The Extra Costs of BEAD Funding

A few weeks ago, when I did my first summary of the $42.5 billion BEAD grant program, one of my observations was that there are a lot of extra costs for an ISP to accept BEAD funding. This is something that anybody taking the funding must understand. Some of those extra costs include:

Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews. I’ve occasionally worked on a non-grant network project that required these reviews. For example, these are normal requirements for building networks through state and federal parks. Indian tribes require these if there is any chance of construction through historically sensitive areas. I would expect to take extra precautions if I was building fiber close to the Liberty Bell or some other historical place. But other than those examples, no commercial project I’ve ever worked with has voluntarily done these reviews. Most networks are built using existing rights-of-way along roads where the soil was excavated in the past. I can’t imagine the slightest reason why these reviews would be required for placing fiber on existing utility poles.

Letters of Credit. I’ve written a separate blog on this issue. The grants require an irrevocable letter of credit just to apply, and a second letter of credit from grant winners. I think the NTIA saw the criticism leveled at the FCC in the RDOF process and wants to exclude bad actors, but this jacks up the cost of applying for a grant and could add a few percent to the overall cost of a grant project. This will also likely deter small ISPs who want to fill in some of the neediest pockets but can’t get a bank to provide the line of credit.

Prevailing Wages. Projects over $5 million must use prevailing wages. The majority of the projects will be rural, and the folks who made this requirement don’t understand the rural contractor environment. Rural contractors already pay wages that are some of the best paying jobs in a rural economy. They must do so, or in this time of technician shortage, they wouldn’t have any workforce. But they don‘t pay the extra-high prevailing wage rates that are charged in urban areas. Those rates are higher because of the higher cost of living in urban areas. If prevailing wage studies were done correctly, they’d find a separate prevailing wage for urban and rural communities. To make things worse, rural contractors don’t want to be required to pay prevailing wages if they also have non-prevailing wage workers because it causes dissension between crews who want to all work on the higher-paying project. This is a case of a solution seeking a problem because the existing wages in rural areas are balanced by the lower cost of workers not having to live in cities.

Requirements on Contractors. The BEAD NOFO layers a few new requirements on contractors. As an example, a construction contractor working on a BEAD project must certify that it has a workforce development program that includes participation in an apprenticeship program. This requirement ignores an important characteristic of most fiber and tower contractors – many of these contractors have few direct employees. They instead hire small crews of specialty subcontractors – and these small subcontractors will walk away if asked to meet this requirement or do extra paperwork. My fear is the contractors who have historically worked in rural markets won’t take BEAD work if it puts extra burdens on them – there is plenty of non-BEAD work.

Heavy Reporting Requirements. I don’t have a problem with requiring follow-up reporting on the effectiveness of grants, and in the past, some programs like CAF II had almost no follow-up. But the reporting requirements for BEAD are more detailed than anything I’ve seen, so it’s going to cost more to comply.

Grants are Taxable. We can’t forget that grants are taxable income to any taxable entity that accepts the funding. I’m hearing rumors of a D.C. workaround on this issue, but without a solution, it’s going to be hard for a small commercial ISP to justify taking millions in grant money if that means having to somehow fund paying 21% of that back to the federal government plus whatever will be due to the state. It’s not comforting to know that the tax savings will roll back over the next twenty or thirty years as grant-funded assets are depreciated. This is not specifically a BEAD issue and applies to all grants from local, state, or federal sources.

Summary. One of the sentiments I loved in the grant NOFO is that the NTIA wants to get broadband to even the most remote places, and they used the example that funding should be available to reach even a single location. But I have to laugh when I look at these requirements and see that reaching that single remote location might get layered with hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra costs.

The biggest drawback of expensive grant compliance is that it drives up the cost of every grant project. And that means that the BEAD money won’t stretch as far to bring broadband to as many homes. For an individual grant applicant, the extra cost translates into the need for more out-of-pocket matching funds – which in some cases will be enough to make a project infeasible.

I fully understand the desire at the NTIA to not fund bad projects. I imagine there are folks there that still remember the agency being accused in 2009 of funding projects that were “fiber to nowhere”. But the many extra grant requirements feel like we’re applying a pound of prevention to solve an ounce of risk. Any one of the various grant requirements can probably be justified, but when taken as a whole, the grant requirements are adding extra cost and hassle that will make many ISPs pass on the opportunity.

Leave a Reply