Alabama officials demand stricter reporting on $400M broadband expansion progress
State officials on Tuesday asked internet service providers tasked with building Alabama's broadband network to more strictly adhere to reporting requirements.
During a series of project updates at the Alabama Digital Expansion Authority meeting in Montgomery, representatives from nearly two dozen companies provided details about their progress on state-funded internet projects. While most reported being on or ahead of schedule, others were cautioned for lagging reports and a lack of detailed progress.
'I feel like we are having good progress with some, and some that may not understand the system as to what we are asking for,' Kenneth Boswell, director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA), said in a firm tone. 'We're happy to provide technical assistance, but we're not going to do it for you.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
ADECA oversees more than $400 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, with a significant portion of this funding aimed at building 'middle-mile' infrastructure, which provides the link from internet providers to local networks. An initial project, funded up to $85 million in 2022, is supposed to create a 3,000-mile fiber network across the state. A second, $245 million middle-mile effort will add another 4,287 miles of fiber infrastructure to specifically connect nearly 800 institutions like schools, hospitals and government facilities.
ADECA is also managing a 'last-mile' broadband program that brings service directly to consumers, using up to $191.89 million in ARPA funds. The projects are expected to be completed by February 2026, though extensions are available until the federal spending deadline of December 2026.
During the presentations, several companies that claimed they had progressed further than the data presented were asked to provide up-to-date information and schedule a meeting with the ADECA within 15 days to discuss their progress.
'What we would like to see at the next field meeting is this dashboard filled up to reflect what you're sharing with us verbally,' Boswell said to AT&T representatives, saying it's unfair to the other companies submitting the requested data.
Cleo Washington, vice president of external affairs for AT&T Alabama, said that despite appearances on the dashboard, work was well underway, saying the planning phase for several projects would be completed by late summer and early fall.
'We are already constructing fiber in those areas, so we are building out to get to these areas,' Washington said. Boswell scheduled a follow-up meeting with the company within 15 days.
Terry Metze, CEO of Alabama Fiber Network, said that its middle-mile network is '98% complete,' with only a single permit remaining.
'Our contractors are working heavily. This month, we had a couple of weeks of really heavy rain, kind of slowed this down a little bit, but we're back on track, and everything's moving forward right now,' Metze said.
Providers pointed to several challenges affecting progress on specific projects. Several, including Coosa Valley Technologies and Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, said they had delays in securing permits. Weather, including a couple of weeks of heavy rain, was also a factor.
The meeting concluded with Boswell saying that 'time is ticking' and asking companies to be more diligent about ensuring projects meet the funding deadline.
'Sounds like we got a lot of time left, but we really don't. We don't know what kind of obstacle that you may run into,' Boswell said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Shelby and Story counties to pursue U.S. Supreme Court action on local pipeline ordinance case
The Shelby County Board of Supervisors voted Aug. 19 to petition the county's case against Summit Carbon Solutions to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) HARLAN – County supervisors in Shelby and Story counties voted Tuesday to pursue further legal action in their case against Summit Carbon Solutions pertaining to county-specific ordinances on hazardous liquid pipelines. A U.S. district judge and federal appeals judges have previously ruled on the case in favor of Summit and now the counties are seeking a review of the rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, though a Summit filing holds the ordinances would still be preempted by state laws. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX In Harlan, at the Shelby County Courthouse, landowners opposed to the pipeline gathered to thank the supervisors. Sherri Webb, an affected Shelby County landowner, said Iowans across the state look to Shelby County and say 'I wish you were our supervisors.' 'Thank you,' Webb said, noting that it's no small feat to decide to appear before the Supreme Court. 'No matter what, I'm behind you guys,' Webb said. Another landowner, Jan Norris who lives in Montgomery County and is a neighbor to the pipeline route, called the board a David standing up to a 'well-resourced and motivated' Goliath. 'Your constituents may not know how lucky they are, but I do,' Norris said. 'Because my board has chosen to play it safe and avoid the fight.' Norris and Webb have been active at their respective county supervisor meetings since they first learned of the Summit project several years ago. The pipeline would connect to biorefineries across the state and transport liquid carbon dioxide through Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and to underground storage in North Dakota. The two said the actions of the Board of Supervisors are important for maintaining local control and working toward standards they believe will be safer and better for their properties. Norris said if the outcome of the case is reversed and in favor of the counties, it will benefit many Iowa counties, and other states impacted by the pipeline and similar projects. 'You guys are doing your job and you shouldn't be sued for doing your job,' Webb said. Cindy Hansen, who lives in Ankeny but owns affected land in Shelby County with her sister, said the supervisors have restored some of the hope in the state that she had lost from the actions of the Iowa Utilities Commission and state legislators. The Shelby County board said the cost of the lawsuits 'have mounted,' but have been covered by the county's insurer, ICAP, and by a fund the board created, shortly after it was sued by Summit in November 2022, that uses American Rescue Plan Act dollars to cover the costs. A copy of both counties' letter of engagement, obtained by Iowa Capital Dispatch, shows fees for the endeavor would be capped at $60,000. Mike Kolbe, one of the Shelby County board members, said the budget was a consideration in the decision, but with the fund and continued coverage from ICAP, Kolbe said the county can afford it 'with no cost to the taxpayers.' Bryce Schaben, the chair of the Shelby board, said the feedback he has received from his community showed there was only one way forward. 'Everything we've heard is to do what we did today,' Schaben said following the meeting. 'When you get that kind of support, it's an easy decision.' Schaben said if the Supreme Court follows the direction of the previous courts on the case, he will be confused. 'It's very confusing that the rulings don't want to make our counties safe,' Schaben said. 'That's what it comes down to.' Ordinances in both counties established setbacks and permitting requirements for the pipeline company to construct in the county. Summit argued, and a federal judge in the Southern District of Iowa ruled, the ordinances were preempted by federal pipeline safety standards. The counties appealed the case, and judges for the Eighth Circuit court of appeals concurred with the lower court, though one judge partially dissented on the case. Story County supervisors approved the decision as part of a consent agenda and did not discuss the decision to engage the D.C. law firm on the suit. Steve Kenkel, a former Shelby County supervisor who now serves as an adviser to the board on topics related to the pipeline, quoted Iowa Code where it directs county supervisors to 'protect and preserve the rights of their constituents.' 'That's what we're trying to do here,' Kenkel said. 'Without county zoning ordinances, the tools supervisors presently have in their tool box … will be tools of the past if this ruling is allowed to stand.' Both counties voted to engage Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick P.L.L.C. to petition the Supreme Court. Summit has sued several counties for similar county ordinance issues, including Emmet, Kossuth and Palo Alto counties. The later-filed cases have been paused while Shelby and Story counties' case was heard and then appealed. The two counties also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the case in July, which the court denied. The other affected counties have requested stays through this process again as Shelby and Story counties decided to take the case to the Supreme Court. Summit's legal team submitted a motion to lift the stay for these other counties, arguing that regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court petition, the county ordinances would be preempted by state laws. 'Any county ordinance—including the one here—that attempts to impose additional permitting requirements, control pipeline routes, or regulate construction and operation is preempted by state law,' the motion said. The Summit motion for leave of stay in Kossuth County also said certiorari from the Supreme Court was 'unlikely in general' and 'particularly unlikely' in Shelby and Story counties' case. The motion holds that the Supreme Court could only review whether or not the ordinances were preempted by federal pipeline laws. Still in place, it argues, would be a piece of Iowa Code that gives the Iowa Utilities Commission the authority to set pipeline routes. This was noted in the ruling from the Eighth Circuit. Here, the judges explained that a county would be inconsistent with state law, and therefore preempted, if it denied a local zoning permit application from the pipeline company to build on a location that had been approved by the IUC. The appellate court decision notes some other states cede this power to local governments and might not be preempted as Iowa counties are. Kenkel argued Tuesday that if the Supreme Court did not act in the counties' favor, the IUC would not be able to route the pipeline based on safety considerations. These and permitting and setback regulations, he said, would instead be up to the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's rules. State Auditor Rob Sand, a Democrat who is running for governor, stopped in Harlan Tuesday as part of his campaign tour across the state. Among the things he was asked by the bipartisan crowd at Milk & Honey restaurant downtown: How would he protect property rights from such projects? Sand said he does not support eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, 'period.' The comment was met with applause, especially considering some of the crowd had filed across the street to the restaurant after the board meeting. Sand said there are two main reasons why he feels this way. He said he is 'deeply skeptical' that a carbon capture pipeline can be considered a common carrier and if 'there is a true public purpose' to the project. 'You can be a supporter of agriculture in the state of Iowa and a supporter of ethanol, and say that the carbon capture pipeline ain't it,' Sand said. Sand said there are other options to sequester CO2 that have an established market. Sand said Gov. Kim Reynolds' lack of action, or public opinion on the issue has been her 'single biggest failure.' 'Never in the state of Iowa, if there's a tremendous issue with lots of people showing up at the state capitol every single year for the legislative session, will I let five years go by before I decide to maybe share my opinion, only after a bill gets passed,' Sand said. Reynolds, a Republican, is not seeking reelection. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
$1M will be awarded to transportation innovators with cost-saving ideas
Aug. 18 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Transportation on Monday launched its new million-dollar idea challenge targeted at the future of American transportation and infrastructure initiatives that will lower costs and improve safety. The infrastructure unit in DOT's version of its federal Advanced Research Projects Agency unveiled its new open-call challenge to U.S. innovators in both public and private sectors as an opportunity to "transform" the future of American transportation. "Our new Ideas Challenge will continue that proud tradition and support the development of new 21st century technologies to launch us forward," Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. Federal transportation officials characterized it as a "showcase" that will highlight "innovative concepts" that ultimately will "improve safety, lower costs and enhance America's infrastructure." Duffy said the United States "invented transportation innovation," noting everything from Wilbur and Orville Wright's historic first manned flight to the U.S. Apollo space missions. According to DOT officials, the total prize purse for all Stage 1 and 2 cash prizes awarded will be a maximum of $1 million. Winners will be recognized by USDOT leadership and a "distinguished panel" of private and public sector judges. They will also be included in "in-depth" policy discussions over their ideas and proposals. The two-stage challenge unfolds by first identifying a "critical transportation infrastructure challenge" with initial concept papers due by September 17. The winners in the Round 1 phase will then be invited to a workshop in the fall in order to present to stakeholders and department leadership, and then urged to submit a detailed proposal for Stage 2. Only the first 10 finalists will be chosen to advance to early next year's ARPA-I Ideas Challenge Final. On Monday, officials at Washington-based Transportation for America said in a social media post it's past time that politicians "stop whining about potholes and actually require their state DOTs to set targets" to improve road conditions. States like Pennsylvania and New Jersey have long been mocked for its notoriously bumpy road conditions with road construction a year-round process. The Smart Growth for America-backed group said such targets included improving pavement both on U.S. interstates and legacy highways "that run through so many of our communities," they wrote. "Start your innovation engines!" the U.S. transportation chief declared in the open invite to American innovators. A pre-registered webinar is slated for Wednesday.
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
