Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Allison Despathy (Chair, Danville Planning Commission)]: What is the difference? We're live. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We're here for a quick testimony on H527 with the chair of the Danfel Planning Commission. And it is gonna be quick testimony because we have to wrap it up and be in a different room to go live at 01:30 on a joint hearing. So without further ado, Kathleen James Manchester.

[Allison Despathy (Chair, Danville Planning Commission)]: Scott Campbell, St. John's Barry. Richard Bailey, Lamoille, two. Chris Morrow, Westin. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford. Laura Sibilia, Windham.

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

[Dana Lynn Perry]: Dana Lynn Perry, the Crasson Group. Super. Amy Burkweis, Cabot. Create the record. Allison Despathy, Danville, Vermont.

[Allison Despathy (Chair, Danville Planning Commission)]: Danville Planning Commission Chair, and thank you so much for having me. I know you guys have been taking a lot of testimony. I wanna echo what Donna said yesterday, and thank you for letting all of us come to the table. I know there's a lot to go through and you guys are trying to sort through it and hear the story. So thank you very much. I have fifteen minutes as you guys know, so I'll probably talk fairly quickly, so slow me down or stop me because there's a few things I do want to try to get in. And I just want to also say I'm not speaking for the Danville Planning Commission itself, I'm just speaking as my own personal opinions and experience as the chair. So I talked on to the Planning Commission because of telecom. That's really what launched me in there because we did not have in our town plan anything specific around telecommunications and I was concerned. So I was able to write something up and pop it in there so the town could at least have a voice on it. We went through the whole process and now I'm working on an ordinance as well. You guys are clearly seeing there's a big issue around this conversation in the state. And I will say, I'll be very frank, I think it is upsetting what I just heard Greg Faber say, we're all entitled to our opinion. But if he's not seeing that there's an issue, then that's really a problem. I met with the 80 year old couple in Tinness, who were gonna have a radio tower 500 feet from their home. There was a family in Pownal, who were gonna have a tower 700 feet from their home. Innsburg, another family 500 feet from their home. What are we doing? I mean, are towns and state and towns, counties and other countries right now who are not allowing these things near schools and residents. We are really, really behind the times and we've got to do something about it. And it's difficult also when you hear the PUC and Department of Public Service come in. And I know it's true, we're preempted, but we can't stop the conversation because it's a reality. And I know you guys are hearing the concerns. I'm seeing the testimony. So what can we do? What is in our authority to do? And I would say we are obviously a sovereign state. We have the tenth amendment. We can step up. You guys were elected, obviously. You care deeply for Vermont. I'm sure you wouldn't have stepped up if that wasn't the case. You're stewards of Vermonters and Vermont's environment. That's how I see my role, especially with regards to Danville and my role in the planning commission. And so that being said, radio frequency radiation is a pollutant. It is classified by Verizon and AT and T as a pollutant. They cannot get insurance coverage because it's a pollutant and we don't know the effects of it. Although, this is what I want to get into. So, I'm gonna go quick. You guys got me, I'm so sorry. So here we go. I've mentioned this to you guys, but this is a comparison of wireless radiation limits throughout the world. We allow 10 to a 100 times greater levels than any of these other countries, actually than any country. Greece, Canada, Israel, Italy, etcetera. You can see what we're doing. And this will, I will say it goes back to the FCC. The FCC is not doing any enforcement monitoring or compliance. They actually had a lawsuit 08/13/2021, Environmental Health Trust plus several others won a landmark case. Federal court ordered the Federal Communications Commission to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation. That was in 2021. Nothing has been done since then. Why are they ignoring it? Cause if they go to the Supreme Court, which would be the next step, they will lose. There's plenty of information on this now. It's not only a court order that's come up, National Toxicology Program, this is National Institutes of Health. They assess tumors and heart damage with radio frequency radiation. Concluded FCC limits should be strengthened up to 200 to 400 times current level in order to protect children. I just can't, it is criminal for us to keep saying it is preempt because they are failing. The FCC is failing in their duty to regulate this properly. And this is what I want to emphasize. New Hampshire Commission legislator put together a commission that met with plenty of experts. This was one of the most comprehensive expert commissions on this topic. They came up with 15 recommendations. Three of the ones there. Reduce exposure to the public, 1,600 foot setbacks for cell towers, address lack of accountability in the federal government. I don't know how much we can do to hold, to make the FCC accountable. So that happened. And just so you all know, I know health is not your purview, but to me this is very directly related to process, which you guys are trying to assess right now. And any of these people, Ken Chamberlain, PhD, my undergrad was at University of New Hampshire. He's professor emeritus electrical engineering. He would come testify. Paul Herreau, McGill University in Canada, he's department of toxicology, he will come testify. The head of Microsoft in Canada president who just stepped down and now has dedicated his life to safe technology, he would be here tomorrow if people would hear this. There's a lot of people, a lot of experts trying hard. So we had the lawsuit, we've had commissions, Ecolog Institute report, T Mobile commissioned it. They said that they recommended exposure limit a thousand times lower than the FCC's current power density limit. I forgot everything referenced in here. This why there's a problem with the process because people are concerned and they do not want these things right near their homes. And we don't want them near schools. This is just Joel Moskowitz, he runs School of Public Health, University of California. He's been compiling tons of information on this. I think he's got 2,500 peer reviewed studies on the health effects of radio frequency radiation. Everything's there if you guys want to get into it. The American Academy of Pediatrics, they've written multiple letters to the FCC since I think really since it passed the Telecom Act in 1996. Sorry I'm talking fast I just want to get to it. You can see what they're saying. Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures including cell phone radiation. I'm just going to plug in. Right now we have no regulation on small cell. These are being popped on telephone poles. The statute that the LER pulled up is a problem because it talks about above 20 feet and then above 50 feet. My son and his wife bought a house and bought it literally 15 feet from their house on a pole is a small cell antenna. There was no, there's no regulation. And Hunter Thompson I think mentioned that, Annette Smith mentioned that, that has to be addressed. So you can see the American Academy of Pediatrics jumping in. We've got a study on kindergarten children who when there was a tower near their house, they had over three times higher levels of total radio frequency exposure when they attended a school with a close proximity cell tower. They wore devices to measure and they did again a peer reviewed study on it. This has been going on in Vermont for a super long time. This is a VNRC. I was wishing the woman from VNRC was here as she was here this morning. This was from 1997 after the 1996 Telecom Act passed and they said that we can't talk about environmental or health effects that were preempt. And this whole conversation was going on with a bunch of experts and lawyers who came together at Killington to have a conference and basically said, okay here we are, we're the guinea pigs. We are the bodies of evidence. That's what Steve Holmes, executive director, after listening to Paul Herreau, who was from Quebec, who would come, he specifically said bodies of evidence will be asked. Peer reviewed research articles recommend cell towers at least 500 meters, approximately 1,500 feet away from populated areas to reduce health risks. All the science is there. This is just a quick Turkey, Greece, Chile, Bangladesh, Australia, Israel, New Zealand. I don't know what my other one is there, sorry. Prohibit cell towers on school grounds. Australia capped radiation emission levels at one percent of federal levels near school. Turkey mandates ongoing monitoring and compliance of radiation levels at schools and hospitals. Bangladesh stepped up and banned it on residential buildings, schools, colleges, playgrounds, high density areas. Chile prohibits cell antennas in sensitive places, kindergartens, hospitals. Toronto Canada advises radiation limits at a 100 times lower than federally accepted levels. So this is like a big groundswell of towns and people and experts trying to do something. And this is why there's such a big problem with the PUC process right now because you shouldn't have to have money or a lawyer to engage in a public process. And that is exactly what is happening. And that's where Kevin Anderson, District seven Coordinator over in my area, awesome guy. We had an issue with the quarry in Danville. I had people calling me because they know I'll try to step up to help. Sicard had bought it. People were like having broken windows. They felt their houses were literally going like this. Reached out to Kevin Anderson, met with me, pulled up the permit. What are the conditions? What are the limits? And they have enforcement. The PUC does not have any good process around enforcement if there was an issue. So I could go to that person in that office versus trying to play on the PUC. And right now I'm reading Dean Davis' autobiography, pretty amazing. He was the Act two fifty guy originally. And it was literally supposed to be, we're all around the table. It's like a fireside chat. Know, we're all here to have a conversation and the lawyers don't have a leg up on you. The lawyers aren't like, well I know motion practice and I can depose you. We've got to do discovery. And the talent and the people are like, what is this? So just to mention that, Act two fifty really does have an established process and to try to make the PUC establish that, that's one route. The PUC process could be improved of course. But I think the bigger issue is why should you have to have money to fight a tower And why should you have to hire a lawyer at 20,000, 50,000, a $100,000 if someone wants to put a tower 500 feet from your house when we know that there's massive health risks around it? That's a problem. France went over the top. Like I would love to see Vermont, I'm gonna just say my pipe dream, drive this bus and say, you know what? The FCC and Brendan Carr have failed us. This is what we are gonna do in Vermont here. So this is like a whole other level of action. I know you guys are trying to kind of decide process wise, but France has stepped up. They've even been transparent and done. They're doing real time monitoring. They're making companies monitor levels on the wireless infrastructure so that they can come into compliance. The FCC has nothing like that. So we have high levels, no compliance, no enforcement, and now they're trying to preempt. Representative Torre said she couldn't be here, but she wanted me to mention on this. The FCC is creating rules and there's also a bill in Congress right now, 2289. And those are both trying to completely override state and town jurisdiction on wireless infrastructure. It's absolutely, it's criminal, literally. And so to me thirty seconds here. Oh yes, okay. I'm almost there, thank you. So just that, and I just want you guys to know planning commissions are trying, communities are trying, they're establishing setbacks, everybody's seeing the science. You've got school boards restricting cell towers near them. Firefighters will not allow them on there. This is a firefighter thing, not until we have good studies. Yet we'll put them on or near schools. So the last piece that I would say is Ed Stanick was a District five Commissioner in Lamoille, Washington. I spoke with him the other night. We worked together on a lot of stuff. He did telecom at Act two fifty. And I would highly suggest you hear from him because he was able to use the criteria. Criteria one is air pollution. So he was able to assess and evaluate radio frequency radiation when they were talking about the placement of this. He also, it was amazing to hear him say this, they would require the companies to tell them to do a report of what are the levels coming off of this and they encouraged colocation, but they also looked at cumulative effects. So if you had a tower and there was a bunch of antennas on it, they were looking at what is the cumulative effect. He said to me what a good consideration would be is real time monitoring. There's no reason why these companies shouldn't have to do real monitoring so we can see if they're falling in FCC guidelines. And a lot of this is we talk about communication, but I also want to keep in mind that there's a lot of speculation that's happening where these towers are coming in because they know what's coming down the road. What's coming down the road? Look at Nvidia. Autonomous cars. Right? Smart glasses. Oakley and Metaverse smart glasses. So they're setting up infrastructure to do this and we're gonna be baked in more radio frequency radiation unless we do this part. And the last piece I'll just say real We

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: get to let our committee assist you go.

[Allison Despathy (Chair, Danville Planning Commission)]: Oh, okay. I was just gonna say the last piece is, Greg Burt and I, my dear friend and rep, put together a bill where it would go through Act two fifty but there would be statewide regs including setbacks. And I just would say, don't know if it's possible to slow the process down to assess that bill a little bit to see if it went through an Act two fifty process where everyone could contribute without lawyers or money. And I know Bram Kleppner, sorry, Rut Kleppner had asked the question of there's only point 2% appeals. And why is that? It's because you can come to the table and you can say, I don't want it here, but what if we talk about putting it over there? And a conversation can happen. Sorry, just changed Thank the you, I'll submit my testimony.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You'll submit your written testimony?

[Allison Despathy (Chair, Danville Planning Commission)]: Yeah, I've written in my slides as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So thank you being you for questions.