Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alex (Committee Assistant)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back, It's Wednesday, January 14, and this is House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We are continuing our testimony on h five twenty seven, an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 VSA to 48A. We're going to hear this afternoon from our wireless providers. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia Boost.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: Christopher Howland, Revan Floor. Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham 2.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. And in the room,

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: Chittenden from the Vermont Chamber.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Claire Buckley from Leonein Public Affairs representing CTIA.

[Chris Rice (MMR, for Verizon)]: Chris Rice from MMR here on behalf of Verizon. Dana, new class leaders.

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

[Unknown Committee Member]: And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we're introducing ourselves.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs, for AT&T)]: Hello. Nick Sherman with Leone Public Affairs on behalf of AT and T.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks, Nick. Alright. We have invited three witnesses to speak with us today. And I don't know if you all have a preferred order, but we can turn it over to you.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Yes, madam chair. I believe the the consensus was for me to go first, if that works for everybody.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sounds good. So for the record, if you could introduce yourself.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Absolutely. My name is Jeremy Crandall. I'm here on behalf of CTIA representing the Wireless Industry Trade Association in support of house bill five twenty seven. I will just say at the top, thank you for the opportunity to present remotely to you all. I enjoyed joining you all in the community room last year on another wireless topic. It is good to see you all again. The sun is also kind of creeping to my right here as I go here, so forgive me on that. But yeah, so as I dive in, I do want to begin by level setting a little bit from a provider perspective the kind of work that we are ultimately talking about as it relates to Vermont's two forty eight a citing law. I have been listening to dialogue for the last couple of days, so I wanted to start there. So at its core, from our perspective, sighting of a cell tower is technical, it's complicated, it's expensive, and most of all, it is admittedly a time intensive endeavor. The average length of time to site a tower from the inception of an idea to put a tower somewhere to its actual activation to serve the community where it's placed, that customarily spans give or take about two years. And I wanna go a little deeper on what that actual work looks like on the ground. And so in in no particular order, it begins though with analysis of engineering, surrounding sites and locations, local traffic and population, and I would say just as importantly, its expected growth both at the time and then its expected growth into the future. For the tower itself, every proposed site has to be evaluated for environmental concerns, construction constraints, safety and security, and other elements. Every cell tower is required to comply with FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, environmental reg regulations. There have to be evaluations of impacts on wetlands, storm water management, drainage, and other elements. And then there also is required pre construction reviews that have to be completed by qualified experts to ensure compliance with the environmental. These are on the federal side. Environmental Protection Act, Historical Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and then any federal aviation rules or impacts as well. Now you'll notice that thus far, I haven't even said the you know, anything about Vermont's two forty eight two forty eight a requirements just yet. Now as you've all heard, and I will expand upon a little bit here, as you know, are a range of built in processes and mandates that are specific to Vermont that are placed on our companies when we do undertake a project. But I do want to emphasize this point for you all as we discuss this. It's to really emphasize that it is in the best interest of our companies for this process, which is just as capital intensive as it is time intensive. It's important for us for that for this process and ultimately deployment to be both effective and successful. We want that site to effectively serve the needs of the location, whether it's first responders, it's local residents and businesses, or others that are ultimately gonna utilize that deployment, that cell tower. Now the reason that this element matters so much is because I do want to share a few data points about the realities on the ground when it comes to wireless service needs in Vermont. Now as you all know far better than I do, in a rural mountainous state like Vermont, you know that there are many communities that still struggle with reliable and effective connectivity. But if you pull back and look at consumers as a whole in Vermont and nationwide, on the other side when it comes to current demand, demand for wireless services, and when I say that, I'm talking about the amount of data that we all use on our phones and other wireless devices every single day. That is growing exponentially every single year. And I'll give you an exact data point on that. In 2024 alone, consumers used a 132,000,000,000,000 megabytes of data. Now that may seem like a large number. That's 30,000,000,000,000 more megabytes than the year before. And if you look at a graph of how much data we use every year, it is growing exponentially every single year, and that's the case in Vermont. And so for us, the most effective way that we respond to that reality is by investing in infrastructure. And so for our providers, that has amounted to approximately $30,000,000,000 every year in private funding since 2018 to grow the networks. But at its core, these investments do very much depend on robot, reliable, and predictable state and local siting policies. And so that brings us to this conversation today about Vermont's two forty eight a process and the bill that representative Sibilia has put forward. And so I do really want to emphasize if I leave you with nothing else, it's sort of this phrase, and that it's Vermont does have in place a predictable, workable, and I would say well balanced framework for wireless sighting that's reflective of those realities that I just outlined. You've all heard from a number of government officials I know and staff about how two forty eight a actually works. I do want to emphasize a few elements of what they've shared that speak to the requirements that are in place right now in the state of Vermont. And so as you know, current law gives the PUC the ability to ensure, and if you could say requires us to to ensure that our companies comply with environmental and historical impacts. The two forty a law says specifically that any project, quote, cannot have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air or water quality, public health and safety, or scenic corridors. Going beyond that, applicants are required, and I know there's a lot of discussion about this, applicants are required to provide that sixty days advance notice, and that's not even talking about the actual timeline of the application process. We have to provide that sixty day advance notice to the National Resources Agency, Transportation, Division of Historic Preservation, and the Department of Public Service. Now the last piece that I really want to emphasize is that we do also feel strongly that it protects the important role of municipal governments and communities in the siting process. And so on this final point, I do think it's important to emphasize what that means in practice, not from my perspective, but from what is in place in the two forty eight statute. There's nothing in 248A now or in the future as we understand it that changes the fact that states and local governments maintain jurisdiction over citing applications from wireless providers. And so specifically, as you learn, any affected municipalities or regional planning commissions and local landowners have to be given the sixty days notice of even an application being filed. They can request local meetings. And then this last really important piece is that the stance and position of local governments is given that substantial deference on any siting project. And so again, all these provisions exist in current law, and we believe speak to the well balanced framework that's in place in Vermont. I'll just close here with saying on one final point, we support House Bill five twenty seven. Again, thank you to representative Sibilia for bringing it forward. You know, the bill would enable a three year extension. We would support a longer period. I know there was also discussion of an outright elimination of the sunset. I did emphasize at the top deployment of a cell tower, it is not a speedy process. Three years is is quite a short window as it relates to the predictability for our members when it comes to this kind of work. But again, you know, support House Bill five twenty seven or a different type of approach with the sunset or elimination. So thank you for the opportunity to present. Again, appreciate the ability to do it remotely and happy to have a dialogue here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Questions for, yeah, for Powell?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: So before you make a 60 application, you've already done some pre investigation as to the feasibility location, and you may even entered into some land contracts with landowners prior to making the sixty day pre notification.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Yes. Thank you for that question. So on the last piece, I would have to get back to you in terms of I understand what you're asking about contractual agreements with landowners. I cannot speak to that level of granularity on your question. More globally, would go back to what I shared that this isn't the type of thing where it happens in a matter of weeks or a matter of months. And so what I understand from our network, people out in the do this work out in the field is that yes, there's significant amount of advanced planning that's done. Because at the end of the day, I will also go back to that substantial deference piece in 248A. It is in our best interest. Ultimately, our members want to cite a tower in a location. We ultimately obviously want that approved. And so if the local municipality or other stakeholders are, you know, voiceful in their opposition, that's gonna carry a lot that carries a lot of weight as far as we understand it in Vermont law.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think one thing we heard earlier is this did actually really resonate with me is that the PUC does give substantial deference to municipal plans, the quality and I guess level of detail of those municipal plans is all over the place. So some towns have great municipal plans, some towns don't. And I I know that's not I I'm not really seeing you to reply. I'm just saying that that's I think that's reality in Vermont.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: I appreciate the feedback on that. Absolutely. I thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, This

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: is a little bit side topic. Can you explain or do you know how self companies earn money off of towers? How does building towers help cell cell companies? How is it economical for them? Can you explain that?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Go ahead.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry. Conceptually, anyway. Yes.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Thank you for that question. So and I know again, similarly, I know there was some dialogue about this in the earlier session. So, you know, at a at a core level, you know, carriers, you know, have customers, they have subscribers, you know, for individual carriers. So, know, they make up a core element obviously of each of our companies. You know, if you subscribe to, AT and T or T Mobile or Verizon or any other type of provider. But I do think it's important to also add if a tower is owned by an infrastructure company and not owned by a carrier, then there's often contractual arrangements or agreements between the tower company and the providers that utilize the tower.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, so the the companies that utilize the tower are paying rent or something to the the tower owner in that case. Right?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Customarily. I, in fairness to the both sides of that agreement, I I not sure if they technically refer to it as rent, but there's some type of contractual agreement. Yes, sir.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Some sort of fee. Well, anyway, so I guess what I'm trying to understand is a company, AT and T, let's say, I have AT and T, I pay them a certain amount every month, whether they build another tower or not. So how does building another tower, how does that help AT and T, except that it increases customer satisfaction by not having more dead zones? So I guess I'm just trying to understand the economics a little bit.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: No. I understand your question. Really, I think it's important to really keep in mind the direct through line between connectivity in a community and that demand number that I spoke to just a moment ago. You know, and I'm I'd be happy to provide this to the committee after the fact. But we have a graph, you know, that that CTIA has published that shows the amount of wireless services. Think all of us have a cell phone in that room. And if you look at the amount of data that we use on whether it's a cell phone that you have in front of you or any other wireless device and multiply that by all the constituents and folks in your community, that amount of data that's being used is going up exponentially every single year. And the best way to think about it is the amount of wireless infrastructure needed to support that amount of traffic as those numbers grow is staggering. And it's not just, you know, your constituents. It's public safety, first responders, and, you know, the wireless needs that they have and and local businesses. And so, again, at a core level, you know, I understand your question completely. What is the, you know, what is the positive outcome for your constituents as a result of this two forty?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, here. Go ahead. No. Go ahead. Outcome for the cell companies, I you know, how do they how do they earn more money by having more cell towers?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Well, you know, each consumer has a has a plan with an individual cell carrier, and, you know, that costs a certain amount amount of money each month. And the the services that those carriers provide, whether it's how many devices you have and the amount of, flexibilities that every type of plan that a consumer has with whatever provider they have is there's a cost built in with that. But I do think that comes back to your original question of what is the purpose of these cell towers and what are they doing now and into the future? And they're serving those needs of your constituents and your consumers because those that amount of need is going to continue to grow. It is continuing to grow.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, I guess I'm still not really understanding, but I'll let it go for now. Thank

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: you Competition.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: If I could follow-up on that, is it fair to say that AT and T makes more money when they put up a new tower in two ways? One is because it expands their footprint so there are more customers who have access and can sign up so you get new subscribers. And two, existing subscribers get better service so they're less likely to jump to Verizon. Is that a fair summary?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: In terms of the financial question, I will defer to our individual members. What I will say to your question is the needs that exist right now here in in January 2026 as it relates to the wireless consumers in Vermont is not the same as what will exist a month from now or a year from now. They are gonna continue to grow, And there's infrastructure needed to be able to do that, whether regardless of the amount of providers that are providing it, the needs from constituents, from businesses, from first responders will continue to grow as it has been for the last decade.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, Brent Howland.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Would it be fair to say that a cell phone goes to its uses the tower of its strongest source. So by adding a additional tower, the load then gets shared between two towers rather than one.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Yes. So I understand the question. I am not a network engineer, first and foremost, but that it that is my I have the same understanding. I can understand what you're getting out of how does this functionally work. You know, I the the best way that I think you can think about it is, you know, when you are in a location where, you know, if you're in a if you're in a sporting event stadium, you know, if you think back five or ten years ago when you know, what was you know, if you were at Gillette Football Stadium at five or ten years ago, how responsive was your wireless wireless device compared to where it is now? And I will tell you that that is a good example of where the infrastructure has grown and the devices that we use and the the speeds that exist on on our wireless networks continue to get better every single year, but there is a cost to that and there's an infrastructure need to be able to do that.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: Rutland, I'm just curious if I don't know as much about telecom. Is there any public disclosure of your build out plans? Or is the only way the state knows is when we get these sixty day notice things? Because it is essential infrastructure, right? I'm just wondering, a lot of our essential infrastructure we have planning mechanisms and so we can know what's coming down the road and that's a key part. And I know we have a telecommunications plan in the state, but it's not clear to me what information comes from the providers that could assist in planning work.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: No, I understand the question representative. First and foremost, I think it's important to keep in mind that our members are private companies. And so at some level, there's competitive element to it, and how much information is shared in that regard, I think is an important piece to keep in mind here. These are private entities. But at a core level, I will go back to it wasn't just a platitude that I shared at the in early in my testimony. It's in our best interests for these deployments to be effective and be successful and serve the communities that they're serving. Because these are not low cost investments that they are ultimately making. I will also share that I do know that our members often share the types of investments they are making in individual states or individual communities as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But probably not those long term build out plans because as you mentioned, these are private companies and they don't want to tip their hand to their competitors about where they're planning to build and when.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: I'll so that's a that's a fair question that I'll defer to individual companies to answer, but I do think it's also important to point back to that the wireless needs of Vermont in individual communities continue to evolve every single year. You know, I mean, at at a core level, a cell tower is a is a static deployment, and then, you know, our companies look at what are the needs one year, three years, five years down the line, but ultimately, they need to be nimble as well.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do we have any other questions for Jeremy? Great. Thank you for joining us. Appreciate your time.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Looks like Ryan is up next.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Yes. Good afternoon, Chair James and Vice Chair Campbell. Thank you for having me. Can everybody hear me okay?

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

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Okay, great.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well, my

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: name is Ryan Clark. I am the external affairs director for AT and T here in Vermont. I live in New Hampshire, so not far away. And unfortunately, I can't be there today because I've been requested to be in Portsmouth for another commission meeting this evening, so I'll be traveling there. But thank you for allowing me to testify remotely. I am testifying in support of House Bill five twenty seven. You know, AT and T's ability to invest and expand coverage in the state of Vermont efficiently and reliably is extremely important. Since 2022, we filed more than 166 of these applications to the PUC via section 248A to improve our network, to upgrade our network, and then that includes more than 75 of those certificates of public good that we've received in 2025 alone. So that just shows a little bit of the breadth of how often we're using 248A to improve our network, to add coverage. And importantly, that's not, you know, a new cell tower every single time. You know, we file for 75 applications in 2025. Those can be upgrades, as you've heard from previous testimony. They can be, you know, small cells, they can be new cell sites as well. So it kind of runs the gamut of all types of coverage improvements for us. But Section 248A is again an extremely reliable process for us to use, and it works very well. Without 248A, we would expect the process of permitting cell tower or an upgrade to double, you know, in time taken to do that permitting process. And that would significantly reduce our ability to plan and to invest and improve our network in the state of Vermont. Between 2020, and just to give you a little bit of a look at kind of how much we are investing, in addition to kind of the previous numbers I provided, between 2020 and 2024, we invest more than $90,000,000 in our network. So it's a substantial amount of money that we are planning and using from a capital perspective to improve our network for Vermonters,

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

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: our first responders and public safety. We've got a significant commitment to public safety in Vermont for our FirstNet network, which is our public private partnership with the federal government. So it's really important for us to make sure that we have a reliable avenue to do our permitting processes. It not only is important that we have that reliable avenue, but we are really committed to building, you know, those strong relationships with our communities here in Vermont. You know, we make it a priority to follow all of the rules to make sure that we're doing all the notification processes effectively and publicly. You know, if there are any concerns from the community, any requests for hearings, we always make sure that we're following all those rules and making sure we're hosting those events. Know, our customers live in those communities, and we're not in the business of alienating our customers by, you know, going around and building towers or, you know, building them against a butter's wishes. And that's an important piece of the puzzle for us is making sure that, you know, if they need a second balloon test, if there is an environmental study that they need to have greater assurances that we're following all of those rules. And we have, I can think of a number of cell sites that we're actively trying to build right now, where we are working with the departments, working with abutters, you know, and really actively engaging them and sometimes on a daily basis to make sure we're working to fulfill all their needs and make sure if a project needs to get changed, we change it. So it's, again, it's not something that, you know, we have these meetings and we host them or we go to a public hearing and we don't take that feedback. More often than not, we are adjusting original proposals, particularly if we've got, say we have a search ring in a certain town, you know, we'll adjust in fine tune and tweak until we get it just right. So that way everybody involved feels good about the situation, and then we go out and build our tower. So it's a really important piece of the puzzle for us to make sure we're working with the towns and the municipalities and the PUC to find mutually acceptable solutions for our equipment. You know, and I'm working to summarize my testimony. Have submitted full written comments so that way you can have it, but you know, I want to close and I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I know I don't want to reiterate too much of what Jeremy said and what others have said, but 248A is extremely important to our investment strategy. We see it as a reliable tool that we can use to make sure in the long term we know what we're dealing with and we know how to permit. Supporting H527 is easy for us to do. It's extending the sunset. It's again something we find very valuable and we appreciate representative Sibilia for submitting it. The only additional we would have would encouraging the committee to consider permanently extending the sunset, you know, permanently extending it or even out to five, seven years would add a lot of value. Again, that just provides that reliability in our investment strategy. You can see, if we're investing over four years, 90 or so million dollars, know, that number I expect to grow. And, you know, we are committed to building out our network in Vermont for the communities, for first responders, for students to learn and educate remotely. And having that sunset out even further just provides that additional level of assurance to the company that we know, all right, we can plan for this because we've got a strong permitting process in place. So I'll close there. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I know there were a few questions that had already risen that are maybe more suited for the company specific as opposed to the trade association. I'd be happy to answer those.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great, Brad Campbell.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure, thank you. So you mentioned that supporting eliminating the sunset or stretching it out more than three years. One idea that occurred has occurred during the course of the discussion is eliminating the sunset for the de minimis projects. You heard testimony that that represented about 90% or so of the applications in a typical year, the applications through 248A. Then perhaps stretching the sunset out a little bit longer for the intermediate and large projects, Would that provide relief to a company like AT and T? Would be a valuable thing?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: I think, yeah, absolutely. I mean, any sort of extension, whether it's de minimis or the, you know, new construction, think would be valuable. Would certainly appreciate it any sort of extension because it just provides that reliability. We'd like to see it for everything. But if we start by, you know, piece by piece to add extension, think that would be valuable.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that's interesting. I also asked about the economics of cell towers, I think you would defer to companies in particular. Is the way that AT and T justify the expensive building towers? Is just competition with other providers? You don't earn money off of a tower per se. Right. Would be my guess. So is that really what it's all about? Just competition with other providers?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Correct. I mean, I think if you look at it, the telecommunications industry is an extremely competitive environment. I mean, we all see all the advertisements on the television. You know, it's a unique industry because we all are battling over very small amounts of customers who are either willing to transfer or willing switch carriers or new customers who are getting the phone for the first time and are looking for a phone subscription. So having the best network possible is extremely important. And I don't want to speak for the other carriers, but extremely important for AT and T because it allows us to keep the customers we have and ensure that they're not going to, you know, go trade in their phone and go to a different carrier. But it also allows us to go after new customers because we can prove and show that, you know, our network is capable of fulfilling their needs. And as Jeremy said, those needs continue to grow. So yeah, we're not making any money off of that specific cell tower necessarily, but it allows us to go after customers, which is where, you know, obviously where bill them and then we get our money from that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Got it. Thanks. So what I'm wondering is what would provide the what would grease the wheels for AT and T to invest more in filling in some of the dead zones that we have? We have a lot of dead zones in Vermont. It's difficult with a lot of hills and trees and everything. A hard place to serve. Especially along major transportation routes, it seems like it would be really to have a lot fewer dead zones. So what would help AT and T incentivize AT and T to build in those dead zones? Heard, just to add one thing, we heard from the PUC representative that I think something like 50% of the dead zones in the state could be filled with as small as a 50 foot tower. Which maybe the size of the tower doesn't have an awful lot of impact on the on the cost, but it sounds like it would be a relatively modest investment in order to be able to fill at least a significant portion of the dead zones that we have.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: No, that's a good question. Think 248A allows us to do that, right? 248A is an extremely important piece of this puzzle. But we're looking at building out our network, we often look at dead zones where we don't have coverage. You know, a big part of what we've been doing, I would say since 2018, I would say to look at some of these areas that don't have coverage is through our FirstNet partnership with the federal government. FirstNet and the federal government in the state of Vermont have requested certain areas that we go target and build. And, they tell AT and T where to go and we go out and build those towers. So that's a part of filling in the rural puzzle for AT and T is FirstNet and working to make sure we're filling the gaps for public safety, which in turn helps our commercial users as well. So that's a big part of filling in the gaps. But, you know, I think at the end of the day, providing the best coverage possible and, you know, covering the entire state of Vermont is, you know, a goal. I mean, AT and T's slogan is connecting changes everything and making sure our customers are connected wherever they are, as much as they can be, is our goal. And so we're going out and our network teams are constantly assessing the network to see where we need to go build and using the capital that the company provides them with to go out and build that in Vermont. And, you know, I'd like to say, you know, we could cover every inch of it tomorrow, but we go step by step and keep chipping away at it. And, you know, towers are expensive to build, whether they're 50 or 100 feet, You know, I don't know if going to 50 feet, because it's not just the material that gets you from 50 to 100 feet. You know, it's all the expense that goes into, all right, we're paying our lawyers to do all the permitting, we're paying, you know, the network engineers to do all the, you know, of it. And then, you know, the contracting with either a tower company or others to go out and engineer and build it, and let alone bring fiber out to that tower and energy backhaul. So when you factor all that in, it's not the 50 feet that's preventing us from going wide. It's, you know, I don't know if that's the answer to build a ton of towers at 50 feet, hopefully I could answer my question or answer your question in there somewhere.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, thanks. Just one quick point, that is we also heard that the first net build out was pretty much done except maybe for one tower that's still still to be built. Is that is that correct?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: So that's the first five years. So we we we had a contract with each state Vermont included from 2018 to 2023 to build out towers in the state. Are that original contract was extended because of certain difficulties at a few remaining cell sites. That contract is still ongoing and we have one to two, but I would say specifically one location that proves to be difficult, but we are continuing to make progress and working very closely with the departments involved, who are well aware and we're providing updates on a monthly basis to them of our progress. But the FirstNet contract will continue on. We've got a twenty five year contract with the federal government to provide public safety with access to FirstNet. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Before FirstNet Tower is coming then.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Correct. But that's the federal government. So the FirstNet authority is now, they have additional reinvestment dollars, and we are at this point waiting for them to release those federal funds to AT and T, and they're gonna, but they will tell us where they want it. So it's another round of funding, and they'll tell us where they want us to go build towers in Vermont. And that's a partnership with the FirstNet authority in the state of Vermont who are working together to identify those locations.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, oh, sir. Grip Sibilia. Thanks, Ryan.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I have a couple of questions around public process, public input. And I'm thinking I first wanna ask you about that one or or two towers person at towers that you're having difficulty with and what that's about, broadly speaking, the difficulty.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: So that would potentially take, you know, half an hour to go through all of that. I'd be happy to follow-up and have a further conversation with you. The primary tower that I would say has been difficult for us to cite has been Granville. It's a tower located in Granville. There have been a number of issues around and I don't want to go into too much detail because I'm not doing that work on a daily basis. It's primarily Will Dodge, who is one of our attorneys who's been conducting that on a daily basis and unfortunately, he wasn't able to testify today, but I'm sure he'd be happy to fill in some more information on this as well. He is intimately aware with each step of the process, but it has revolved around environmental studies, a butter's land use and easements. So we often will do an easement. So say we're gonna be using land in a certain area, then

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we That's fine, Brian. That's enough. That's actually, you've answered my question. What,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is there

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: any different requirement? You're able to use 248A for the first night towers? Yes. And then, we had asked a question this morning. I don't know if you have any familiarity given that Vermont has Act 248A, for citing. Are you aware of differences in the public process and public's ability to engage between Act two fifty, which would be what we would default to if 248A were not here? Are you aware of that or able to speak to that or not really?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Not really. I think that would probably best again for for Will Dodge who uses 248A and is intimately aware of of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, madam chair. Yep. Yeah. I think okay.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Go ahead, Mitch. Just a quick question. Could you just on your big towers, can you

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: give me

[Unknown Committee Member]: approximate investment cost from start to finish to build one of those towers?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Yeah, unfortunately, there really isn't an average cost because each tower is so unique. I mean, we could have a location like I mentioned in Granville where it is the cost is significant. And I don't even want to in the millions of dollars to build that one location due to all the fees included. Or we could have a colocation that is straightforward. And I would say we prefer colocating whenever possible. But that is a straightforward process that, you know, I would say is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to add our equipment to. So it's a significant swing of cost based off of the location, the terrain, how far do we have, you know, how far is the nearest energy provider? How far away is the nearest fiber provider? It is a significant range.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Did you have a current map of your coverage area in Vermont that you can provide the committee?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: I could provide a public map. It won't have granular detail on each specific cell tower, but I could provide a map, I believe that we we could make public. I would have to check with our team internally, though, to make sure that that's appropriate.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Okay, that would be appreciated. We'll do that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I'm sorry, can I ask? That struck me with a slightly curious answer, like, don't you publish maps of your coverage in your promotional materials?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Yes, we have maps of our coverage. But like I said, I want to check if our network team would be comfortable doing like a cell site map or just a general coverage map. I'm not sure which, you know, if they how granular detail they would feel comfortable because it is all proprietary information, as we've said. So I would just like to get feedback from our network team about what they would feel comfortable sharing, but I would be happy to share some level of detail certainly with the committee.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: When

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: you say extend available cell fiber, you don't put in your own fiber from your own terminus somewhere to bring it out to a site?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Correct. We do not own fiber is my understanding in the state of Vermont. We use fiber providers to bring the fiber backhaul to our cell towers. In other states where we own the fiber network, we would use our own fiber. But that is not the case in Vermont.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: But you know who those cellular or the fiber providers are?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Can you repeat your question?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Do you know who the fiber providers are? Are they your competition that you're

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Not typically our competition. No. Because they're providing a different service. I can get a list of the fiber providers that we use in Vermont, though.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Okay. Thank you.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Do we have anything else for Ryan? Okay. Great. Ryan, thank you so much. Stephanie, welcome.

[Stephanie Lee (Verizon – Government Relations, New England)]: Hello. How is everybody this afternoon?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Good. Thanks for joining us. If you could just identify yourself for the record.

[Stephanie Lee (Verizon – Government Relations, New England)]: Of course. So my name is Stephanie Lee and I lead government relations for Verizon in New England and have been working in Vermont with Chris Rice, who's in the room with you, for about seven or eight years. So we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. And I being busy legislative season in multiple states, I had to be in another state this morning, so didn't have enough time to drive up. But so fortunate to have this opportunity to talk to you and happy to answer questions. If I could say ditto to most of what Ryan presented, would, because as our competitors are investing, companies do not wanna be left behind, right? So Verizon also has been investing heavily in Vermont. I want to start with, first of all, we support House Bill five twenty seven and really find the Section two forty eight-eight process very helpful as we are investing in our network assets across the state of Vermont. It is one of the better processes, I will say, because it streamlines things at the state level. It provides an effective framework for the deployment of our facilities while also balancing out the opportunity for municipalities and other stakeholders within the community to weigh in. Verizon has been invest millions of dollars each year. And in fact, it's tens of millions each year. And in at a similar amount, and I don't wanna do the me too, but what AT and T is doing, we're investing at a similar clip every year because states like Vermont, there's a couple of things happening. One, we've already talked about it. It's a big state. It's a mountainous state. It's a rural state. So there are still areas that need more coverage. But at the same time, as Jeremy talked about where we have population, people gathering and a lot of usage, people are using the network even more, right? More terabytes of data every single year and it's growing exponentially. So while we're expanding coverage, we have to also balance where we're building capacity, especially in areas where lots of people are gathering, whether it's for work or recreation. Like you'll see that in areas like the ski resorts or near the colleges or hospitals in other places where people gather. But in addition, it's really important that we're getting to more and more people around the state because as you know, in a place like Vermont, some of the more rural areas have not had the investment that some of the more suburban or urban areas have. So our goal is also to help bridge that digital divide. And since 2020, we have ramped up investments in the state and we're continuing to invest significantly in the state so that we can get to more places. And it is one of the things our goal is to get everywhere. We're very proud of our contiguous coverage, but there's still work to do. We know that the connectivity, especially in rural states where there's a lot of recreation and people are outdoors and doing a lot of activities, that it's also a public safety issue that people have that connectivity that they need. So we want to make sure that there's a framework that continues to be in place that will enable us to continue to invest. One of the things that I did want to point out as well is that we would like to see the sunset either extended or eliminated altogether because wireless providers like Verizon are taking a long range view of our network requirements. So to kind of get to some of the questions in the discussion earlier, we look out several years and try to map out where we might go based on the information we have at a given point in time. And then we chip away at making those investments. It's hard to really forecast out five years because usage patterns change, There could be more demand somewhere because all of a sudden now there's more population in an area that more development going on in an area that hadn't had development before, and we have to be able to pivot. But the longer range view, having a process that doesn't sunset in three years can help us be more predictable in our long range view and actually achieving the goals of that capital plan and helps us budget year in and year out much more predictably. So again, happy to answer any questions. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and I wanna express support for H527. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. I think Brett Campbell has a question.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yep. Sure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry to jump in right away, but I have to. So the question about whether just eliminating the sunset for de minimis projects, Maybe you heard that when I was talking to Ryan. Is that is that a a provision that would be very useful to Verizon's?

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

[Stephanie Lee (Verizon – Government Relations, New England)]: think anything is helpful, but I will a point I do wanna make is the projects that take a longer period of time and are much more complicated are the mid size or larger tower projects, especially when you're going to new areas where we don't have as many facilities and you might need to cite something new. So those projects can take three Under the best of circumstances, they can take three years from inception to actually bringing that site on air. That is not unusual, especially in an area that might be mountainous or very rural and you don't have access to the fiber or the power, sources nearby.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's a very good point. So what would be if, we did decide to extend the sunset out beyond five years but wanted to keep a sunset for purposes of keeping the legislature engaged and especially new members we have a lot of turnover every two years new members engaged in the process of analyzing how it's going. What in your view would be a good time horizon? If it'd be on three years, would it be five years, six years?

[Stephanie Lee (Verizon – Government Relations, New England)]: I don't think there's a magic number, but I do think five years creeps up pretty quickly. Three years really comes up quickly and you see it too as a legislature because every session you have to address this, whether it's in the middle of the session or at the end of the session. So five years would be helpful, but more years would be even better than that, I think, so that it gives a little bit more runway and a little bit more of a predictable path. There's not a magic number. I'd say more than five, but you have to do what you feel comfortable with. And I think some of the experts at the PUC and the Department of Public Service might have some ideas on what they think is appropriate based on the work they have on their plate.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I have a similar request that I made to Ryan. If you could provide us with a coverage map of Vermont for the Verizon network, that would be much appreciated.

[Stephanie Lee (Verizon – Government Relations, New England)]: Yes, and just to answer your question, we do have general coverage maps available on our website that customers or potential customers can put in their addresses and see if there's coverage. Where the nuances are is sometimes there'll be coverage in your neighborhood, but the back corner of your house might not have coverage. And I think we've all run into that or even inside your house, you might not have coverage, But we do have maps available online. I can provide that. And I will check with our network team as Ryan is doing to see if we can provide something that's a little more granular than what you'll see, which will look like if you look at the state of Vermont, it's going to look like coverage is almost everywhere. But then you'll say, wait a second, I know down the street from my house, at my kid's school, they don't have very good coverage. So let me see what we can provide, but I'll also make sure a link is available. So people just want to play with what's available online, they can do that.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Anybody? Great. So I think we've heard clearly. I mean, we have you know, there are three divergent paths here. If we do if the legislature takes no action this year, then it's our understanding that the no more applications could be filed under the two forty eight a process, and it would, I guess, by default revert to act two fifty and municipal decisions. If we pass five twenty seven as introduced, we stay with our current vibe of taking another look at this every three years. And then, I'm hearing the wireless providers requesting, supporting the three year, but also requesting a longer time frame, out to five years or something, or maybe even eliminating the legislative review in the sunset altogether, which I think is an approach that they're taking a look at in the Senate. So I think I think I'm clear on your preference. Does anybody have any more questions or comments? We were taking a look at maybe voting on this next week, some week. I think we're looking at voting on this maybe as soon as next week. Okay. Great. Thank you all so much for joining us. Appreciate it. And, I think why don't we stay live just for a minute, to hear if, committee has any conversation. Anybody have any? I already mentioned is there anybody else we want to hear from? Love to hear any comments, questions, concerns folks have, or if people are starting to formulate, opinions.

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

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: But I have a follow-up question. It's something that came up regarding FirstNet. I believe one of the testimonies had said that the FirstNet authority at the federal level works with the state of Vermont to help pick locations for future towers, and I'd like clarity on who that is. I'm assuming it's the department at the department. Department of Safety.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: It's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Corey. You talked to Biden here last year. Do you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: wanna learn more about that? We can invite

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. If possible. Okay. I mean, it's building out the network is is a crucial issue when we won't need to deal with it. You know? And if this failed Okay. If we wanna get it out next week, then we could do it another time. But I think that's a crucial issue for us to look at moving forward is how we, you know, fill in these dead zones for public safety. And as I didn't realize that, you know, something from the state actually has input into that process, like, find out how substantial that is, what that process looks like.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Could you please send a testimony request to Alex? Find out who it is you wanna hear from, and she'll try to she'll try to plug them in. And, obviously, we'll move the committee vote if we haven't taken all the testimony our committee members wanna hear. That's not set in stone. I'm just trying to make sure we keep things moving along this year.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's all. Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So if you could send that to Alex.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Brady. I can't remember his last name. Department of Public Safety. They may know it. Yeah. AT and T may know it. Yeah. Corey Chase. Hey.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Corey Chase.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: At the Department of of Public Public Safety to testify on H 527 and in particular any possible intersection with Chris Smith. And Chris, you can explain in your email what what you'd like to hear about. Okay. We

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: heard from the I guess we call them the two big carriers. What about these small carriers? Are they just using ATT and Verizon systems and just sub marketing them so that we don't need to hear from the other smaller carriers. I know they advertise on the radio and TV once in a while, and I would even go to name of one of the companies?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We can invite them in. Is that would that be EyeLock?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: No. The EyeLocks are the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The EyeLocks are the telephone companies.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: The small independent telephone exchanges like what EyeLock comes from.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's right. So who would that be? I'm a little out of my wheelhouse here.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I probably would invite for

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: T Mobile on the network here.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Well, that were the type of things. T Mobile. I don't know that Tumor cellular. And and I I just I listen to radio from around the country and because I can't. But, I mean, some some of those services aren't here. But, you know, there are other small carriers that advertise. Don't know if they're available in Vermont. You

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: T Mobile, I feel like I'll have to look back through my emails or maybe Alex could. That might have fallen into a little bit of a transition gap between committee assistant Joe leaving and committee assistant Alex starting. I feel like we invited T Mobile

[Alex (Committee Assistant)]: They from basically said that they will agree mostly with everything that's said here today. They just didn't feel like it was necessary to come in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's right. That's right. They did say that I I you're right. They basically said CTIA can speak for that. Correct. K? Is that okay?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: Yeah. That's fine.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I did. And then the small I don't know who the smaller carriers would be in Vermont or how to to find them, but if we can there might be folks in the room with them. Are there smaller carriers that we

[Unknown Committee Member]: Crickets at the state.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Crickets? Cricket. Cricket. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Can we get a list of who CTIA represents?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Jeremy? Hi. We're just having a little conversation about whether there's smaller providers in Vermont we should hear from. Is that, do you have smaller providers that belong to CTIA that are providing in Vermont that we could reach out to or that you could help us find?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: Yeah. So I've been listening to dialogue. Can I get back to you relatively quickly on that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That'd great.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: I know you guys are time is of the essence, but let me get back to you, but I'll follow-up quickly with along with Claire.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That'd be great. Thank you.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: No problem.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So five twenty seven is our only question, the sunset question. These other questions about dead zones and notice for copper are separate from five twenty seven. Is that accurate?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Notice for copper is that's definitely separate, and we're gonna be drafting a committee bill on that that we talked about a little bit. I I keep trying to remember the buckets too, but I I had requested a committee bill on the copper question that we'll have a look at next week. So that is that is a different bucket. It's up to us. You know what? I mean, h five twenty seven is pretty simple. It just extends the sunset three years.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. So, I mean, it's very hard for me to imagine that a carrier of any size would advocate for making the sun keeping the sunset or making it shorter.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I think it's very hard to imagine. February is an easier process, faster process, so why any carrier would oppose that is close enough to impossible for me to imagine so that I would not think we would need to hear any more testimony from carriers on that. So the question in front of us is, what is the benefit to the public of our revisiting this every three years or every five years or every ten years or ever. And, you know, it's, not a huge amount of work to submit the bill to extend, I take it. Rep. Sibilia.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Done a few times.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Done it a few times. It's pretty quick. Yeah. It's even less work to put a notice on the calendar six years from now to say, hey, Discuss whether you wanna sunset this provision and make it permanent and then just talk about it every six years instead of putting in a new bill. So How would we do that? Those are my thoughts. How would we do

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: What if none of us are here since we're here?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well, the calendar will still be here. We put a notice on the calendar, and it pops up as a reminder to say, hey. Talk about this.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: What calendar is that that you speak of?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What is this calendar you speak of?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yes. The the the committee Google calendar or whatever the equivalent there is.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The the sunset is is how to do that. That I don't think there's any other way to do that. We can't buy as far as we can't buy into future legislature anyway. So So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: You know? We can

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The only way we can make sure this gets revisited is to keep the sunset

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: in there. And we can send a note to the future saying, hey. Talk about this. Well, tonight.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Nope. Reptory? I I

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: wanna pick up on the input that the department collected from the public in terms of how they are able or not to participate fully inciting decisions in their towns. So they crafted a report, which I haven't read. It's on the old environment page from 2024. But I I do feel like another possibility if we were to not have the sunset anymore is to ask the Department of Public Service to regularly do that survey and update and make recommendations to the committee if there needs to be tweaks to the to the participation in particular piece. Because, you know, that's kind of our job, right, to make sure government's working for for Vermonters. So that's you know, I I think all of us might wanna just look and see if there were actually recommendations in that report. And then we're gonna have the League of Cities and Towns in the year.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep, we have remaining testimony at this point is Vermonters for Clean Environment, League of Cities and Towns, if we can find some smaller, you know, a smaller provider or any smaller providers who might wanna come in. Did we yet? The Hunter may have. Alex may just have forwarded us.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Let me look and see what was. Some

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: follow-up testimony from Hunter.

[Alex (Committee Assistant)]: He linked me the drive test map, and then the report that he was referring to is uploaded on our website. Oh. But I can also send

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: it out. Does it say 2023 report on the process citing?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sure. I have it. Right. Let's look on your website.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't see it. Alex, did you load it under reports or under today's testimony? It should be under reports. Okay. If you could also put that under today's testimony under Hunter Thompson, that would be great. Sounds good.

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: And I've got it if you do.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I could send it to you. Yeah. I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: suppose it's true that if we are adjusting the sunset one way or another, we could also adjust the public engagement process. Is that accurate?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think that we can

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: tinker with the statues. We could. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: To to address some of the concerns that were expressed early in the committee and also to express what we heard as public feedback that they didn't feel they were adequately engaged.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The other thing that's a bit of an x factor right now is so I I don't know for sure. So if we do nothing and we revert to act two fifty, basically, That's one possible outcome of all this. Right? We do nothing. We revert to two fifty. Because that's one of the three possible pathways that could come up this whole discussion in the legislature this year, I I wanna make sure that house environment looks at this bill because they are our act two fifty experts and our land use experts. And it to my mind, this is it's a digital infrastructure bill, but it's also a bill. Where we put things is I I'd love to have the environment committee weigh in on that. So depending on what we do, I guess what I'm saying is I I I don't wanna get out on too thin ice with act two fifty because that isn't that is definitely not our area of jurisdiction or expertise. So that's just in my mind. Yeah. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in that vein, just so that this committee is apprised, I wonder about getting an answer to that question he asked Greg that he didn't have, about the difference in the public process between two forty eight a and two fifty. I'm certain that, Annette will give us her perspective. I wonder if we can get attorney. Some I think we heard Will Dodge, one of the attorneys that probably has perspective on this or someone else like that. Sure. That's a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: good idea. So, the difference in the public participation process between two forty two forty eight a and act two fifty, and you wanna hear from somebody at DPS? Is that what you're I think that they told

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: us PUC. I think they told us they didn't have that information. So it would be good to have an attorney who has gone through that. Well, maybe Ellen's.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Maybe that's a lodge counsel thing. Alex, so we are doing this in real time. Okay. Can you please reach out to Ellen at Ledge Council and see if she thinks she would be the best person to, walk us through the difference in the public participation and public engagement process in act two fifty versus the two forty eight a process. It might be her. She's she those are both in her area of jurisdiction. Don't yeah. Bram.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I'd like to pose a question to mister Clark from AT and T if I might.

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

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: Yes. Still here.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So you had said that if 248A sunsets, you'd expect the process from initial interest to getting a tower up and running to be meaningfully longer than it is now. And I wonder, do you have a sense at all for how much of the extra time is due to the public engagement process in act two fifty, and how much of it is due to other factors?

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: I wouldn't specifically, I would defer again to our attorney who does this on a daily basis, Will Dodge, who uses two forty eight a to permit all of our cell sites. So he would be able to answer that question, I believe.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I'm trying to figure out how much of the speed benefit of 248A we are willing to give up in order to give the public a greater opportunity to participate as we have heard there is an interest in the business. So that's going to be a trade off.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I think, I just want to say, I'd ask everybody for their opinions. So, I can tell you, you know, my opinion is that it's a really important trade off. It is not one to take lightly because I you know, right now, you know, if we're voting today, I would just vote for I would vote for the bill as is. I would do another three year extension. I do not think we should make the statute permanent. I think we need to keep revisiting this. And but I'm also very nervous about eliminating a a process that providers have told us is allowing them a a faster and more expedited way to make sure that towers get built. Because I I don't wanna inadvertently become the state where nobody can put up a cell tower. And our citizens can't get connected, and they can't get coverage, and we're seeing, you know, a broadening digital divide because we've made it so hard to put up a tower. And so I I to me, the three year extension is that middle way. I I wanna make sure the legislature keeps returning to this. I wanna make sure the public has a really meaningful chance to engage. But I've also seen just just in my own community what feels like an inability to get a new tower put up, and people are really frustrated. You know? I mean, you so that that's that's not great either. So yeah. Richard.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I've heard in some of these process, the two forty eight, the person on the ground who's either in part of it owns the land around it or near or whatever had a minimum in the two forty eight procedure. That when it moves to two forty eight, it's mostly lawyers talking to lawyers, and that they're not really hearing. Should we hear from somebody who's been trying to get something on the figuring out what they went through during this process to either get input in on the siding and tower.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's it.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Mhmm. That's it.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. I'm gonna have that next week. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I think Annette is that we have that tomorrow. Tomorrow. Excellent. Why don't we see what Annette has to say? And then because, yeah, in my mind, that is that will be the really valuable perspective that Annette is bringing, I I think. So but if after we hear from Annette, you wanna hear from like, an abutting landowner who actually tried to stop the tower. I don't think there's any harm in that or had Or questions about a tower.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Just say, only needs to be moved 40 feet this way or a 100 feet that way. How that went? And it didn't work at all. Or Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Think that'd be a good guy. Because,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you know, it's interesting when you try to translate the public engagement process from how it looks on flowchart and how it looks on the web to actually trying to do it as a citizen. And I know that there's a

[Unknown Committee Member]: I mean, I've heard that they say there's public engagement, then you hear people out on the street saying, if there isn't any public engagement, it's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, it's it's kind that kinda does relate to the consolidated bill that we're talking about where, you know, it's it's easy to read that there's public notification, but when you dig in and find out what that actually looks like Right. You know, it's a packet arriving by mail.

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

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to mention that that this issue came up in my district my first term. My district may had a a bill that made some tweaks to two forty eight a around public participation. One easy little example is instead of having right now, it states that if the municipal bodies, select border planning commission, request a public meeting, they will have one. And this and and my district may promote suggested instead that there just be a public meeting that the provider holds. So you don't have you know, just because there's different different awarenesses, different priorities in different towns. So I don't know. I mean, there could be some tweaks that are not, like, huge Right. But still make access and timeliness better for the public at large. So that bill, if you guys wanna see it, I can circulate it to the team to the committee.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. I might. It does, in fact, feel like holding one or two public hearings. You have not had them six months to the time. I had a week.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Right. I,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: madam chair, thank you for sharing your opinion so explicitly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I mean, I Yeah. Before I vote next week, you know? Yeah. I it's important to me to know where people stand because I don't wanna bring it to a vote and have no idea how it's gonna turn out.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's not that's not great. So I wanna know if people want you know, if people are like, there's nothing you can do that will ever make me vote for this. You know? If we hear this or that testimony, I'll be ready to go. Here's what I feel. I think we should eliminate the sunset entirely. I mean, I really can't bring it to a thoughtful vote until I get a sense of how what people need to hear and how folks are feeling. And if if it's too early to know, that's great too. But

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well, I can share where I am right now. I'd be slightly inclined to just get rid of the sunset, but if we are to keep it based just on the cycles of how long it takes to build these things, I think three years is not enough time, and, you know, what extent it's a six years or something like that and be perfectly happy.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: K. Oh, are we doing a straw poll?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I mean, I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I support the help that I introduced. I'm interested in this concept of another public hearing. Open to going to the other committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I don't wanna put folks on the spot. That's it's not a struggle. I just I just wanna get a sense. Can we book this out next week? Are we completely divided? You know, folks can talk to me offline too.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I think that there seems to be not consideration for the aesthetic value that sometimes the people don't know about the tower till they see it up in their view shed. That they're not in the butter. They're nowhere near it other than that they can see it on the side of the East Mountain or West Mountain, whatever they call them in Rutland.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: That's a hard one to give a visual for, though.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: And well, no. But but the regional planning commissions, the separation between the municipality and something that's on a town line, near town line, the abutted town is only six, seven hundred feet down the down the road. Do they have any input? That that's the what I get from my people who think they haven't had input as some of the citing. Mean, the guy gets a a rent every month because it's on his land, and he didn't have to sell his land. He keeps it. Check comes in every week.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That reminds me of another question that maybe we could ask these folks who are still with us. The towers that are made to look like trees, I guess, are more expensive. Is that so? And if so, how much more expensive? Anybody still online who can address that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hi, Jeremy.

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: I, I can't address the actual cost of the, you know, the poles that are designed to look like a tree aesthetically. I mentioned this briefly in my testimony. The aesthetic element, though, which is exactly what if you build a tower and the requirements are for it to look like a tree, that's essentially aesthetics what we're talking about. That is included in 248A. 248A deployment can have an undue impact on aesthetics. So that doesn't answer your question, sir, about cost, but that is included in $2.48

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: a. That element.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So that would that would be then, an opportunity for an abutter to, I don't know, raise an objection due due to aesthetics, and the resolution could be, well, we'll make it look like make it look like a tree. Is that is that what you're saying?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: That is my interpretation. You know, I I would defer to DPS and the PUC as to what that, you know, negotiation or that conversation looks like, but not but. And, you know, Vermont two forty eight a specifically cites aesthetics as something that needs to be considered in order to get that certification of public good.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Ryan has any thoughts about the difference in cost just as as a percentage or proportion.

[Ryan Clark (AT&T – External Affairs Director, Vermont)]: I I do not have a specific number on how much the cost is of a of a tower that looks like a tree versus a normal cell tower. I'm sure there's some additional cost potentially to make those changes, but I could I could certainly try to get back to you with a specific number.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Perhaps Sibilia? Madam chair, just, to share maybe a little bit of thinking based on my experiences here in the building, thinking about, director Thompson and PUC's comments this morning about, how this sunset has really blocked kind of, kind of full scale adjustments to this bill or to this language and or rulemaking. And so I do not I'm I am not in favor of no sunset. And I would just say that if we start tinkering around in here, we might wanna make some time to really do some wholesale looking at this, and sounds like there might be some pent up demand for and that can be quite quite time intensive.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It would be extremely time intensive.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So once we start monkeying around, I think there'll be a lot of appetite for changes from a lot of parties, which maybe what we should do. I already said what I think we should do. Just

[Unknown Committee Member]: one issue that and it was an incident issue just to let you know what what happened in in our town. Let them let them know. Somebody wanted to put a tower. They actually had them put a balloon on it Yeah. And strung it up to the height that the tower is gonna be and put it sit there for a couple of weeks for people to know when to recognize question this. They don't know it's there till it shows up. This would be at least maybe a part of that this is where we're taking a sighting one at the style. It's gonna be

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's actually that's a question I had for Jeremy, I guess, or maybe it's back to the PUC on this. I can't remember whether a balloon test has to be requested. I've seen a balloon. I know I you know, I've seen a balloon test in my

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: time. Does

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that have does a member of the public have to request a balloon test?

[Jeremy Crandall (CTIA – The Wireless Association)]: So on I get exactly what you're asking. I would defer to the PUC or DPS on that. I was trying to rapidly look at two forty eight a as we speak, but I would defer to them and or we'll get back to

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: you on our end.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That that probably is a PUC question. I feel like we talked about it too. I feel like we I feel like it's buried in my notes somewhere about what order look. It has to be requested, maybe. But I don't know. So alright. Anybody else? Okay. Well, just keep, you know, keep sending thoughts and just, you know, just to be clear, we're we're voting this out next week if we're ready to vote this out next week. I I just you know, that was my thinking. I felt we have a lot to do this year. So I wanted to get it moved along, especially knowing that we have competing senate bill and that it's going to another

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: committee. This

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: bill is going to another committee or the senate bill is going to another committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I think our bill will go to to environment. House.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think it'll go to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: our act two fifty experts. So I think it'll go to we just

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: extend that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I think it'll probably

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Either way, it's gonna

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think they're gonna wanna review it either way.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Well, my my concern is to that we don't put a roadblock so that we don't build anymore, that we have a moratorium on any additions. I think so I think commerce is gonna be involved in to get communications out to where we don't have broadband. That's like they said to a lot of people that do a lot of digital work on their on their telephones, and they may not be able to do that with inadequate coverage now. So the small 50 footers or whatever. And but we didn't hear the the smart meters of the world when they were employing those, they computed device to device to device. I don't think that doesn't you yourself your cell phone in your pocket doesn't rebroadcast out to another user. You're independent all by the way, but but the antennas may do that of of antenna, antenna, antenna so that they don't have to be 200 feet in the area there, but they can be a series of fifties. And and I don't want to I don't wanna say yes to a bill that would preclude those 50 or say no to a bill that would preclude those 50 footers from cascading down the road.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Maybe that's issues that are separate.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I I think that point. Yeah. Like

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I think I'd like to dig into that, but it might be too much for this bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think I think it's a I I think this is a a complicated issue that we could spend the entire session on and address no other bills. If you could. And I I I wanna make sure we don't do that. So I am trying to keep us as focused as we can on just I I don't want our committee to do personally, I don't want our committee to do nothing because then we lose our voice. This something's coming over from senate. Right? I mean, we've got a bill on the wall. I wanna vote it out because otherwise, we have abdicated. I I think this is our committee jurisdiction. You know, we need to take testimony here. It'll then go to our house environment folks who have all the expertise and all the background on act two fifty and the act two fifty criteria and the public engagement process. I do think it's important that we understand just for ourselves how the two forty eight public engagement process and criteria stack up against Act two fifty. And then we can move move our bill along, staying solely focused on I think the choice for our committee is not to do nothing, but whether to pass out the three year sunset extension, make it longer, or add any minor notification things, we think would fit neatly right into act two forty eight. Like, you also have to do this. And then we'll send it along, you know, to to our our colleagues.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: So three years ago, this was just in the environmental committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And then is that sounding right?

[Unknown Committee Member (likely Rep. Christopher Howland)]: Yes. Were all in the back. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Environment and energy. And then three years before that, it was probably in energy and technology. Yeah. Yeah. And before that, was in commerce. Believe. Yeah. I think

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: it was in commerce. That sounds yes. Because broadband was.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: So that means we can bump it to a different committee.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That was. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I think I have a handle on the additional testimony folks want, but it's helpful if you email me and copy Alex. In fact, I I would say it's more than helpful. I'd say it's imperative to email Alex and copy me on specific requested testimony with who you wanna have in, their contact info, and, you know, the bill. Because there's just a lot going on in my inbox, and I don't think it's fair for for us to request Alex to just be sticky noting everything. Okay. So if there's more testimony you wanna hear, send it in an email, please, and, it's helpful if you have the person's name and contact info. Okay. Alright, that was good talk. We can go off live. And then we are done for the day because we have floor and