Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Wednesday, January 14. And we're continuing our testimony on H527, which is an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 VSA section two forty eight a. I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington 4 District.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's party. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two. Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham two. Great.

[Speaker 0]: And in the room today.

[Kim Lane Deona (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Hello. I'm Kim Lane Deona with the Vermont Chamber.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Claire Buckley with Leone Public Affairs for CTIA.

[Chris Rice (MMR)]: Chris Rice from MMR here at Black Horizon.

[Speaker 0]: Charlotte Mae, the intern. Great.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, the Craster.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications for the public service department. Okay.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'm Greg Favor. I work with the.

[Speaker 0]: Super. Thanks, everybody. Alright. Greg, I think you're up. Do you wanna?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Sure. Good morning. Madam chair, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Greg Faber. Work with PUC. Here to talk about, 05/27, but I can give some overview of February a

[Speaker 0]: That'd be great.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: First if you can see it like that. Yep.

[Speaker 0]: We we walked through the actual statute yesterday, but I I'd love to hear more about how PUC, you know, how the process

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: works. How it works. Right.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. So full disclosure, part of my job at PUC is to process all of these two forty eight a applications. We get typically, we get about a 140 applications a year. This year we're getting more but I'll look at more detail on that as to why when I get to the bill part. So general two forty eight was created back in 2007 to allow for statewide level review for the siting of telecommunicate wireless telecommunication facilities. The reason that was done, prior to that, it was all done at the town level and act two fifty level. It makes sense to do it at a state level because these projects have statewide benefits. They also have multi state wide benefits. So you don't wanna look at it from a town town by town perspective. It makes sense to do it at a state a state level review. This two forty eight sets forth the requirements for the applications and allows the PUC to develop rules or orders governing the process. And we have orders in place that govern the application process, what you need to file, when you need to file it, how much notes to give, folks can file comments, when they can request hearings, things like that. Prior to 248A, all facilities needed Act two fifty and town approval. Section 248A is optional, meaning the option is to go to the town and through Act two fifty is still available to any provider. However, nobody uses that. It's much simpler to go through the statewide level review because it's it's one stop shop. You're going right to the state.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And faster? Simpler and faster?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yes. Yeah. The two forty eight is an expedited review process. It was designed to be expedited. Yeah. Because we we were not seeing the development that the state wanted back prior to 2007. February, it's divided into three categories basically. And I know Elle went through a little bit of this. So you got small projects or de minimis modifications that's recalled in the statute. This could these are typically swapping out antennas on an existing tower or maybe a farm silo. You if you've all seen the antennas on farm silos. Basically, they'll do is they'll take out three older antennas and put in three new antennas, and that's a de minimis modification. Though those are fairly simple. The only thing you can complain about in those applications is whether whether it qualifies as a de minimis modification. So the the the square footage you're adding to a tower or a silo has to be 75 square feet or less. So it has to be pretty small. So those are your small projects and those those are the majority of the 140 projects a year that we see. The vast majority are de minimis modifications, swapping out of antennas. The next size up is medium or limited size and scope as it's called in the statute. Now that allows you to build a new tower up to 140 feet with a limited amount of earth's dirt and surrounding the tower or road going to that tower.

[Speaker 0]: 140 feet

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: tall. It would also encompass enlarging an existing compound to put in a new equipment base or maybe even putting in a generator and some equipment cabinets. And you might be engaging in enlarging an existing facility. So it would allow you to do that as well. And then you have large projects. So that will be a tower taller than 140 feet or and or more earth disturbance, more than 10,000 square feet of earth disturbance. So those are your three basic categories. And as I said, vast majority 90% are de minimis modifications. See a lot of those. So, notice for medium and large projects, not for de minimis, you have to provide sixty days, the provider has to provide sixty days advance notice of the application. So the town, the adjoining landowners, the regional planning commission, all the state agencies, ANR, THP, the Department of Public Service. So you provide your sixty days notice prior to filing the application. Once the application is filed, everybody has thirty days to file comments on that application. And in those comments, can request hearings. You can file noted motions to intervene in a case. And then once that's done, then the process begins.

[Speaker 0]: Repsibilia? Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Sorry. Just wanna go back a second, Greg. So most of these are replacements.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Deminist yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Deminist misreplacements. So for new, towers Mhmm. Who is who are those applications from? Are they from

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Who are

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: they from?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So is it, like, a a tower company, or are these from the cellular companies themselves typically?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They are mostly from the cellular companies. However, the cellular companies do, have their own tower companies as subsidiaries.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Do you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: have any speculative towers being

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We okay. So we do have this one company that does put they do provide a service. They are a service provider. However, the service is not cellular telephone. It is mobile radio communication. So think about truckers who are who are using their radios in their trucks. They can use this service. First responders can use the service. So it's not Verizon or AT and T. It's a different kind of service and they put up their own towers. Now, part of their business plan is to put up that tower with their equipment, which is pretty small, just antennas, usually with antennas. And they will, put up the tower in anticipation of getting AT and T and or Verizon to co locate on that tower. That's where the speculation comes in. So they are not completely spec towers because you can't do that under two forty eight h. You have to be providing telecommunications services. And that mobile radio service qualifies as a telecommunication service under two forty eight a.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But they're building something that's larger than what their needs are for?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They wouldn't put it that way, but yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And so and the commission has no way of differentiating between

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Because they are providing telecommunication service as defined under two forty eight a, it it is legal for them to comply. Yes. Now that doesn't mean that someone could, object to that tower, and we would have a hearing

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: as

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: to whether the public good is served by that. So that's what you're hearing in the the the realm of speculative powers. However, the the vast majority are built by the the big three telecom providers. They use their own companies to do the actual construction work because AT and T really isn't a construction business. They're in the provision business. So but that's that's pretty normal. They'll come in with a joint application.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I'm sure you're aware that there's some consternation out in the world. I've heard

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: some of that. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Is there any connection to whether or not these are those types of towers or more, four towers that are is there a connection?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Between?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Those types of towers, which are the rate radio

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Radio mobile radio service. Radio.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Versus the cell towers.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Is there a connection?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. With the consternation. So is it one or the other two?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No. People get just as upset with the Verizon tower in my in my experience. It depends where it is.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thanks.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I had a tower last week, you know, a 140 foot tower built into town. Mhmm. Not a single public comment. Nothing. Okay. It went right through. I have another one filed the week before that. I have, 10 people in the town filing motions to intervene, the town filing something, the regional commission filing something. So it really depends on where it's located.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's not

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: provider driven, no.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thanks for

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: taking me out of chair. Sure.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Thank you, buddy. Yeah. Sure. So I let's talk about a notice. There's no advanced notice for de minimis modifications, because they are small. That that that makes sense.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Let's see. I have a follow-up question. Sure. Before are there sort of legacy towers that that were developed by private individuals that that I mean, I don't know, on spec or whatever, but that are sort of another category of of towers besides ones built by cell companies and mobile mobile radio companies. Is that is that

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Maybe there's a couple out there, private ones

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That were built before any regulation. Yeah. There's a couple. Yeah. And sometimes people will come and put stuff on them, those old towers. Yeah. And I'll see that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And they can and if they add to those to those towers, that would be a

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Then they have to go through us.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: These $2.48 a That's right. Category as well. Right. Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. We've I've there's some people who just have a wooden pole. Yeah. And they'll stick some antennas on it, and it's been there for fifty years. Yeah. Wooden pole out in the woods somewhere. Yeah. Someone will come and put antennas on. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. See that. Who who developed the tower, he said. And I I was surprised. I didn't know that that was something different.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: People like that. There's a couple. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So the towers existed on top of Mount Mansfield and Michael that our company had back, I guess, from fifties. If somebody wants to add a antenna to that, do they have to go through the two forty eight process?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Or they have

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: to go through a two forty eight, two fifty process to add additional antennas to existing towers.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That's correct. Yes. They'll they'll typically come to us for that that project. So you

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: don't see if somebody only goes two fifty, you don't see it at all?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I would I would know. No. My understanding is that all of them go through 48A in Maryland.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: let's see, this is the information required for the application. For non de minimis projects we require applicants to provide information on existing permits, a detailed project description with site plans, elevation drawings, signal coverage maps. They have to show consistency with all applicable environmental and aesthetic criteria. This is basically all the Act two fifty criteria that applies to telecom, citing as well. They have to show consistency with the town and regional plans, and they have to show that they couldn't co locate it on another tower, another nearby tower and why. De minimis, it's a little different. All they got to do is file a site plan and show that the the project qualifies as de minimis. So that shows that it really is small. Let's see. And then for issuance of a decision and this is, this is interesting. So this is not in any other citing statute. So for projects of limited size and scope, we have to issue, we the PUC has to issue a final decision within sixty days if there are no significant issues. And that includes the comment period. So you got a thirty day comment period. That means we only have thirty days to issue a decision, provided there's no significant issues. If there is a significant issue, we have another sixty days or ninety days from when the application is filed. So that gives us sixty days from the common period. Now I can tell you from my experience that if an evidentiary hearing is initiated within that after that thirty day period, six sixty days does not cover it. We we blow by those deadlines every time there's an evidentiary hearing. And there's a sixty day and a one hundred eighty day for larger projects too. Hearings take a long time, probably closer to a year than sixty days in order to give folks due process. You often have pro se litigants, you have the town, you have all the agencies. The department typically wants to do, the Department of Public Service typically wants to do an aesthetic analysis. That takes time. That could take a few months to do that alone. And that's typically the big issue in these cases. It's all about aesthetics. So those timelines are, you know, they're problematic in some cases, but so that's basically February a.

[Speaker 0]: But the timelines you said, and we learned yesterday, those are federally mandated, so there's nothing

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No. We're not about the shock log thing? Yeah. Oh, no. No. That that's no. These are these are in statutes.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, okay.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You guys put these in in the in the statute. So I don't worry about the shock.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's red herring.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Can well, can you just

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: explain it? Yeah. Oh boy. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So we

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: did have that come in yesterday. The difference between what's in statute and the federal law.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay so the providers like to trot out this argument from time to time. Pretty much in every case they'll trot it out. There is a decision from the FCC in a case where a town zoning commission did not and so most states regulate these on the town level or municipal level. In one case, a provider applied to do do some, to put some equipment on a tower. A zoning board did not take any action on that application for a very long time, probably a year. The provider then went to the FCC and said, hey, this is not right. There's a there There's a prohibition on towns prohibiting cell towers in a town. The towns are not allowed to blanket prohibit the provision of of self or the construction cell towers in town, and this violates that provision FCC. FCC says, you're right. They need to take action within a reasonable time, and that reasonable time is like one hundred and fifty days. Now, in our case, when we get a 248A application, we take immediate action. We issue an order saying the application is complete. We set up the comment deadlines. So we are taking actions in those cases. So I would argue that the the shot clock argument is it doesn't apply. They would argue differently, of course. But that's basically that's your shot clock argument right there. But but there are statutory deadlines, the sixty days, the ninety days, and the the one eighty days. That's all in the statute. And we typically go by those in the case of an evidentiary hearing. There's nothing really we can do about it. If we sped it up any faster, we do leave out things like site visits and public hearings because the time is so compressed. But if we went faster than that, I'm afraid we would be violating folks due process rights. So it puts us in a difficult situation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So are are there any sanctions, any penalties?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: There are. Thankfully, there

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: are not. Now following this this good line, so it sounded like what you said a minute ago is some of these things can drag on for a year. It's not that you're not doing anything. It's just that what you're doing takes a long time.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It takes a long time and the providers are not happy about that. Right. I get that. They point to the statutory deadline. It points to the shot clock argument. Yeah. And it's really difficult to run a case and get folks due process. Right. And squeeze it that much and you just can't do it. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So that's that's the process anyway. Yeah. I

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: just wanted to note that the PUC provides us with a performance metric report every year. The details of how many cases went and how they're doing with their goals. K. And we should probably post it.

[Speaker 0]: Can you send the link?

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: I sent it to When? Yesterday. Okay. Makes sense. But I'm just curious if you've been into it. How would you compare the due process of act two fifty versus two forty eight a? Like, are the timelines more generous so that there can be more public?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Act two fifty. I'm not an expert in activity. Okay. So you can I'm sorry. I can't. Thanks.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. I found it in my inbox. I'm sending it to Alex to post.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: When you're looking at these projects, do you look at radiation output from the the towers? That's a good question because a lot of people are upset about radio frequency emissions from the towers. Now there again you're running into federal preemption. The federal government preempts us from making decisions related to energy frequency or radio frequency emissions. They set the guidelines for the radio frequency emissions and as long as the towers meet those emission guidelines we can't do anything about radio frequency. And guess what? All the towers meet them because all the manufacturers manufacture their equipment to those guidelines. But people are concerned about that. A lot of people are concerned. There's nothing much we can do about it, but I do see those concerns in public comments and whatnot.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if you can help me with an answer to this. I'm trying to jog my memory banks. I believe that we did a study on RF, with the I think it was with the Department of Health.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And I think it was under commissioner tier d, but I'm not sure who's for

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I think that's correct.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So it was

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Maybe five years ago? Yeah.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Five years.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Six years ago. And there was a bill, and there was a study. Yep. And, yeah, I remember that. That was fun. If we got to the same place, there's federal preemption. Oh, okay. And then that was kinda it. So I can talk about the bill now, I mean, if you'd like.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Yep. Just

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: give you my thoughts on the on the sunset.

[Speaker 0]: Is everybody up up to speed? No more questions for Greg on the process?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Happy to go back to that too. So the three year sunset creates some problems as you can imagine for us. It also creates problems for providers, but I'll let them make those arguments. I'm sure it creates uncertainty for them and their investments in the state. But from my level, as a state agency, and I'm starting to see this now, especially over the last month or so, we get every three years now, we get a huge uptick in applications being filed in anticipation of the sunset going away. It creates a huge workflow problem for me. I'm sure it creates problems at A and R, at the DPS, DHP, all the state agencies which are involved. So we would support getting rid of the sunset. There are no sunsets and other citing provisions like under the renewable, citing under two forty eight. There's no sunset involved there. It does create a workflow problem. It also creates this sort of people are afraid to make amendments to the bill. There are a lot of tweaks that could be made to the statute. But people are reluctant. I'm sure the providers are reluctant to come in. They don't want they don't want to upset the apple cart knowing that there's this this sunset that could happen at any time. It's gonna happen in three years. It could be moved up. So they're reluctant to come in. We are reluctant to come in because we're like, well, that statute's going away in three years. Why would we spend time recommending amendments to that statute? It's going away. Why would we make rules? We don't even have formal rules on this statute because it's going away in three years. It takes two years to write a rule. So we're reluctant to devote resource to that. So it creates uncertainty. I'm not sure what the benefits are given that we've been doing this since 2007. You've had many chances to look back at it. You can change it tomorrow. You don't need to wait three years. You could change it next year. So we would recommend just getting rid of the sunset completely. This the three year cycle is that does create a lot of uncertainty, and I'm not sure it's very helpful. Anyway, that that's my pitch on that the three year. But otherwise, we we support the continuance of February a. But we'd rather just see the sunset removed completely.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Questions?

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Okay. Thanks, Craig. You're welcome. Yep. Sorry.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Question? May if we're done on this topic, may I just ask about the notification of the consolidation? It's not on the agenda, but it is with

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: director Thompson. Sure. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: just in terms of the sorry. Changing, the consolidated communications, they are petitioned to discontinue legacy voice service, one of their petitions at the FCC. So they're required by law to note notice federal law, notice the PC, the governor, secretary of war, defense. And so I understand that they mailed a notice to you all under the very first notice.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yes. That is my understanding. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is that typical how you receive notices for that type of thing?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I don't think we get a lot of them, but Yeah. Yeah. They mailed it.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: And

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't see it up on the EPUC or it didn't at the time. Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. I wonder where that would go.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, that's my question. We

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: have it. I know we have that. Checked with folks. I'm not sure we would post that. I'm not sure if the department has it on their website either. I don't know.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't think that federal law requires the department to be notified. So just flagging for you.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You know, I am worried about Vermonters just knowing. And since you are, you know, the body that they're notifying with this 130 notice I'll I'll check

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: when when I get back to I'm

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thinking problem solving here. How do we

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: make sure we're not first? Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. That would be a good place to put it on the website at least. I'll check I'll check with the clerk and see.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thanks so much, sir.

[Speaker 0]: Sure. I was just trying to think back. Well, we'll talk about this later. So I'll I'll hold my question for later. Thank you so much.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're welcome.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Okay. Ready? Here you are.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Hello. I am, for the record, Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications and connectivity with the Public Service Partners. It's my understanding for this this week at least, we're gonna talk about the Bourguier sunset and some general questions about our interactions with the service providers. So I have a bunch of notes that kinda keep me on track so I don't go too far off.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So I'm gonna start with I think it's important to state that I don't think the primary goal of February a is to increase the number of towers in the state. I think that at one point that was the goal. The goal is to increase the amount of coverage that you have in the state. There's different mechanisms. There's co location, there's new towers, and there's other possible ways to increase coverage. Think back in 2007, the state of Vermont suffered from a severe lack of telecommunication infrastructure. That's now being remediated to 248A. So 248A is specifically put out there to just increase the total number of towers that we see across the state of Vermont. It's a subtle difference, but I think there's a fair distinction there. I was asked to comment on some consumer complaint stuff in our general interactions that we have with the providers. So, the most common complaint we receive around cellular technology is related to billing. These usually come in the form of folks having issues either getting a PIN required to port their number from one provider to another. So if you've ever switched cell phone providers, when you go in, you have to get a four digit PIN. Sometimes it's more difficult than others. And canceling service because now that we are online and electronic world, service cancellation often needs to be provided online. I think back to an issue we had with an elderly woman who had problems doing that. She contacted us. We reached out for our contacts at the service provider. They called her. They got it all figured out, so she didn't have to go through the normal online process to get that done. The second most common complaint or issue that we hear of is a lack of service. Cell phone service, sorry about engineering background, I won't get into the weeds, cell phone service is dependent on so many factors. These are often harder to pinpoint. Instances where we get a number of complaints from a specific service area, we're able to reach out to our wireless providers and they will actually check their systems and equipment to confirm that things aren't working. Last fall, we received a number of issues from the Shelburne area and we reached out to the provider. The provider went out and actually passed the VF and the antennas, which are the small antennas on top of telephone poles that are kind of Route 7 that provide service. So we do have those relationships and we're able to contact those providers. In that regard. Other things that folks may know impact cell service. So, personally, I'm on the edge of service. On a day like today, I might get a signal at my house, but in the middle of summer, when all the leaves are out, if it's raining within the past hour, there's no way I'm getting anything remotely close to where I live. So we have environmental factors that impact self-service, and we kind of address those as they come in and bring those up to people and say, you know, it's not an all or nothing thing the way this works. As far as the kind of communications we have with the cellular companies, department, with the outage notification that was asked about that, the department is privy to the outage notifications that the blinding one Board requires of the cell providers anytime. A 100 customers are out of service for over thirty minutes. They're required by nine eleven Commission to send a notification to the nine eleven Board. We are included in that notification, so we get notifications when self-service is out within thirty minutes, like 09:11. We have escalation points that we can reach out to, as I said, when that becomes an issue. Our working relationship is largely an engineering term, we have good relationships with providers. We have technical contacts. We have contacts through their lobbyists. We have contacts through their government affairs people where we can escalate stuff and we're able to address a lot of the issues. I'll move on to the two forty eight piece. Do have any questions about

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do you get complaints for also from for a lack of service

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: to because there are no towers? Absolutely. Yeah. That's not an uncommon complaint.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Again, I'm wondering what so what volume of things

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you get along with like. That one is is smaller, quite honestly. The volume complaints around the lack of service tend to be smaller than the volume complaints around service issues. Yeah. And I think that that's related to just people realizing they don't have service. You know, every once in a while, we get somebody who comes in and says, I can't use my cell phone at the house and I need to and, yep, I understand. I can relate on a personal level. I can't get service on Route 2 between here

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and St. Johnsbury. That's because there

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: aren't any towers. Right. Yes. There's actually a petition that we probably can't discuss because it's an impetition to get someone added in there. But, yes, that's an issue. I often drive my son out to Marshfield on Fridays to see his father. And Yeah. Yeah. I can't use my cell phone from the store in Marshfield, and it's frustrating. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't I don't imagine that public service department is in place for those complaints, but I'm supportive of gifts. So

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think to move on to the 248A piece, I think one thing, and I think Mr. Favre mentioned it, is that 248A is not only cellular service providers, it's all telecommunication towers. Although cellular service seems to be the most common of the two forty eight petitions, as mentioned, all the communications like the, we call them B2B radio communications are used, and that would be the bus companies. It's a good example. One of my coworkers' sons drives from the bus company. They have what's called a business to business push to talk radio system that uses towers and antennas and works with some infrastructure. They pick up their not a cell phone, but device, push the button and talk to the dispatcher directly wherever they happen to be.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is that mobile radio? Yeah.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Wanna address something that I don't have in my notes, but there was a mention of the tower on top of Mount Lansfield. So when a tower like that, that has public safety infrastructure gets a petition, there needs to be explicit permission from public safety before modification is made. So, if public safety has something on top of that tower, then public safety needs to sign off on any potential change before providers last look and make it. So there are some guardrails around some of the larger infrastructure and faces like that on top of our Lansfield as opposed to maybe else that the T Mobile has an antenna on top of the pavilion.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. That reminds me of of of public around safety. The

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the country was with this. Was that? Percent. Percent. Yes. It's too big. Are all those towers that were planned for Lamont now built? Think there's one left. I think the rest that were sent to Lamont were built as well as some additionals. So, it's my understanding that the initial FirstNet push identified in a number of locations where we would like to see towers built. All but one was built. A number of additional towers were built. Now, we're currently working with AT and T and the FirstNet Authority to find some way to get some service in a general location. They had a couple setbacks in building a tower where they wanted it down there. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the goal of FirstNet was in full coverage, right? So the first responders had?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. The goal of FirstNet was to provide a first responder network that offered preemption. So we saw that during the during the eclipse. Right? So the first the FirstNet network would allow you to actually dial 911 as well as if you're a first responder who subscribes to FirstNet service. You would be able to use the network when 150,000 people between Waterbury and Brampton and their cars were all trying to use their cell phones. You would get preemption, and you would be able to actually use a cell phone network regardless of the amount of congestion.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And and that was a FirstNet uses a a separate part of the spectrum.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It's only a separate band.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the FirstNet towers, do they also have commercial cell phone service?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Or Yes. Oftentimes Since AT and T got the contract with the federal government to offer FirstNet service, times you will find that AT and T is the first to install commercial AT and T service on towers that were built specifically for FirstNet, but that doesn't preclude or prevent other providers from also co located on those structures.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: if you got 140,000 people trying to use a phone and that person gets preempted, how do

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you add capacity to add different frequencies? They just they degradate one of the other people using the service so that the the first responder gets service, or they disconnect someone's first responder gets service. So they're all all these services are within a particular bandwidth. Yeah. They're gonna number

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: of bands. So unless they expand bands, they're not gonna expand coverage. That's band number of participants that can participate. Yeah. Like that. Yeah. Or the latch on the end gets a degradative service. Yes. Maybe able to use something, but

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: may have difficulty. Right. It's why if you were if you were one of those multitudes of people who came up with the eclipse, you would always be on the command line, but your streaming music might not be so pleasant as you're in that traffic. I can. Yeah. Alright. So for the February a piece, for historical context, the last time this renewal came up, we were asked to do a study at the Department related to February a. That was in 2023. We went to we had an online public survey. We did six listening sessions across the state, like Southwest, Southeast, Central West, Central East, Northwest, Northeast. We had two additional online sessions where people could come and provide comments. We wrote up a legislative report, and it was submitted, I think, early January twenty twenty four. Some of the big stuff we saw, some of the public themes around that was participation, encouraged municipal participation, and then, I guess, health and safety would be a good way to put it. I think Mr. Faber has already mentioned that. I'm not a lawyer. I try to withdraw myself from conversations about radiation because we are federally preempted. I do know how ionizing radiation works from my engineering background, but as it is, that's something that we don't touch in the 248A process. I understand the concerns people have, but the 248A is not the appropriate place. Well, you can voice them whenever you'd like, but I don't think you'll be able to get the appropriate outcome you'd like from that process. So, I think some of the bigger things that we heard as it related to notification, it's done through the address, and IT system upgrade that we are undertaking at the Public Service Department to redo, I believe, EPUC and EPSD. And I think it will offer some better granularity there in terms of exactly what is submitted in the public comment, what is submitted as an intervener. So I think some of this is technology lag, that there have been changes to how people interact with this process online, and that the system we had just needs to be updated to better avoid those changes. Big municipal themes that we saw was a desire for clarity on the role of the municipalities in the process, and then some general requests from municipalities for another entity to help them craft town plans that will be given substantial damage within the So, one of the things that two point four eight A does is it offers town substantial deference based on their submitted comment and the plan kind of needs to align with the substantial difference as opposed to a town plan that was written forty years ago that say, We don't ever want to see any change that could potentially impact anything in our town. That's not necessarily given the same stifference as a town like Shelbourne, has, I think, a 40 to 50 page section on telecommunication towers and their town plan with very specific guidelines on where, how, and where they can be cited. We reached out to all the utilities. We reached out to the CTIA, and the general response that we got from everybody was that they support the February a process in general. Recognize this as a process that streamlines the citing and is an all in one place for this stuff to happen. The department's take on the February renewal. As the department strongly supports renewing and is in favor of removal of the sunset, we share some of the same concerns as the PUC related to the three year sunset. I said this when I was here three years ago, the same thing, three years. There's a short amount of time for something like this. There's lead time that are needed by the providers, there's rule changing timeframes, and that while we understand the desire to have this consistent three year check-in to three year, we would love to see it eliminated personally. The three years is a short timeframe. As Mr. Faber noted, I'll note that most of the petitions we review in telecom, and rest assured, we review every one of these petitions. Either I review it or my coworker reviews it and we go through and we open up the multitudes of comments and PDFs and site plans. And we take out the calculator and we calculate it, the actual panels, just big enough to be a de minimis, and we check the work of the providers and make sure that everything that they report is correct. We actually had one that submitted a structural analysis where we got back to them and said, Your structural analysis said that this didn't pass. I said, Oh yeah, we're sorry, we're fixing it. We do review all these, but we find that most of these are de minimis applications. Think, in 2025, about 85% to 90% were de minimis, and that the newer ones have definitely increased. I actually have some notes here where we have seen an increase of 174 total power requests in 2025.

[Speaker 0]: How many? I'm sorry.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: A 174, and I think we had 72 in 2024. Powers? Just two forty eight a petitions The in total number of power increase was nineteen and twenty twenty five versus nine and twenty twenty five. Just kinda give you an idea. Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: I'm the so there were a 174 petitions in 2025. That's what you said?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And of those 19 were?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Were new tower, regular, full petitions. And in 2024, nine of those were full petitions. I think that speaks to the cadence that we see an increase in its workflow every three years, when there's uncertainty around whether or not it will be renewed. We've seen a near doubling of new tower petitions. Because of the uncertainty, whether two forty eight a will be extended or the sunset will be pushed out for the three years.

[Speaker 0]: Do you think it's attributable only to that, or do you think it's just more companies or companies are wanting to put up more towers?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think that in my three years here, I've seen it be cyclical. I've only seen one cycle, but others have seen the same thing. Yep. Every few years, you're gonna get this because the folks are scared that February A won't get renewed. The sunset won't be pushed out.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. I can grab Morrow.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I had seen

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is there any encouragement to site towers and dead zones, or is this, like, irrespective of where

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: of service shoes? I strongly encourage that back in the telecom plan. The last telecom plan we wrote, we had an engineering study which showed that 50% of the dead zones in the state could be filled by small sub 50 foot towers. I I love to see film like that. I love to see dead zones filled in with small infrastructure because it is less obtrusive and it allows those stretches of road. When we talk about dead zones, we didn't talk about it as it applies to road miles, the stretches of road and the lack of ability for someone to call 911 in case there's a traffic accident. But, yeah, it allows those stretches of road to have service in the case that there's an emergency. Right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But there's nothing in statute now.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: There's nothing in statute that would It differentiates Correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I wanna talk about

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: something else.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry. Yep. Rutland. I think rep Campbell. Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, just to, build off of, the question from representative Morrow, I believe governor has proposed several times to incentivize power. Someone like me has been strongly opposed to that since this is really market regulated sector. So, you know, companies go where there's profit to be made and don't go where there's not profit to be made. And they also receive a lot of public funds. So and we can't really do much about it. So, you know, I appreciate the encouragement. And I also appreciate the encouragement and and some of the work that the providers have done to fill some of those holes with smaller cells. So what I wanted to ask you was about, if you could remind me, if there is a report that comes to the legislature on any regular interval around the two forty eight permits. How many there are, where they are located, complaints that you may receive from TAPI on this.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So I'm unsure if TAPI files a complete report. In our annual telecom report, we include the total number of petitions that we process, whether they were de minimis, total limited size and scope. Those all come in. What's the other part where I put that?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It was just around so it was do we get a report about the number of petitions and that data and then also complaints?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I will add that we also have publicly available products within the Public Service Department. Website for a check. We show a map of all the NOLs or towers that we have approved or been approved for the CPD for the future process. We've been down a person, it's followed by mine. But there's a place you can go and actually type in an address and it will show you the antenna location, the providers or the petitions related to the antenna, so you can drill down into the providers that are on the antenna, whether it be called the Verizon, AT and T, or one of these business to business services, And all that's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: out there. So that's all public information. So I just wonder, with this recommendation to potentially get rid of the sunset, you know, what kind of prompt there may be for citizen legislators to, you know, conduct their oversight of a largely unregulated industry. And so this report comes to our committee. Sorry for not

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I believe you're released that. It's a legislative report. I believe it's sent to you as well. This

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: last conversation right now. It's probably going to whether it's possible to require developers of of revenue powers to also provide service in one of the dead zones, or is that the kind of thing that's preempted by federal situation?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I am unsure of the answer to that. I apologize. Yeah. More than more than 50 events. Do you

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: know any to answer that question? Is that is she requiring a as as as a part of a permit to to build a new tower requiring the that that company, that project, whoever's developing that project to also build a tower in a in a in a dead zone. Is that the kind of thing that's preempted by

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, I don't I don't know if it's preempted. I'm not sure it would work. I thought they might say, no. Thanks. We won't build either of those towers. Uh-huh. But you're gonna have the providers in later today. I understand that can be asking that question. Nice.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just a yeah. I'm just trying to think of ways to ways to to get so somebody dead zone was gonna do she helps them out if 50% of the dead zones could be could be filled with towers less than 50 feet. That sounds like a not a very expensive tower.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. You should talk to them about that. I'm not sure. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Just just just curious. Another question that I forgot. It's I'll think about later.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: K. Ralph Howland?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Do each of the cellular carriers require their own antenna? Or are there companies that use subsets like build them a fiber optic cable out? Know, cell off leaves off a section. They use the same antenna so that you don't have to have three antennas on the top of every new tower. So they can talk about it

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: as my understanding that each cellular provider uses different bands and the antennas that they install support the bands that they use. Each provider has their own antenna to support their own piece of the spectrum. That said, there are instances where providers will, what's called, grow in with other folks. I believe VTOL Wireless has a number of antennas and locations, and they have agreements with AT and T and T Mobile to allow people to seamlessly use their infrastructure to make to extend the the other networks. Sure.

[Speaker 0]: Do you remember? Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. It's it's about the the three year sunset. If if a three year sunset is too short, would it have been and sort of the city has pointed out, having some oversight over this this I mean, I get it. The industry, at least not state regulated industry, seems like an important thing. It would a longer sunset be better or even more sense removing, say, the de minimis applications from the sunset provision with that. Are there other ways of getting at this is what I'm what trying to ask besides just either we have a sunset in in three years or we don't have a sunset at all?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Very possibly. I can repeat the department's position that we are in favor of removal of the sunset, but we are also not unreasonable people. K.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm assuming we can make it ten years instead of thirty years. Something like that. Something. Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: K. Okay. Thanks. I

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: just have a quick question about how this work is funded at the PUC. Is it from fees or how do we pay for administrating this?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So this is myself and my coworker, and we are funded through, I believe, of course.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And did cell providers everything to go through these steps? Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. Thank you. I have two seconds to get on my soapbox. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I thought that it's

[Speaker 0]: not why we invited her any. That's the whole point.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Actually, I I gave a overview of the telecom division to the rest of the department a few weeks ago and I have a section entitled Silkones. The reason I took this job and the reason I stayed with this job is I think that cellular service has moved to becoming really a necessity for economically disadvantaged populations and a basic utility at this point. We find that people who, I have some numbers back here, don't want to bother digging up. People who have a lower income and people who have less education consistently rely on cellular service as their primary access to the internet, and we've moved around brick and mortar, as we can see by the number of those and the mall in Rutland getting brought down to online and a digital economy. And by not providing this service ubiquitously across the state, we're doing a disservice to these disadvantaged populations. A lot of times I hear people say, well, they can get fiber to the house. In order to get fiber to your home, you first need to have $100 of disposable income to spend on fiber a month, and you need to have a home. And these are not the people that are most in need of the service. The people that are most in need of the service are the people who don't have the ways and means to come out here and advocate for themselves and to advocate in a fashion and go out and buy a jacket and a tie and come in here and talk to you about how important it is that they be able to access stuff like, agency of human services, which primarily access online, department of labor services, which are primary access online, addiction recovery services, which are primary access online. These are the populations I think that we're really trying to help, and these are the populations I think are health wide. And expansion of service, and I really do see 248A as being a part of the ability to expand that service across the state of the law. I'll step down, though.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: That's a good question. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So let me step up onto the soapbox and say, once we have critical infrastructure and utilities, I also believe we need to be doing a better job of regulating that at the federal level where we are preempted now. So Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Michael. But what what what can we work in the state to work in state regulation to

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: to to answer your surplus quite to get to get more coverage and and provide cellular service as as a utility. So we at the department are in discussions with the providers on the regular cadence, regular interval. We have used our position and the products we offer like the 248A tower map, as well as the biannual drive test to actually bring some of this to the providers and say, Hey, there needs to be service here. We know you have a plan loosely to add service in your location. Can it be extended? I think we accomplished that. Think, say, how Winds Bay Park will be covered fairly shortly with what was a lack of coverage in the Bay Park area. So we're able to use those relationships to kind of expand that. We're currently in talks with them right now about some additional information we might want to see and how that could work. But this is only encouraging. This is only encouraging. This is not legislative. We have no leverage. Is

[Speaker 0]: there

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: but here we are in building that makes levers.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: What's what what leverage can we can we make? And this is what I'm what I'm offering.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Torre? Oh, thanks. And follow-up to that, is there a budgetary action we could take or something that we could fund that can service.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And we've requested money for the subsidized towers. I'm not sure if I requested it this year, given there's a lot of other financial stuff that the state is doing. Yeah. Sorry,

[Speaker 0]: can you talk a little bit more about requesting funding for subsidized hours in the past?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, in the past it's been requested that we offer a granting program to municipalities who would like to go out with RFP to ask providers to come in and cite a tower and then we help offset some of that construction costs because as was pointed out, the tower might not necessarily be going in a profitable location. Like, you look at a town continually go back to Roxbury, because drive to Roxbury fairly regularly. It's a small town, a small town community. The amount of money it would cost to build a macro tower and then cover the town of Roxbury would take an enormous amount of time to recover due to the small amount of potential customers. So we sought money to help offset that cost. Would be given to the town, the town would do the process, and then they would help use it with the same. We were fiftyfifty on the structure construction. So

[Speaker 0]: public funds would be used to make a cell tower cheaper to build for big national cell provider.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Interesting.

[Speaker 0]: Go ahead. I think what order were we in? Let's see. So

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: would expanding the cell service preempt the need to hardwire coaxial cable or fiber cable and get additional benefit of cell service covers everybody who drives through the area, not just the No. Don't it at your home.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I don't believe so. I think they're they're different technologies. They serve different functions. I think that wired fiber to the premises is still important. Push. I think it's still required. Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So just wanna reiterate. I don't I don't know if there'll be a proposal this year, but I'm all for public funds for critical infrastructure. And I think you've done a really eloquent job explaining why this is so important, but with public funds, I think there needs to be robust public oversight. And, I mean, it it is a fact that the telecommunications company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year, federally, the end of this building to prevent being regulated. And so those two things do not work for me together. So

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Bram? Bram. The

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: 50% of the dead zones could be covered with 50 foot towers. Do you have a ballpark of how many towers that is?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I don't remember off the top of my head. I apologize. The deviation of that number is in the telecom plan, fairly, but at least a rough estimation of it. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You may not know this, and maybe this

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: is a question for the providers, but how does cellular providers make money on the tower? That is definitely not a question.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. I guess I'm. When's your next drive around assessment of dead zones? Is that in this year or next year?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It would be next year. We're just wrapping up, and we are actually in the process of putting the newest maps online. Took a little longer as we have done a lot of reformatting to make sure that they are easily readable on a cell phone, on a computer, well as on a tablet, as opposed to just a computer.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Can you read it on a cell phone that doesn't get coverage? Yeah. No. Can notify us when the SNAP serves live? Absolutely. That would great. Thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Has any other state built one of those cool mobile mapping things that you guys did with your clutcher bones and all the software and stuff? I think some other states have have worked on

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: it since, we actually were pretty far ahead of everybody else as far as that goes. We've been reached out to by various states. Talked to a I don't think it was called public safety, but public safety in Wyoming. They were wondering how we did what we did. We talked to Massachusetts, municipalities, Massachusetts wanted to do similar projects, but I'm unaware of anyone else potentially. The FCC has what I consider a less robust data set out there, I haven't seen it anywhere else.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I want commend you for pioneering that technology and that technique. It's so much better data than anyone else has. It's awesome.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you for doing that. Appreciate that.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Is this a system the department can sell for revenue?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Nope. This is four cell phones zip tied to some plexiglass with some backup batteries and some specialized software that we actually go out and get a state car and plan way ahead on how to duplicate the least amount of driving so we can cover the most amount of road miles in the city of Ponton. Unfortunately, no.

[Speaker 0]: Peter, thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I was thinking the same. That's why some said fool me. Does that work?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Your antennas are only the antennas that come with these four four phones that are attached to the plexiglass. Yeah. We look to duplicate consumers' end use experience as best as we can, and so we use commercial cell phones drive around it. We honestly believe that the results we get are the same results that someone would get if they pull their cell phone out of their pocket in that location. And

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: does a cell phone signal increase if the antenna's stationary?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We always driving. So Right.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So you don't know if if if you stop in one place, you can get a better

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It really depends on whether we're moving towards the tower or farther away from the tower. So being stationary won't change the signal. And so all you measure is that you got a signal, not that you have a quality communications. Oh, no. We actually make a test phone call to a number that we set up that can take one or three calls at a time, and we are floored whether or not the call has proven successfully, and we measure the upload and download speed of some test files to and from the phone so we can actually part of the map. We did our best to make it easily readable. It is nine, bad, better, good. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: There's a seat in the far corner if you'd like to still

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, I'm I'm good for

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: right now. Sounds like something you should

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: pedal in South Bay. Alright.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm gonna

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. Yep.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Getting back to the cost of the tower in my tree. Would answer the fee. You know, what the approximate cost is for install a 50 foot the 50

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I would not assume that I think that's a must get better suited for the the providers.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It's free if you just take the branch.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Hunters oh, yeah. I have one more question. It might not be for you. It might be for Greg. Just because we were talking about decommissioning solar front,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I was wondering how decommissioning costs would be included in tau reviews. Looking Mhmm. Further, Greg, but they don't think that currently There's no There's not something that I see parking lot on the in the PC, but I see something.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Shake my hand out. No.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: There's no decommissioning on on tau.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Even in sensitive areas.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: They're easier to take down than Mhmm. Generating.

[Speaker 0]: Hunter, thanks. We're gonna we are gonna take a break and come back with you at 10:30, if that's okay, as as the agenda says. But before we go off live, I wanted to just preview the testimony we've got coming up on this bill. So we're hearing from the wireless providers today at 01:00. And then tomorrow afternoon we're hearing from Annette Smith from Vermonters for Clean Environment. And then on Friday, I might try to move a little bit earlier in the day. We're hearing from the Vermont League of sage towns. And, my question for the committee is, please let me know, sooner than later if there's additional testimony you want to hear on this bill before we think about voting it out. Okay. So our proposal on the table is that we extend the sunset by another three years. And I just wanna make sure we're hearing from everybody that folks wanna hear from before I start thinking, you know, we've heard from everybody and let's have a committee discussion and see if we wanna change the bill or what we wanna do and and vote it out. I I don't think I wasn't planning to keep it here in our committee for weeks and weeks and weeks. This one's on the track. Okay?

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: There's some mention of the dates that aren't met and so forth. Do you think we should be revising those that statue where the thirty, sixty, one hundred and eighty days are mentioned? I mean, that's

[Speaker 0]: I don't have an opinion on that yet. I mean, we're gonna hear, you know, we're gonna hear more testimony. You can ask folks what they think. I'm just sort of giving a heads up that, like, there are more people we think we need to hear from who aren't on the agenda. Now it's time let me know to let me know. We'll get them scheduled. And then after we've heard from all the people we wanna hear from, you know, we can start raising, like, what about this? What about that? And raise that now. So that's on

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Well, no.

[Speaker 0]: That's on your mind whether we should extend those

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I haven't gotten any comment from any constituent who said that if something went a hundred and eighty two days, but more of the comments I get are that they don't feel that they get to participate in the citing process, that they are removed from the process in one way or another.

[Speaker 0]: So let me start. So questions.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Okay. Just to add to that question, just the comparison with Act two fifty in terms of Online. Robust public participation, more capacity for it. I just might might say, get a little I'm trying to think

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: of who can do this. I'm just thinking of an attorney. Well, it used to be who

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: did we used to hear tomorrow?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm sure we'll get a lot of suggestions after

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: we've contemplated this. Yeah. Someone from.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And that should be a pretty simple chart.

[Unidentified committee staff or member]: Yeah. There's probably a report already on the environment committee. I should go look for it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Can you reach out? Yeah. K. Because I think from testimony we took yesterday, we're hearing that the criteria For a full. For a full review lineup. Mhmm. So the question is timeline, the robustness and thoroughness and ability of citizens to participate. And then I think we heard yesterday that some of the some of the criteria were not allowed are preempted federally, that we might wanna weigh in on, but we can't. Okay. Alright. We'll just keep the questions coming so I could make sure you know, I don't wanna I don't wanna schedule it for a vote and then find out that people have a lot of questions that we didn't get answered. So this is just my advance. Like, you know, can we vote this out at the end of next week? I don't know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: See, the other thing I'm wondering is about it's being somehow pulling out the de minimis process from from the question of the of the sunset. If 90% of the application is de minimis, then then and there's sort of analogous to rooftop solar, for example, that makes that easy. And and maybe we have a just continuing sunset on larger projects. I don't know how how you how you would use that. Right? I

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: don't know either.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. I made it that way. I made a note of that. So extend deadlines, question mark. How How does this compare with Act two fifty in terms of public participation, capacity for to participate, notification, pull out de minimis, question mark. So if 90 if this is a big bulk of the applications and we see this big cyclical uptick that the department finds burdensome and these applications really are, you know, no big deal. Do we make that permanent and keep the sun the regular legislative review only in place for limited scope and large? Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Actually, this question might be able to be answered right now based and building off of rep Campbell's question. The de minimis applications, are they largely for fixed wireless as opposed to the cellular providers?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: What what do you mean by fixed wireless?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Like VTOL.

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, no. They're they're for the cellular. You're you're swapping out at fence.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. And so it's basically just maintenance?

[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Mostly well, maintenance, but putting in newer equipment.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Keeping up with technology. Right.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications and Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. It's maintenance and, yeah, swapping out all for the for five g antennas or maybe adding a new panel that can handle more concurrent users to increase capacity, stuff like that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: K. And then just air traffic control. I guess we'll see how this all works out, but I I think the senate, even as we speak, is taking testimony on a bill that would simply make the whole statute current. It it would eliminate the sunset. So we do have multiple approaches crossing around. And the other thing I don't know is whether if we vote this out, whether it goes straight to the floor or whether it goes to another committee for review. So I've I've some air traffic control things to figure out as well. That's another reason I don't wanna keep this lingering around in our committee. I feel like there's a lot of different approaches and maybe different committees that need to take a look, and the senate's got its idea going. And so I'm thinking we should try to focus our efforts on getting this out. Okay. Why don't we take a fifteen minute break? We can go off live. And