Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Today is Tuesday, February 23, and we are Tuesday. Just kidding.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: What did

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I say?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Twenty third. You guys gonna screw

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that up. Twenty third. Boo.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That looks too crazy. Man.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Go. May 20 yeah. Wishful thinking. Alright, it's Tuesday, February 3. We are here to walk through our latest draft of H527. I'm rep Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Memorial two. Chris Morrow, Windham Windsor, Bennington,

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: the Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden Thirteen, Burleigh. And Laura Sibilia, Windham Two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright then. In the room.

[Dana Perry (The Group, lobbyist)]: Dana Lee Perry with the group. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: We have one other guest who is so immersed in his phone.

[Chris Rice (MMR, listening for Verizon)]: Sorry, Chris Rice here from MMR listening for Verizon.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great, thank you. All right, for the record,

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm here on the committee's amendment to h five twenty seven. It is draft 3.2. It is the first draft that you are seeing. Since I was last here, I had a number of conversations with the chair about what exactly direction the committee wanted to go. So there were some internal drafts, which is why this is 3.2. So, the first section, section one, this is a strike all amendment, but the first section, section one, is what is currently in age five twenty seven as introduced. It is, a pushback of the subset on section two forty eight a until, 07/01/2029. It's been pretty standard in the life of 02/1988 for there to be three year sunsets. And so that is what you are going with here. Section two though is new and is based on the testimony you have received, and so it's a session law provision directing the PUC to work with stakeholders. So page one, section two, Public Utility Commission recommendations, increased participation. The Public Utility Commission shall recommend changes to 30 VSA section 248A to increase transparency, efficiency, fairness, and the ability of individuals and municipalities to participate in the telecommunications citing process. The Commission shall hold at least two workshops on the issue and shall invite at a minimum the following. The telecommunications service providers that have used the section two forty eight process. Onto page two. The Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Monitors for a Clean Environment, the Department of Public Service, the Department of Public Safety, the Agency of Natural Resources, and any other relevant stakeholders. This is the minimum of who they shall invite. Typically, the PUC does workshops, they are open to the public and any member of the public interested can attend or participate, but these are the people that are being specifically invited if they would like to attend and participate on the issues. Section B, subsection B on page two line five, this is the list of things to be discussed in the workshops. This is based on the recommendation that Will God provided. The workshop, although that should probably say workshops, shall address the following topics and procedures. The advanced notice process, including the content of the notice, distribution requirements, pre petition hearings, and site visits at the municipal or regional planning level, pre petition supplements and amendments, recommendations from municipal entities and regional planning commissions, and the effect of failure to file a petition within one hundred and eighty days following the advance notice date. Subdivision two, petition submission requirement based on project categories, including towers, power replacements and extensions, small cell facilities on utility poles, new antenna co locations, and eligible facility requests, and de minimis modification site visits. Subdivision three, procedures for the post petition comment period, including consideration of comments, motion to intervene, and requests for hearings, as well as for issuing a significant issue determination during the review period pursuant to 33 SA 248AF. On to page three, subdivision four, procedures for contested case proceedings following a commission's significant issue determination that include scheduling, site visits, including visibility determinations, discovery and motions. Subdivision five conduct of evidentiary hearings, allowing for public participation and streamlining the post hearing briefing process to comply with the applicable review periods under 248AF. Evidentiary burdens per Section 248A criteria, including rebuttable presumptions of compliance from agency determinations, requirements for supplements and amendments to a pending petition with express standards for substantial and non substantial changes, streamlined administrative process for transfers of certificates of public good issued under Section 248A in whole or in part, and any other topics the commission determines should be addressed through rules or orders following consultation with stakeholders.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't we let's stop there. Go ahead.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just because the actual direction is in the last paragraph. This is the end. So on or before 12/15/2026, the Commission shall submit an overview of the process it conducted, the recommendations it has, and a description of any changes the Commission made to the Section two forty eight process after consultation with the stakeholders. They shall submit that to this committee and Senate Natural Resources. So this is not asking for a full report. It's asking for them to hold at least two workshops, look at all of the items on this list, and report back to the legislature if they have recommended changes, which may be statutory, and if they made any changes after the consultation process because they do have the ability to amend their order, and so maybe they take action immediately after the workshop. This is roughly based on the process you asked them to do last year about the definition of plant, having them have a workshop, meet with the stakeholders, and provide recommendation back to the legislature. I will just point out, though, you're giving them roughly six or seven months, and this is a significantly longer list than looking at the definition, a singular definition. This may be a lot to do in two workshops.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Rut Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Know, maybe we could do it in one. Sure. Sure. So I will just say that, what I've heard is that really no one is especially, you know, thinks the process is perfect. The PUC has said that the ongoing sunsets prevents them from wanting to take up rules or suggest any statutory changes. We've heard from towns and citizens that they feel like the public process is not going as they would like. And we've heard from some of the providers that they also would like to see some changes. So, you know, I mean, this feels to me like a pretty reasonable path forward. No one is, I don't know that we've hit everything that each one of those entity wants. It'll be interesting to see the senate's disposition to this since they have started from remove the sunset as their starting place. And so this feels pretty reasonable to me. And, actually, like, possible to improve the situation. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: thanks. Just real quick. We've had some folks come in since we all did introductions. Could our newest guests introduce themselves, please?

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Yep. Allison Despathy from Morrow's Hurricane Environment. Claire

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Buckley in Leone Public Affairs for CTIA. Okay.

[Nick Sherman (AT&T)]: Nick Sherman, AT and T. Great.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I had a yeah. Just one more thing, madam chair. So, you know, I would not say that this list is based entirely on AT and T. I I think this actually, this list is compiled from what we heard from both the folks that Bramante's Workplace Environment has been representing and. So we may not have gotten it right, but I wouldn't say that it's exclusive to one side of the other.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's see. I've got a couple

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: comments and some questions. Why don't we do my questions first? I wanted to ask about I know a couple specific questions that other committee members want to raise, so I don't want don't want to get into their questions. But I did want to kind of hone in on, and I'm not sure if this is the right place in the draft to discuss these ideas, but I wanted to hone in on page three, line seven. It's subsection six. Can you talk a little bit more about what that means? Evidentiary burdens for section two forty eight criteria. What does that mean exactly? So, when

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an applicant submits their application, under subsection C of 248A, there's a list of criteria that they have to make a showing in regards to. So some of the Act two fifty criteria are on that list, as well as references to outstanding water resources. So they have to demonstrate that their facilities are gonna have an undue adverse effect on a number of different things. And so I think this is asking what level of evidence do they actually need to supply to demonstrate that they have met that burden? This has been going on for twenty ish years, so there are already procedures in place that the PUC uses, but I guess it's asking if rebuttable presumptions should be included. This is something I think I I don't know if this came up in your testimony. I haven't watched all of it, but under Act two fifty, there is often a discussion of whether a permit from one of the state agencies like Agency of Natural Resources, if they issue a permit related to wetlands or storm water, if that is a presumption that they have complied with this other citing statute two forty eight. Whether or not the PUC should adopt that posture, that an agency determination, it's a comes with a rebuttable presumption. The opposite of that would be an irrefutable presumption, which is a stronger weight, the evidence. I know right now about the evidentiary verdicts that they use, so you may wanna hear from the PUC how that works, but it's about the weight they give the evidence that the applicant has provided as part of their application.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The reason I asked is that one of the things that came up for me a lot in testimony or that I was thinking a lot when we were hearing testimony was that I somewhere in there, I know that the PUC needs to consider away the public good or public benefit. And I'm curious about how that's defined and the difference between a cell tower that's gonna bring coverage to folks in a rural area and more like a spec tower that's gonna be a b to b two way radio tower for UPS. So to my mind, those are not both in the public in this they don't reach the same criteria of public goods. So is that a definition we ask them to look at,

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or is that already in here somewhere? So there isn't a specific okay. So so the permit that the PUC issues for a number of different things, Electric facilities, telecom facilities, the operation of a utility is a certificate of public good. To issue it, the PUC looks at if whatever blank is will be in the public good. For February a, the only specifics surrounding that definition is in two forty eight a a, plus they also take into consideration the criteria in subsection c. But in two forty eight a a, it says that the applicant can obtain a certificate of public good, which the commission may grant if it finds that the facilities will promote the general good of the state, consistent with section two zero two c. V. Of this title. That is the intent section related to telecommunications facilities generally in title 30. I don't have that language in front of me. I can get it off the shelf if you'd like to hear it, but it's a list of things that were put into statute that the legislature had as the intention for telecommunications in the state. I don't know if there's any case law interpreting this, honestly. I haven't looked into that specific question before, but the PUC is ultimately looking at if an applicant, if what they're proposing will promote the general good of the state consistent with how the state has identified its intent for telecommunications facilities, including consideration of the criteria listed in C. I think that's as best as I can do right now as an answer. The PUC may be able to give you more context, but I haven't looked to see if there's any specific case law interpreting it for or I have started to, but I haven't I don't have a deep knowledge on if it's been interpreted more specifically than that for February. K.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, did you notice something? That's right. Well Go ahead. Sure. I do have a question. Basically, the same questions the chair except with substantial deference that came up a few times in testimony that some of the towns had things in their town plans, but there was some confusion, at least confusion in my mind, when substantial deference was actually deference and when it wasn't. But I just wanna make sure in this review that is that in here in in the review of the workshops somewhere? I just think that that's something that just needs to be brought up in the workshop as to clarify so that and have clarity on what what that really means in practice.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there is a definition in two forty eight a of substantial deference and where it's used in two forty eight a. And I off the top of my head, I don't know if it's in this draft.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But I'd like to So just bring it up to the committee's consideration that I think that might wanna get in here somehow.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Brett Campbell, is that your

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Had sort of a specific question like that. One of the things that we've talked about is the importance of having a public service department at the the hearings at the municipal level. And so I like, we should we should include that as a something to look at. So that would be under b one study. And they in that list, I'm I'm supposing it perhaps on line eight where it says well, line seven says, prepetition hearings and site visits as the municipal or regional planning level and maybe including whether participation by public service should as as should be required or something like that.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the statute does say that the department shall attend the public hearing.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it does. Oh,

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it does. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I was having a question. It was at the municipality's request. So Well Then maybe I'm wrong with that.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought the hearing was at the municipality's request. No. So so the municipality can hold a a a public hearing if they so choose, and then the part the department shall attend at the request of the municipality. So the municipality has to invite them.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Well, so if the public service attended it, then then they would be if they were required to attend, then they would be in a better position to take the municipality's recommendations into account when they're at the BC CPG hearing to determine whether to grant us a CPG interest.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are you saying that the the municipality shouldn't have to invite them? They should come automatically?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In effect, yes. Okay. Well, the question is, should it should should this workshop assess that question?

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

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: sorry, just remind me since I I think I got that wrong, and I can certainly look

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: at our notes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The municipal hearing is

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The municipality has the option to hold the public hearing if they want.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Well, that's what I meant. So I I wasn't wrong. The municipality has the option to hold the public hearing. It's not yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But then if they do hold a public hearing, they have the option of inviting public service. Right. So I guess my question is, if they do hold a hearing, should public service be required to have it?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I feel like we're saying the same. Feel like that's what okay. I think that's a very narrow distinction of what's already required.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's a narrow distinction.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could tell us, would DPS know that they weren't invited? If they're invited, they have to attend.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, because I think the statute now says the municipality can invite public service if they want to. I don't know exactly what the words are, but that's the point, right?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But and so you don't you want the municipality to have to have them there. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'm I'm wondering whether that should be the case. I'm wondering whether part of this workshop should be to assess them. Okay. Who

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is next?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm sorry, Bram Kleppner. I have just a follow on to Brett Campbell. We did hear enough testimony to show us that the educational materials that the department has are not being used, and that makes me wonder if there's a contact point missing. So I like the idea of insuring them. Yeah. And then I just wondered in online two, on page two, if we should spell out the regional planning commissions since they have a role as well as.

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

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did they get notice?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What what line was that again, Dara?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Maybe after the.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Line number would be? 2. 2. Two. Oh, line two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Was H two on two. And

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: then one other question is just do you feel in b on that page with the advanced notice process? Would the the length of time come up as well in the workshop? Like, is sixty days adequate? We were hearing that towns don't feel like they have enough time to get all the information and get the public hearing and all of that within the window. So I don't I mean, I feel like that could be part of the discussion. And then what else?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is that is that listed? B one, line six? Content. The advanced notice process.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Time line. Time line. Yeah. I just thought maybe spelling out the word.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Line. Who is next?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Rex

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Southworth? Couple of questions. So on page three, number four,

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: and it says the contempted cases. It includes the terminology including visibility determinations. Is that a balloon test?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I don't know. K. So

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: is there a way that a bleeding test can be required for each application?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yeah. I think you can specify. And this, I mean, this list is about things that you should look at that then have recommendations back. I think if you wanted it to be required, you would potentially need to amend the statute, which isn't this isn't doing specifically. This is asking them to look at it. So Okay. I do think I I don't know. I think visibility determination, I don't know if balloon tests are part of that. They might be. So you can be more specific there if you'd like to.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So, look, I was just gonna try to answer that. Well, just looking at at the what was submitted by mister Dara, you can comment that. It Yeah. I did see that. You you saw that. Yeah. So I I I think the idea was that it could be a blue test. It could be a crane. It could be something.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Right. Right. Okay. And kinda, like, see that work into that wording somehow on the blue test. So the others that I come up with that's been brought up here, substantial deference, is that only for pested cases, or is it something that municipality and abutting landowners can automatically have that, or is that not the use of substantial deference?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Right now in the statute, substantial deference is defined as the plans and recommendations in (two) are presumed correct, valid, and reasonable, and C2 currently says the substantial deference has been given to the plans of the affected municipality. And so I think it is just the municipality that gets substantial deference based on their plans, not abundant landowners.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Even before it'd be deemed a capacitive case?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This is part of the initial showing the applicant has is if their if the application has given substantial deference to the municipality's plan.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: K. So in other words, in order to add any abutting landowners, we would have to modify statute.

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

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I believe I believe so. I yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't have the statue.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. I'll I'll reread if any.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know who's first here.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Go Wi Fi to get

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: this? No.

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

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: just wondering because it says municipal plans. Does that

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: imply zoning bylaws? So it does go on to say that nothing shall prevent a municipal body from facing its recommendation to which substantial deference is required on an ordinance or bylaw. That paragraph actually goes on further, too, so there is more about that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: A couple of things. I would like to suggest that we add to the list of things that we ask the PUC to talk about is whether there should be some default standards that they can fall back on for the municipalities that do not have something of which there are a great number. For instance, if town zoning plan requires whatever 300 foot setbacks for cell towers, then great. But the towns don't have a requirement should there be default, such default requirements, for all the towns that don't have. Zoning. Can I just jump in with

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: a question to make sure I'm hearing what you're saying? Yes. So, I think what you're saying is asking the PUC to include as part of their workshop a question about should there be, for towns that don't have zoning, some other set of standards? Yes. Should there be some other set of standards? Indeed. Okay. So that seems.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, I I will say that so roughly 55% of towns have zoning, but somewhere between 8090% now have town plants. And so, I think there's moving in the direction of almost all towns trying to have town plans, which is a way for the town, I think, to establish at least some basic telecommunications plans as part of that plan instead of going through the process of adopting a whole zoning bylaw or ordinance. So it's the universe is smaller than just towns that have full zoning.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yes. I'm just not sure that town plan to include things sort of specifically about cell tower sightings since some towns have never faced it. And, you know, I mean, the things, setbacks, maximum height, illumination, working hours, the trucks can go up and down the access road. Like, there's all that stuff that a town plan may not include at all. And I think that it would be good to have a set of standards, which we follow in the case that a town has neither zoning nor specific rules in the town plan relative to those issues.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't wanna interrupt you.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I think conceptually, the rest of the findings provision in two forty eight are that there's a state standard that attempts to consider a number of criteria, and if the towns have input, that's one of the criteria, if the town has a plan related to that. So, it seems like that's the option for the towns that want to say something that have to say something is in the planning process, And if they don't, there's already this sort of state process to evaluate. So it seems like it would already be covered because if seems like it would have already be covered to me, conceptually. But Another You couldn't add that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I I was just gonna say we need to we need to remember too the the list of stakeholders that we we are considering requiring to participate in this workshop, which includes the League of Cities and Towns, and did we talk about adding an RPC voice?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: My So inquiring? The RVCs?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That would be good.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How do It's about invite they're invited. The the individual group doesn't wanna participate. They don't have to. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So invite. But I would assume the league would wanna be there and would wanna speak for the municipalities. So we tend to rely on them to bring the voice of what's best for the towns and that expertise. You know, like these many have zoning. These many already have a plan. We're missing 5% of them.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Rewind just a sec. Explain to me how this would work if a tower company wants to cite a tower in a town that doesn't have zoning and whose town plan does not speak to all those things I've mentioned. How how would we then ensure that the tower doesn't end up too close to a school or something like that?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that is a specific example, too close to a school. I was thinking if the town hasn't done any planning on this subject, how can you know what the town's feeling is? So in without that, there is these this list of criteria that the PUC itself has to go through because the legislature has directed them to go through and evaluate if the tower meets what the estate standards are. So, if the town hasn't done any planning and had a discussion, there isn't a way to know what that town feels. And so, having a default that isn't actually specific to that town doesn't it feels odd that that would just be generic where we already have the sort of list of other things that the PUCSP are reviewing anyway, and it would potentially overlap.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You know, I'm concerned that a small town, you know, I would like to give them some legal protection against a tower getting cited where they don't want it. And if we're giving deference to zoning and town plans and they have it, then they have that protection. But if they don't have those things, then, you know, all they can do is argue And we have heard that they often lose those arguments in front of the PUC. They lose those arguments in the Supreme Court. So I would like to see it. I would like the PUC to have a conversation as they're formulating this to see if the good people and municipalities of

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Vermont would find that help.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we have more?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I could just read, getting back to the public good

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Comment in the criteria. There is provide for high quality, reliable telecommunication services for Vermont businesses and residents and provide the benefits of future advances in telecommunications technology to Vermont residents and businesses. So I think that's where the two way tower Mhmm. Comes in. That's very broad public good definition. There's a number of criteria, but they're all pretty broad, which might be fine. I'm just

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Are you suggesting that that pretty clearly suggests that two way radio for a private company is a public good?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, it certainly could be interpreted that way.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And apparently has been. Yeah. So that would require a change to the that statute if we wanted to narrow that definition.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So I guess just to, you know, step up to the few people have more specific questions on the language, because I wanna talk about what I think we're kinda. Okay. So, one thing is just, you know, I said this to a couple folks earlier, but as the, you know, as the person who's, you know, regrettably in charge of time management for our committee. I feel like we have taken really extensive testimony, and I feel like we've heard from a really wide range of folks. We've heard from cell providers. We've heard from the PUC. We've heard from the department. We've heard from municipalities. We've heard from the league. We've heard from a lot of concern for monitors. And so I feel like we've taken some in-depth testimony. And I do feel like it's time to to get the bill out of here. I think it's time to vote it out and move it along to its next step, especially because as we know, at least the legislation we've seen on the senate side is coming from a very different point of view. So I I would like to get this bill out of here, get it to the floor, get it over to the Senate. This could be the kind of bill that winds up in conference. Don't know. But I want to make sure that we move it with plenty of time for everybody to kind of give it give it its due consideration. So the balance I think that we're trying to strike, and the reason I like this approach is that, one, we're not letting it sunset, So we're not just punting and shutting down two forty eight a and letting everything revert to act two fifty. We're also not just kind of blindly extending or eliminating the sunset. I think we're trying to acknowledge that people have a lot of concerns with the way the process is working. It would be extremely time consuming and require a significant amount of additional testimony for us to try to rewrite the two forty eight A statute to what we think is

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a perfect

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: habit. That is not a quick process. I also think that it would be time consuming and complicated, and I'm not sure about transparency and outcomes. Just in terms of public participation, if we just order the PUC to rewrite the rules. So I I feel really comfortable with the balance we're trying to strike here, which is to say we've heard a lot of conflicting testimony. This is not working. And to adopt a process that we successfully used last year when we were having a hard time finding that balance, we asked the PUC to do a workshop. We gave them a specific task and we asked them to come back to us with a report or with recommendations or with actions. So think we're keeping this on the balance beam. I think we've made a lot of progress. I think a lot of folks have been heard. And so the the bill that that we vote out of here, I hope, stays on that balance beam and keeps this firmly in the section of PUC workshop. And I think we provided them with pretty robust instructions. My my concern is actually this is a lot of work. We asked them to consider the definition of plant. This is a significant task. And we're asking for two workshops which the point of that, of course, was to try to make sure that everybody has a chance to be heard. So, I think we had a couple of specific requests today for some revisions that sounded easier. I think we wanted to see about asking the PUC to invite the RPCs. Mhmm. I think we wanted to have them think about whether DPS should be required to attend Mhmm. The public hearing if a municipality requests that public hearing. I have wondered at times about whether a public a municipal a municipality should hold a public hearing, period. But it sound should whether that should be required, but I'm not sure what certainly, we're not gonna ask that for all the many de minimis applications. So but I I have wondered whether should it just be on contested cases that the municipality is required to have a public hearing and DPS is required to attend. I don't know what language could get to that as something that they

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: could

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: consider, whether that would be an improvement. I think I heard on page three that visibility determinations is maybe okay because that's intended to cover not just balloon tests, but maybe some other way of seeing what it would look like, like a crane test. Rep Southworth, is that working for you?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I think you were gonna look about actually specific language.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I can't remember where we left that. Okay.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I will well, I I didn't know if representative Campbell answered it.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: He he did, but it just to me, it's not in here. It's just the the wording that we saw from mister Dodge showed specifically those words. This doesn't.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I just wanna make sure that we have balloon test in there. I mean

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want balloon test specifically?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I think so. Yep. I think it's an important piece to the whole application process.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Could you say, did the demonstrations such as balloon test or something like that? I believe I've been at a great home. I'll leave that to the lawyer. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Then I heard somewhere a desire to explore sub deference and the public good. And I don't know what I want to do with those two things, but they seem important to us.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think that's a good, I think, of a whole in a pharmacy. Mhmm. In the statute. It was really for us. Yeah. I don't know if it's Well, I mean, it'd be nice, but

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, essentially, you know, the PUC will come back in December with you know, we'll learn everything that happened. We'll see what recommendations it has. They may have, you know, they may have changed the process, and maybe that would be the time to consider that broader. Mean, if the entire tent of all of our telecom statute is defined in a certain way, that's that is foundational. And I I don't wanna pull away the Jenga thing that collapses our all of our telecom laws. So I'll I'll let that one go. I don't

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: know if we've figured out the substantive offerings.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think that that covers what we've got.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think, yeah, I think the session was if substantial deference should be given to adjoining neighbors. Yeah. Was the question.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What if they don't agree?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That would be a hard one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: If you could have sticks of butters and four one and two dones or something.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's the whole process. They don't That's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: what they are. Right? But The key point is that their concerns are Heard. Heard. Right? Substantial definitely. Because the towns actually have it in their plan or in their zoning. Again, something concrete to defer to Right. Opposed to someone's opinion, except for your issues. Pounds that don't have any

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We'll we'll hopefully speak for those folks.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: R. Sibilia? Yep. I just wanna make sure before we lose Ellen, can we ask Ellen if she is clear on what we're asking for and if she has any questions that are open about this.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. The chair was running through the list I had made, and I think that the last of my list was just substantial deference if you wanted to add the somewhere in here for them to consider, and then also the part about town planning, town without planning.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Substantial? How

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would you recommend? It's something along the lines of consider whether substantial deference should be given to any other parties, like adjoining neighbors. But I do think it'd If be

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I remember correctly, like, there were some towns that were clearly against citing and were not given substantial decoration.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's where I get hung up. So what I don't understand if you're giving him deference. I mean, if it's in statue, you're giving him deference, then that conflict needs to be explored a little bit in this workshop. Like, what if what does that mean, substantial difference, if you're not automatically accommodating their the language and their sound plan or their bylaw or their, you know, zoning laws?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So that was a separate piece you wanted to discuss to?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, that

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or, like, athletic.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That was the main reason I brought up substantially. Okay. Not to certainly expand it. Oh, okay. Some I think brought that up. But, yeah, the people on on board with this because, like

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I don't wanna confuse it. It's like

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm on board with what with well, one, I I feel I feel comfortable with the fact that the league is gonna be there and that they're gonna show up and that they're gonna speak for town. So that's a baseline okayness for me just right there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. That's fine.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I Just

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: leave it at the Can I ask? Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I think

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: what is unclear is under what circumstances can the PUC decide to ignore a town plan? Right. Right. And those circumstances, as far as I know, those circumstances are not defined, or are you about to find the definition? I

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was gonna say that substantial that the substantial difference language was added more recently. I think after some of these situations came up where counts felt like they weren't being heard.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: But, I mean, a substantial difference, a well defined, commonly used term in these cases.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is in general law, I would say, but it has a specific definition here that's been added to February a. It's that the town's plan is considered correct, valid, and reasonable.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And that means, as far as I recall, as long as the town plan isn't written so as to ban towers by saying,

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: they can be no more than six inches by six inches on their footprint or something, you know, something obviously exclusion ary.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. There's additional language that says unless there's good cause for the for the plan to not be given substantial efforts, which that would be an example of.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could we just add a new item? Comments. Should be something asking them to just take a look at how to how municipalities are granted, how and when I I don't know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So yeah. It'd be good. Yeah. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that was the list I heard. I know that the, I believe that the sole providers, CTIA, are taking a look at this draft and are gonna provide us with some written testimony about how they feel about the drafts, the language.

[Claire Buckley (Leonine Public Affairs for CTIA)]: Would you like me to speak? Yeah. Okay. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think we reviewed it and of course we'd like a longer sunset but at this point we understand the committee is in a rush and wants to move it so we're not going to submit any written testimony. Okay. But thank you. Sure. And just to clarify, we're not in a rush. I I just feel like we spend a lot of time creating a thoughtful solution. Mhmm. And I know that we'll wanna hear from the PUC. We can send the draft to them or great.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Well I can find the draft.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you do you guys wanna submit written testimony? Do you want us to find time if you can come in?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. If you want. Okay. Whatever you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: want. Great. Alright. So I think those are our next steps. So maybe so I guess we're not expecting written testimony. Well, Greg, we'll get you on the schedule ASAP.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then we'll schedule a vote and folks can let us know how they feel. Okay. Thanks everybody. Oh, Brett Howland?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: think this may be a little too early to ask, but with that last paragraph in the report and that page three, line 15, after the report of December 15 is that that report of 12/15/2026 then allowed us to come into this committee next session. Okay. So so depending on the findings of these workshops, this may or may not come back in in '27. It doesn't have to wait till the next sunset to come.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Right. So we'll have a, you know, a report will be delivered to our committee in nine months or whenever that is. And I think folks would expect to read it and see what the PUC recommends. I mean, you know, the the it's really up to the PUC to say we, you know, we did this exhaustive process. We really thought this through. And they we've made x y and z changes or we recommend you change the statute in x y or z way. And so I would assume there would be a lot of interest in, you know, this committee and the next legislation or the next biennium to take action on that. If not, I mean, yeah, it would be a profound waste of the PSC's time to ask them to do all that work and not to take it.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's well before the draft deadline, the due date. So there would be time to draft anything if you were interested. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. Well,

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I don't see else. This

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: committee rather than our committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Well, I don't think the agenda has changed much. Anyway, just always remember to keep an eye on the agenda because, you know, Alex is constantly updating it, and we'll try to get mister. Okay. We can go off-site.

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