CPUC Raises Concerns Over Verizon’s Rollback of DEI Programs
Verizon has until July 30 to respond to assertions it may be violating California law
WASHINGTON, July 28, 2025 – Verizon’s rollback of its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs may have placated the Federal Communications Commission, but it has raised alarm bells in California.
The California Public Utilities Commission warned Verizon that its “commitment to ‘no longer set quantitative goals for diverse spend’ raises what may be a direct conflict with Public Utilities Code Section 8283.”
Under that section, large telecommunications providers operating in California are required to file an annual plan with the state detailing their efforts to work with suppliers that are “women, minority, disabled veteran, and LGBT business enterprises.” That section, along with the General Order implementing it, GO 156, form the basis of CPUC’s efforts to increase supplier diversity.
Verizon claimed in previous testimony that changes to its DEI programs still complied with California law, even if they represented “a different approach.”
“Instead of setting quantitative goals for diverse spend, Verizon will comply with GO 156 by focusing on increasing opportunities for small businesses, maintaining access to a wide pool of suppliers, and continuing to ensure procurement is based on selecting the most qualified suppliers,” the company wrote. “Verizon’s supplier program and goals will now focus on increasing opportunities for small businesses, reflecting a different approach to promoting inclusion and opportunity.”
That response did not convince CPUC Assigned Commissioner John Reynolds.
“Verizon’s characterization of these significant policy changes…as merely a ‘different approach’ that maintains ‘longstanding commitments’ raises major questions about the candor of the Joint Applicants, either before this Commission, before the FCC, or both,” Reynolds wrote.
“This Commission [the CPUC] does not tolerate false statements and reminds Joint Applicants and their representatives of their obligation under Rule 1.1. of the Commission…if Joint Applicants provide testimony that is inconsistent with their obligations under Rule 1.1, the Commission will consider appropriate sanctions,” Reynolds warned.
Reynolds also characterized Verizon’s response to questions from the CPUC as “evasive,” “deficient,” and “not an acceptable response.”
He dismissed Verizon’s assertion that it would be infeasible for the company to identify statements it had made regarding supplier diversity, which it no longer supported, including those made in its GO 156 Reports, Supplier Diversity En Banc hearings, and R.21-03-010, the CPUC’s ongoing rulemaking on equity and anti-racism initiatives.
Reynolds noted six examples of statements Verizon had previously made to CPUC “that appear to conflict with the commitments [Verizon] made to the FCC.”
Reynolds’ order gives Verizon one week, until Wednesday, July 30, to respond to his questions. A request for comment from Verizon and CPUC was not returned in time for publication.
Member discussion