California Regulator Suing FCC Over Copper Preemption Rule

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2026 – California is asking federal judges to throw out the Federal Communications Commission’s new copper retirement rules adopted in March.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was brief, simply asking the court to find the order was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion” and to “hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the Order.” It was filed Monday.

Learn about America250 / Telecom150

                        Learn about America250 / Telecom150
                    

The FCC order eliminated some filing requirements for companies looking to retire legacy services and made it easier to grandfather those services, meaning they would no longer be offered to the public.

The order also said that any state laws that effectively required carriers to maintain legacy copper infrastructure were preempted by federal rules, and that if the FCC granted a request to discontinue legacy services a carrier would not need any additional approvals.

The March order invited companies to ask for preemption if they encountered a state rule that inhibited their copper retirement efforts. AT&T took the agency up on that, and is asking it to find California’s carrier of last resort (COLR) rules are preempted by federal regulations.

The carrier is looking to discontinue legacy services at nearly 200,000 locations in the state where it has so far been unable to. It’s hoping the FCC will approve that request and find California’s more restrictive copper retirement rules don’t apply.

During the FCC’s rulemaking process, the CPUC objected to industry characterizations of its COLR rules as needlessly requiring the maintenance of aging infrastructure in rural areas. The state argued it only required that areas served by copper lines continued to have access to “certain fundamental elements of telecommunications service, regardless of the underlying facilities” after the copper was decommissioned.

The CPUC also urged the FCC against preempting state-level rules.

“Absent some statement ‘unmistakably clear in the language’ of the Communications Act that Congress intended to permit the FCC to usurp California’s police power here, the FCC should not arrogate to itself the authority to decide what is best for Californians,” the CPUC wrote during the FCC’s rulemaking in November.

Some consumer advocates and the telecom union Communications Workers of America also filed a challenge to the order on June 18 in the Ninth Circuit. Their petition was also short but said the order exceeded the FCC’s authority. In a subsequent filing the groups said the main issue on appeal was the FCC’s move to preempt state and local rules for copper retirement.

In April, after the order was adopted, two industry groups filed their own challenges to the rules in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. The Ohio Telecom Association and Texas Association of Businesses wanted the agency to go further and remove any administrative requirements on companies looking to turn down legacy services.

The FCC and state agencies regulate the discontinuance of copper services in rural areas, an effort to ensure subscribers in those places aren’t left without essential services. ISPs are looking to retire copper as quickly as possible, as it’s very expensive to maintain and doesn’t provide competitive broadband speed.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has sought to ease the transition away from copper for incumbent ISPs, eliminating filing requirements and making it easier to show an adequate replacement service is available.

California has an open proceeding in which it is evaluating updates to its COLR rules. It asked stakeholders for input on whether the FCC’s new rule would affect its own regulations, an issue on which industry and consumer groups were split.