and surgeons and audiologists, qualified state or federal agencies, and in limited circumstances licensed hearing aid dispensers (only when they have previously fitted the individual and maintain hearing records).
Physician assistants and nurse practitioners can certify participation where a treating physician has previously diagnosed deafness or hearing loss and their review of medical records confirms that diagnosis. For visual or other medical needs, optometrists and other licensed clinicians may provide the necessary certification.
For speech disabilities, a licensed speech‑language pathologist’s recommendation must guide the selection of an appropriate speech‑generating device consistent with the quality available for purchase in California.When a device qualifies as durable medical equipment, the commission is explicitly the provider of last resort: eligible subscribers must first seek coverage from public or private insurance, and the commission may require applicants to disclose insurer coverage, deductibles, copayments, and benefit caps. The statute limits the total device cost the commission will pay to the Medi‑Cal reimbursement rate for that device.
The commission must adopt rules to implement related subdivisions, hold public hearings to determine the most cost‑effective relay approach, solicit input and assistance from statewide nonprofit consumer organizations, and pursue FCC certification under the ADA’s relay rules where applicable.On funding and administration, the commission must administer a surcharge to collect revenues to allow providers to recover costs; the surcharge funds are transferred to the Controller for deposit into the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund and are subject to annual legislative appropriation. The commission must identify the programs on subscriber bills, may require telephone corporations to comply with its determinations, and must continually assess program scope to keep pace with evolving telecommunications technology.
The statute also clarifies that the commission is not required to provide user training for speech‑generating devices and tasks the commission with deciding which statewide organizations receive devices and in which offices equipment should be installed for organizations with multiple sites.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The commission may collect up to $100,000,000 per year through the surcharge to fund the programs and must stop the surcharge after December 31, 2034, unless otherwise extended.
Licensed hearing aid dispensers can certify an individual for the deaf/hard‑of‑hearing device program only if they previously fitted that person with an amplified device and maintain the person’s hearing records on file.
Physician assistants and nurse practitioners may certify eligibility for hearing‑related services only after reviewing medical records that show a treating physician’s diagnosis of deafness or hearing loss.
For devices classified as durable medical equipment, the commission intends to be the provider of last resort and may require applicants to disclose insurer coverage details, including deductibles, copays, and benefit caps.
The commission must hold public hearings and solicit advice and physical assistance from statewide nonprofit consumer organizations to identify the most cost‑effective design for the dual‑party relay system and must apply for relevant FCC certification under ADA rules.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Free devices and single party line for deaf or hard‑of‑hearing individuals and qualifying organizations
This provision requires the commission to provide a telecommunications device and a single party line at no charge beyond the basic exchange rate to certified individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and to organizations representing them. It prescribes who may certify need, including physicians, audiologists, and certain state or federal agencies, and creates a limited path for licensed hearing aid dispensers to certify when they have prior fitting records. Practically, this creates an eligibility gate based on professional certification and directs the commission to allocate equipment both to individuals and to specified organizational sites.
Dual‑party relay system and stakeholder process
The commission must design a dual‑party relay service that uses third‑party intermediaries to connect deaf or hard‑of‑hearing users and the offices of qualified organizations with hearing callers via intercommunication and telephone systems. The statute requires the commission to investigate options, hold public hearings, and work with statewide nonprofit consumer organizations to find the most cost‑effective approach. It also directs the commission to seek FCC certification under ADA Section 401 rules, which affects interoperability and federal compliance.
Specialized phone equipment and feasibility of income criteria
This section extends free specialized or supplemental telephone equipment to subscribers certified as disabled, with certification allowed from optometrists, physicians, PAs, NPs, or qualifying agencies for visual or other medical needs. The commission must study whether personal income criteria should supplement disability certification when determining eligibility, giving it a mechanism to limit or prioritize distribution based on financial need if found feasible.
Speech‑generating devices, durable medical equipment rules, and training exclusion
The bill requires access to speech‑generating devices for certified speech‑disabled subscribers, tying device selection to speech‑language pathologist recommendations and market quality. For items classed as durable medical equipment, the commission is the provider of last resort and may demand applicants first seek insurer coverage and provide cost/benefit details; payment by the commission for any device cannot exceed the Medi‑Cal reimbursement rate. The statute expressly states the commission need not provide instruction on using speech‑generating devices, which shifts implementation responsibility for training to other entities or the users themselves.
Surcharge, fund deposit, and appropriation mechanism
The commission must administer a surcharge to collect revenues to reimburse equipment and service providers, and transfer collected moneys to the Controller for deposit into the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund. Collections are subject to annual legislative appropriation; the statute authorizes collections up to a stated maximum per year and sets an end date for the surcharge, establishing both fiscal limits and dependency on appropriations for program spending.
Designation of qualifying organizations, compliance authority, and legislative recommendations
The commission has authority to determine which statewide organizations representing the deaf or hard of hearing qualify to receive equipment, and must specify where equipment is to be installed for organizations with multiple offices. The commission may direct telephone corporations under its jurisdiction to comply with its specifications and is empowered to recommend legislative appropriations from the program fund, tying regulatory decisions to potential budget proposals.
Ongoing assessment and charge‑benefit alignment
The commission must continually assess and, where appropriate, expand program scope to respond to changing telecommunications technology and the access needs of people with various functional limitations. The statute directs the commission to structure universal‑service charges so their burden reasonably equals the value of universal service benefits to contributing entities and subscribers, imposing a proportionality principle on surcharge design that will require administrative judgment and potentially contentious valuation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Certified individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing — they receive equipment and a dedicated single party telephone line at no extra basic‑exchange charge, improving direct access to phone services.
- Statewide organizations representing the deaf and hard of hearing — the commission can place devices in organizational offices, enabling these groups to serve clients and host access points.
- People with speech disabilities — eligible subscribers receive speech‑generating devices selected to meet their needs based on speech‑language pathologist recommendations.
- Subscribers requiring specialized telephone equipment for visual or other medical needs — the provision allows for tailored assistive telecom equipment provided free at the point of service subject to eligibility.
- Telecom service providers participating in program delivery — receive cost recovery through the surcharge mechanism, subject to appropriation and CPUC administration.
Who Bears the Cost
- All telephone subscribers — the surcharge to fund the program is administered via telecom bills and may be passed through to consumers, subject to CPUC structuring and legislative appropriation.
- Telephone corporations under CPUC jurisdiction — must implement installations, comply with commission directives, and may incur operational or capital costs unless recovered via the surcharge.
- Private insurers and Medi‑Cal — required to be coordinated with as a first source of coverage; insurers may face claims or coordination burdens, while Medi‑Cal reimbursement rates cap what the commission will pay.
- The commission and state administrative apparatus — charged with investigations, public hearings, rulemaking, certification, fund transfers, and ongoing assessments without explicit new staffing or funding guarantees beyond appropriations.
- Organizations or providers that supply training — because the commission is not required to train users on speech devices, local nonprofits, clinics, or vendors may need to provide training, potentially at their own expense.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is fiscal and practical: expand universal, no‑cost access to assistive telecommunications for Californians with disabilities versus control program cost and administrative complexity. The bill privileges accessibility (free devices, relay services, and organizational placements) while imposing funding limits, insurance coordination expectations, and provider‑of‑last‑resort rules that can constrain device quality, slow delivery, or shift burdens to other actors such as insurers, nonprofits, or consumers via a surcharge.
The statute blends an expansive accessibility mandate with multiple fiscal and administrative constraints that will shape real outcomes. The surcharge funds the programs but is subject both to a statutory annual collection cap and to annual legislative appropriation; that combination creates uncertainty about sustainable, predictable funding.
Tying commission payments for durable medical equipment to Medi‑Cal reimbursement rates eases cost control but risks constraining device quality or availability if market prices exceed Medi‑Cal rates. The bill attempts insurance coordination by making the commission the provider of last resort and permitting requests for insurer coverage details, but it offers no mechanism to compel insurers to pay or to adjudicate disputes, leaving potential gaps where neither insurers nor the commission fully fund devices in a timely way.
Operationally, eligibility pathways are precise but administratively burdensome: a mix of certifying professionals (physicians, audiologists, optometrists, hearing aid dispensers under narrow conditions, PAs/NPs after physician diagnosis, and state/federal agencies) will require clear CPUC guidance to avoid inconsistent access decisions. The commission’s responsibility to solicit nonprofit assistance and hold public hearings for relay design builds stakeholder input into procurement, but it also lengthens implementation timelines.
The requirement that devices and programs be listed on subscriber bills increases transparency but raises questions about how costs are apportioned to different customer classes and what consumers will actually see on their bills. Finally, the explicit exclusion of training for speech‑generating devices introduces a practical access risk: devices without accompanying training or local support may be unusable for some recipients, undermining the statute’s accessibility goals.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.