Cost Expected to Delay Area Code Legislation

Legislation that would place stricter controls on area code overlays goes before the state Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, but action very likely will be delayed because of the bill’s $529,610 price tag, officials said.

The Consumer Area Code Relief Act is one of hundreds of bills expected to come before the 13-member committee when it convenes Monday morning.

Assemblyman Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles) introduced the legislation that would force the state to adopt number-conservation measures to slow the pace of area code changes statewide.

The committee is expected to receive a report from state regulators putting the bill’s cost to taxpayers at $529,610 in the first year and $475,220 annually in the second and third years, officials said.

Fiscal analysts for the California Public Utilities Commission said the money would be used to pay for salaries, benefits, equipment, software, training and other expenses for five telecommunications analysts, a program technician and one attorney to study phone companies’ records to prove claims of number shortages and the need for new area codes.

Knox defended the bill’s cost.

“The bill would require the PUC to become more aggressive than it has been in looking at telecommunications companies’ numbering practices, and there may be some financial consequences to that,” he said.

Because the bill’s cost is more than the $150,000 threshold set by the Appropriations Committee, officials said action will be suspended until Aug. 30.

By then, committee members will know how much can be spent without exceeding the state’s operating budget, officials said.

Legislation that is not funded when the current session ends Sept. 10 can be reconsidered at the next session if the author so chooses.

In the case of the Knox bill, supporters are pressing to get the bill passed and signed by Gov. Gray Davis before Sept. 16, when the PUC is set to vote on the proposed 818 area code overlay. The overlay would introduce an additional area code within the 818 calling area.

Knox’s bill faces stiff opposition from a group of telecommunications companies--including Pacific Bell, GTE, MCI and Sprint--that is pushing for the area code changes, saying an overlay or split is necessary to accommodate a surge in demand for additional phone lines.

Pacific Bell and GTE, the two largest phone companies in Los Angeles, favor an overlay. It is the most efficient way to deal with the number crunch, executives say, because it would add 7.9 million numbers to the same calling area. An area code can be overlaid three or four times, ensuring that the 818 calling area would remain in place for years to come.

Phone companies have been aggressive in letting state regulators know what they want.

“Many of the commission’s efforts to curtail the rate at which area codes are implemented already are under fire from the telecommunications industry,” Audra Hartmann, legislative liaison with the PUC’s Office of Governmental Affairs, wrote in a Policy and Fiscal Impact Report sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The report also noted any area code change beyond an overlay or split by the state panel could be challenged by the Federal Communications Commission.

Overlays are planned next year for San Jose, north Orange County, east San Diego County, east San Francisco Bay area, San Mateo/Santa Clara region, San Francisco and San Bernardino County, officials said.