Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We are live. Okay, we are live. Senate Finance, this is April 2, and we are going to continue our discussion of five twenty seven, an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 VSA two forty eight a. And first on the agenda is Hunter Thompson on Yeah, the speaker's all off? Okay. Thank

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you. For the record, I'm Hunter Thompson. I'm the director of telecommunications and connectivity with the public service department. So it's my understanding here that I am testifying on the renewal of 248A, So the newest version of the first I'll give you the department's position on the renewal. We prefer the version that was introduced here with removal of the sunset date. That's not an option, we prefer more than the forty years in the house version. Ten would be great, seven would be good, more is is full. If that's not an option, finally, we accept the house version. I think some other folks might have stuff to say about the study, seeing as we just did one hundred and years ago, but despite any of the other conditions, the department fully supports and would like to see the new owner of the eight day. That's a statute that is used for telecommunication palette site. I've got some other stuff to go with here, kind of related to some other things that I've heard. So, as I said, we did this study three years ago. We traveled out of the state. We went to Brown Federal Rescue Mission to him, right down of St. Elvis. Longfield here at St. Johnsbury, we reached out to the utilities, we reached out to the city and towns, we reached out to the public, we reached out to everybody who would possibly listen to us. And we had a few key takeaways from that that I would be happy to share. So as far as the public themes went, one of the themes was notice, access, and transparency about how the petitions are filed and expanded outreach on the web. The other one was how comments on cases are entered and remote participation options. I'd like to point out remote participation options exist. When these meetings happen, there is a remote participation option. And then the other big one that we consistently heard was health and safety and our affiliation. I'd like to point out that we are federally preempting from discussing that two forty eight.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That's just been an ongoing frustration. I know.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Can you repeat? What is that? I'm sorry, health and safety.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Our affiliation, and safety, the public had a lot of input. Oh, our information. And the department in the state are specifically preempted by the FCC from discussing the health and recreation.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It's like putting your house. Right. Take test to safety. Really? Really. That's the yeah. Wow. This is the FCC. The nuclear power is the that Atomic Energy Commission. So

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: we are preemptive. So the municipal themes that we heard when we did this study were desire for clarity on the process, largely through communication with the regional planning commissions on how municipalities get substantial deference in the February process. That was one of the biggest things we heard, that was a big piece of pushback from the towns is how do we interface with the RPCs to make

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I sure think we heard the same testimony a year, two years ago.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yep. At least we're consistent. And the utility themes were the utilities are in favor of more like the ciders in of it, and quite honestly, as I said, I'm a fit for fireman, it's in favor of it. I'd to point out, get some numbers to give a scope, because oftentimes when we talk about our sighting, we

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: only hear about the outliers. Well, know there's

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: a couple outliers that have gotten a lot of publicity, but I was gonna ask you, how many sightings are we doing? So

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: for 2025 and this year is a bit bigger because every time the statue comes in for a little, we see a cyclical push. So we did 174 in 2025, we did 72 in 2024. Of those though, the important thing to keep in mind is that the bulk of those are not actually new panels. The bulk of those are small, de minimis applications with providers switching out antennas and other pieces of infrastructure that don't actually affect the view shed. They don't affect anything other than the service providers being able to push out through the antenna. They might have more ports, they might have more lots, but it's just the

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Can know how many view towers were included?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I wish. That's bad. Wish I could So for 2025, there were seven petitions for a limited size and scope, which is either co location or modification, which means the tower might have an extra or be extended up to 10 feet higher. And there was 19 towers, or 19 partition sprinting towers. In 2024, those numbers were down to 15 for potential expansions of existing towers and only nine new towers. Towers? Nine towers, yep. So if you do the math, in 2024, 70% of the petitions were basically for antenna swabs, and in 2025, 85% of the petitions worked for that de minimis modification. That's basically the response.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: '24 was nine new, and what was the other? The sort

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: of Nine new and 15 were a co location or magnetization between the system tower. So one of the things I heard when this was introduced last week was that maybe we're done with the deployment of towers. I'd really like to reiterate both as a citizen who lives five miles from here who does not have cell service at my house, And some actual scientific data to back that up. We're not prepared. We did a project within the department 2024, twenty '25, where we drove over 7,000 miles of road in the state of Vermont. The success rate for call, for the call completion was at a max 80%. So there's still 20% of that 7,000 miles of road. You just can't make a phone call. You can't call 911, your GPS, they're be an officer, you be able to do that in the past. That's for a seventy five percent success rate. When you actually go to consistently be able to make a call every time, that drops down to the highest success rate of 77%. So 23% of the roads that we drove in that test just can't make a cost, you're in a dead zone.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: When was that again?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, we did a test, a project called the mobile dive test.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, no, I remember you doing it. Just couldn't remember when it was.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: So,

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the reason why this service is important, as we all know, is self-service most directly impacts at risk populations, right? You look at the acute research center and the at risk populations have a larger dependence on smartphone limiting internet access. Sixteen percent of US adults are completely reliant on their smartphone to get on the internet. We saw this become a big issue. What they did for the COVID-nineteen is exposed bright, wearing lights when people were sent home for COVID. We saw people parked at the library where their kids could be there from work. We have an age dependence metric where seventy, I'm sorry, seventeen percent of the population that's 65 or over is dependent on a smartphone for internet access. Twenty seven percent of the population between 18 and 29, which are the young people who are trying to attack too remote, only have their smartphones. That's again, highlighted again with education, high school education, or less twenty five percent of that population in 2025 was dependent on their smartphone to get access. So when we get to the point where internet access and smartphone connectivity is not universal, we're disenfranchising these populations and they're the populations that most need the assistance of the state. And more income dependence, 34% of of households making under $30,000 a year are dependent on their smartphone to get on with their dad. Of the other things I would like to point out is, this is not the situation you are in. One of the things I often hear said is Patrick quote, We all know it from not, turned into a giant pincushion with 200 foot towers sticking out of every mountain and valley. I think we said this in 1998, the landscape is wildly different than it was in 1998. If you want unemployment insurance, you need an internet connection to file it really quickly. If you want snap benefits or mutual benefits, you need an internet connection to both AKS to apply. If you want to have invasive services, if you don't want to wait two hours at the DMV, you need to make an appointment. Need an internet connection to make the appointment. The number of services that the government uses to push out these address populations is ever increasing and are reliant on internet connectivity to be able to serve these people. That's largely my testimony. Is there any questions? Let's skip Sounds over

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: like when you reached your public hearings, you heard many of the same things that my emails heard years ago and have been hearing recently when this bill, you know, became active. So there seems to be concern that the towns don't know, especially your smaller towns where you've got a couple volunteer select board members and maybe not and maybe a town clerk. Many of those don't even have a part time manager of any kind. How do these you know, what's been done to help the towns understand and when was the citizens understand how they access the system? Because this system was put in place in lieu of a full blown Act two fifty hearing. Right? Sighting, hearing, years perhaps to get through, and it was done at a time when we were just starting to see cell phones, wireless, become important. We've got a bill in here that's talking about switching over from copper to fiber and the importance of people knowing about batteries because that's your connection to 911. And if you don't have and I don't think we ever promised when we did nine one one that everyone would have twenty four seven immediate access, but that's become the expectation. And the towers are part of that expectation. Having been stuck out to my waist in snow with my cell phone in my hand, but no cell service, I know that feeling of I could be in real trouble because there's no one else around and I can't contact anyone. And so the expectations have changed. We expect the ability to to connect, but we also expect to be able to have a voice in that process, wear the cell phones. And I understand some providers or people that put up cell phones may be more cooperative than others. So I'm wondering, what has the department done to help make it clearer to both the towns? Where can I go on the Internet and have it laid out R Y A B C D? This is what you do. And, these are where you get the papers, and this is what you have to file, or this is what you call.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So I'm gonna defer to Mr. Faber on fair

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: process, but

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: with that said, it's my understanding that PUC, and I know for the fact that the PSC has a public guide for the Ag two forty eight process available on our website, which explains the different petition types, as well as how the towns or how interveners can be involved in those petitions. Excuse me, when we're contacted by the towns, the towns can always reach out to us and request the public hearing, and we ensure that happens. We've had situations where we were reached out to by the town select board, and they said they were not happy with the responses they were getting from the current slate of people who had the provider working on the petition. We reached out to the provider, out to the provider's lobbyists, we said, let's work this out. Let's get some new lawyers in there. Let's get some new people, set up another public hearing, go back to the town, explain what this is about and how this is working, and they did. So we're able to exert that kind of authority. For the town, we also can insist on aesthetics tests. So if a town comes and says, we think the town or something that caused undue adverse aesthetics impacts, we will get a vendor, they will come out, they'll read the aesthetics assessment, and that will be included in the petition as part of the consideration.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: How did the towns know they call the public service department? It's not obvious by your name. Yes. I mean, the Public Utility Commission is more obvious. Utilities in their name. Is That part of

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: them, I'm not sure how to answer Oh, okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think you should ask I for mean, because that's that's the first step is to know that it's your website they should go to, and it's you that they should go to. Okay. I had senator Hardy and then senator Brock.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Thank you, madam chair. Along those same lines, is there a timeline after which if towns contact you, you're just like, well, that's too far in the process. You are too late because the PUC's process is is a very ordered kind of legal process and so, there's a, I would assume there's a point after which it's kind of a done deal.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'm gonna defer to Mr. Patrick Rothschild. He can just kind Off the top of my head better than I do. I have to go pee. Okay. He's getting leave eight, sixty to eight, ninety days.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And then type. Are you gonna submit your written PET simole? Because you It's a chicken scratch. It might be helpful because you had a lot of stats in there. You can write it up to submit it. And then I'm wondering I mean, one of the things that we're hearing from some people is that the $2.48 a process, they that they would prefer to have that that $2.50 process, which is is kinda funny. But wondering if what you I mean, that is a similar that's a different type of process, but if there's still a process, and why is it that you think that $2.48 if the process is better?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I am grateful. I'm not extremely well versed in the HAC two fifty process. Right? But I will say that the HAC two fifty process and the two forty eight process are both processes that can be found through the site, these antennas and the cell towers, but they're separate processes. When we get a two forty eight petition, we do an in-depth technical review of the site plan of the co location of the RF lung propagation maps to ensure that they actually fit in with what not only the petitioner submitted, but with the appropriate type of project, petitioner can work and then it's estimated its size and scope. It's my understanding that Act two fifty doesn't do that much of a deep dive technical analysis on the actual petition, and that Act two fifty is more of an environmental environmental, or position, but I would like to have way of saying that. Land use petition. I think that the department does a good job looking at the various people who intervene in these types of petitions, when they intervene, I think there's a couple instances on there, where we had a petition and we pushed back on the, we pushed back on the carrier and said, this is not okay, this is not the predicaments. They got upset and we argued for a ban, and we said, we could potentially support this. So they updated their petition that automatically went out 60 feet off the hour. We submitted it, and then the town looked back and the town said, that's not what we understand. We will not, in order to get substantial difference, we're gonna say, we don't approve of this tower unless you meet these guidelines. The petition said, okay. We're okay with this petition, we're okay with this tower. That one is still churning because the land owner will be able to see the tower from their land is pushing back, it's gonna be on it there. This is something I've said before, and I'll say it again, don't know why I haven't said it publicly, but everybody is in favor of throwing one person in the volcano if it means the greater good. Everybody's looking for sacrifice. Everybody realizes that sacrifices must be made for the greater good. In this case, the sacrifice was getting cell phone service. In a town where it currently didn't exist, nobody ever thinks they're the one that is gonna get thrown into the volcano, or they're the one that's gonna have to make the sacrifice. I feel that a fair amount of pushback on these two forty eight repetitions are from the folks who realize I'm the one that's now gonna have to make the sacrifice. And nobody wants to see that. Nobody must look out their window and see a cell phone tower. But if looking out in the window and seeing a cell phone tower means that a town, a town, town, town you have with people, and I was able to dial 911, then it's unfortunate, and we apologize to the civilized side of crisis in the community.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Senator Brock.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: When we talk about internet connectivity and service generally, do you have, obviously, records of points that come to the Public Service Department? No. I need to switch to that page? Sure. What you What quantities are you hearing? I didn't know.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: The problem is not unusual

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: given what we do. Primary complaints around billing and disconnections and connectivity, reconnections. Yeah. Oh, here we go. Twenty twenty five, twenty twenty four complaints. We had 83 complaints, thirty's aggravated the billing, one seven was related to business practice. And seventeen were related to delivery of service. So if there's any insight, a tracing down, my service was out. There's thousands of customers that provide, that seemed like a very low number. Yep. 2025, we had 122 complaints. Of those, forty three were related to billing, 27. I bet that's the number of people complaining about the service of our legacy provider just in my town. I think that number So what it suggests to me is based on that is that people are complaining among themselves, they aren't complaining to you. So the question is, do you seek complaints? Is complaining easy? If people are having problems with service providers, do they know to contact you? Do you do anything to outreach, as far as the public is concerned, to make them aware of the fact that you're the place that people ought to complain to? Consumer assistance and public information provision is on the claim. And banks, I will say that they are easy to submit, including need to be submitted online or via a telephone number. You can call out and reach out to me directly. In terms of how people know to complain to us, that's not sure. I've never considered it. But we've such a very low number of complaints given the volume of service that's out there being provided. That to me is a strong signal. When you have internet providers who sell products and they say that for a different tier of service you can pay an additional amount of money, and they never say that you will then get 300, 500,000. They say up to, And they never provide up to. Have you noticed that? I personally, yeah. That's not how public networks are designed, up to speed. Believe maybe last session it was, there was a proposal, actually, for public networks, to be able to have the infrastructure to deliver the maximum amount of speed to every one of their consumers simultaneously. And that technology doesn't make sense. The question is, might they, are they able to deliver that service tier to any of their customers? I've never met a customer who got the tier of service that I've been paying for in others in my area, ever. I would have thought that that would be one of their top complaints. You have any way of measuring what's actually being delivered and whether or not it is meeting what people are selling? Are we talking about wired internet service? Sure. Or cellular service, but wired internet service. Well, talking about cellular service. I don't think the speed tiers on cellular service necessarily have advisors swell like that. But yeah, we measure the upland downwind speed at that same 7,100 miles of per day that we drove. And do you do that regularly, or is that the way it works? Every Every couple of years? And do you think public what you find? Absolutely. Where would It's a consumer find that and know to front and center on our website. We've got press releases on it. We got links to it. Well,

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: you found

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: a provider who was consistently saying, I'm delivering this quality of service, and if you go around, you don't find it. What do you do about that? As I said, as far as upload and download speed, I don't think there's any quality of service guarantees that the seller providers are giving to their folks. When they sell something that's supposed to be up to a certain level of service, don't you think there's a commitment there that ought to be looked at, Particularly if it's not being delivered at all? I don't think the cellular service providers advertise any given speed that they say, Optus, the event of, if it was just me in this room, I would be able to get a certain amount of bandwidth having a phone, have a good room to split with. We all gone there at the same time.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think that's bandwidth bandwidth. Yeah. I think it's more Internet than advertisers. Mhmm. Up and down, but not

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Not so not so. Yeah. In my experience, that's something you're thinking of. Yeah. So Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, mister Thompson? Thank you. If it's alright, I see no objections. I think it might work better if you put Greg on next, then we'll have the two regulators, and then we can go to more public comment. That works for you. Okay. Not seeing anyone jump back in the screen, so let's do that.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee for the record, I'm in great favor with the PUC. Extensively, I'm here to testify on S-two 57 or S-five 27 or H527s, I'm sorry. Would you like me to do that or do an overview of 248A? I'm hearing a lot of questions maybe

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: that would Let's be do a overview of 248A just to refresh everyone's memory, how it works, and perhaps the different roles, what your role is, what the department's role is, so we have the landscape so we can plug in that with individuals.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Right. Okay. So in general 248A was created back in 2007 to allow for statewide level review of the siting of telecommunications facilities. It sets forth the requirements for the applications and allows us PUC to develop rules or borders governing the process. Prior to 248A all facilities needed to go through Act two fifty and the town to get approval. Section 248A is optional meaning that today you could still as a provider go through the town and or act two fifty to get approval for your project rather than use the two forty eight process. In my experience and based on a testimony I've heard from various providers most providers use the two forty eight day process but not all. Two forty eight is basically divided into three categories Small projects or de minimis modifications as they're called in the statute typically consists of swapping out antennas on an existing tower or maybe putting antennas in a church steeple, something like that, very small projects. There's medium or limited size and scope projects which can entail the construction of a small facility with a tower up to 140 feet high and limited earth disturbance. Typically limited size of scope is for is used for expanding existing compounds, or putting more than de minimis antennas on that new tower, but you can actually build a new tower under the limited size and scope category. And then above that, there's larger projects, everything else. Those involve constructing a new tower taller than 140 feet. So that would be putting in, you know, usually an access road, 50 by 50 compound, the tower, equipment, all that sort of stuff. So there's notice provisions. So as I mentioned before, we developed what we call standards and procedures for 248A. They're basically the rules of the road for 248A applications. And these rules require for medium and large projects applicants must provide 60 advance notice of the application to the town, the Regional Planning Commission, the adjoining landowners, state agencies including ANR, Historic Preservation, and the Department of Public Service, of course. So that's the advance notice period. So it's a minimum of sixty days. And I know Senator Hardy, you had asked about when the towns get get notice. So that's their initial notice, right? So once that occurs the provider has to wait a minimum of sixty days and then they can actually file their application, the formal application. Again So that goes to the same same parties notified in advance. And with that once we once so they submit that to us first. We do a completeness review of that project and once it's found to be complete, we'll issue a notice to all the parties saying, okay, this project's been filed or this application's been filed. You have thirty days to submit any and all comments, emotions, everything on that project. So that begins the formal comment period. Now prior to that, towns can request that the department conduct a public hearing in the town. They can conduct their own public hearings. And that generally is an example of that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So can I just ask a little bit more about that? So there's sixty days advance notice. So during that sixty days is when a town has to ask you to do a public hearing?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They have to ask the department to do

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: it within that sixty days. The department.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They, of course, can do it after that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Wait, you're the you're the We're the CUC. Okay. Sorry. He p

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: The Mr. Thompson portion.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Was the department. Yes. Okay. They have to ask the department for a hearing.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They don't have to.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: If they want one. What if they missed that sixty day window?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: If They could still ask and they could still have their hold their own public hearings, of course. There's no restriction on the town holding a public hearing when

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And if the town holds a public hearing, does it matter to you guys?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Does it matter?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Mean, like, if they decide the If they have a public hearing and they're like, no, we don't like that, the site where that their proposed place is, and they tell you

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Then they would file comments within that thirty day period saying, we don't like this.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. During the thirty day period?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: After the notice. Right.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And what if they miss that thirty day window? Is that it? Are they done? They can't do anything?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, That is the common curtain. That's that working statute.

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And thirty days start after you guys have gotten the application and Redeemed complete. It complete.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. And the sixty days is before that. A minimum of sixty days. So they could give you a sixty to sixty day notice, and then it could take them a little while to get their act together and get their application complete. So there's a little there's a little bit of wiggle room on the front end, the thirty days is really tight.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Right. That's a statutory deadline.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Statutes can be changed, though.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: By us. Of course.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Yeah. And our our deadline matches. Check it. Yeah. Of course. There are a lot of deadlines in statute.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. No. I know there's a lot of deadlines. I I mean, I'm just trying to figure out the process and where it's where it's being.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That is the that's the time right now.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. And after that thirty days,

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: a town hasn't spoken up, then they're they're not in the process anymore.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right. Okay. However, people in the town the other individual landowners.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So these deadlines are true not only for municipalities also All for

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: the adjoining landowners who are getting notice, non adjoining landowners could choose to participate in the process.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Is there is there we went over this ad nauseam about, like, the people who can petition for act two fifty. Remember this? I'm looking at senator Beck because he's he and I are on the same committee. But is there a, like, definition for who is allowed to Well,

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: you can you'd to file a motion to intervene.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But is there a definition of who is allowed to be an intervener?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yes. There is a legal definition.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Specific to two forty eight a?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, there's rules regarding motions to intervene in general.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: In general for PUC per procedures?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. For all legal proceedings.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No. No. I know that,

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: but they're different. The one for active This would be for

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: model civil procedure, so. Okay, so it's based on the rules of civil procedure, there's not a specific

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: There's nothing special about our motion center name though.

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

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: We do have a form though that people can fill out, so it makes it little bit easier.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You have a special form It for not special

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: explains what you need to file and it's easier for folks as opposed to actually writing on the motion, you know, for for pro se litigants.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. So you you do have some things that make it easier for pro se.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: We try. We try. Yeah.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Okay. Alright.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: So good to you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Picking up on that, is it very clear? I've heard advocates tell me that the form you just referred to that it could be clear as to how communities select boards can weigh in because I think I've heard you say before, Gregory, here before us is that you do give a lot of deference to local municipalities and their leaders so that their comments are held heavier. Do you think it's as clear as possibly is possible for municipalities and how they should weigh in being a formal resolution by the governing legislative entity, the select board, or does the chair do it, does the town manager do it, and do you think on the form it's also clear, as best it could be, how a municipality can offer their feedback as opposed to a member

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: of the public. Okay. So for towns, they don't even have to file motions intervened. All they have to do is file a notice of intervention, just file a letter.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: They notice this is you feel comfortable that that's cleared up all the

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: different levels? Believe so. You hear from the VLCT. They support this process, so I believe it's clear. I certainly get many of them. But once a town files a notice of intervention, they are a party to the case. They they they actually have to file a motion. It just but I don't notice, hey. I wanna be a part, and they are.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: And when you say they, that's the chair. Can you just send a letter? Planning commission, the select board, both. Anything with a formal signature profile.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right. Either the select board or

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: the planning commission or both. Yeah, I'd love to hear from the LCT if that's possible.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: They're on the list.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: And then not related to that line of questioning, do you have any comment on from your vantage point as you've looked to see how other states do siting of these telecommunications towers? Are we out of step? Is this common? Is that there's usually, I don't even if can call fast path, but a technical path. Is this a a common approach that you see in the other 49 states?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I don't know about all the states, but many states do it on a town by town basis.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, yeah.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Many states do that because they have large cities.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Big counties.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. You remember New York City.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I think nobody's heard me say that before.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. It's a different.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, yeah, that's still going here. Okay, so we've got past the events notice. Okay, so the standards, the standards and procedures that the PDC has for non demented projects, mean basically the larger ones, we require applicants to provide information on existing permits, detailed project descriptions, site plans, elevation drawings, signal coverage maps, and consistency with all applicable environmental and aesthetic criteria. Those are basically the Act two fifty criteria. So you have to show that your project meets all of that criteria in the application. You have to show consistency with the town and regional plans, and you also have to show that that you've explored colocation opportunities before building a new tower. So you have to look around and say, here here's why we need a new tower in this location because these other locations won't cut. It can't block their service. Can do a big tower.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Let's stop you for just a second. Yeah. If if a project has to meet all the act two fifty criteria, all the 26 of them or whatever.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It's it's yeah. A subset of those, I would say.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Oh, a subset. Yeah. Okay. So not all of them.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So Not exactly the same, but it's most.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Most. Mostly the subs. So if that's true, then how how is that your process faster? Because I've heard that that's one of the arguments for two forty eight a is that it's faster than after fifty.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It's a one stop shop. After fifty you gotta get a town permit.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. So it's just like you come to you and you determine all of the things.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right. So in that respect it's faster. There are also deadlines in the statutes by which we have to act on the applications. Whether they're faster or slower than the Act two fifty action, I don't know, but there are specific deadlines that we're we're supposed to meet on reviewing that out.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And are those deadlines based are they specific to act the two

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: forty eight a or are

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: they based on rules of

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: No. They're they're specific to two forty eight a statute. Those could be changed just like the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Just like anything.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Just like anything. But there are and I'll get to those. Okay. So for projects of limited size and scope, we're required to issue a me, the PC, are required to issue a final decision within sixty days if there are no significant issues or ninety days where there are issues. And then for larger projects, you have to issue a decision within sixty days if there's no significant issues or one hundred and eighty days if there are. And now what I can tell you about this is that what we do have contested projects that and we have about five or six of them going right now. They take a lot longer than sixty or ninety or a hundred and eighty days Because once you get into the litigation process, it's it's it just takes a lot longer. There's motions. People ask for extensions. Parties wanna negotiate and come back to you. People file amendments, in which case they have to start over.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, this is, I think maybe the connection was missing. Everybody, there is a hearing before the PUC, after everybody gets notice and sends out notice and sends back I want to intervene or I want to be heard, what happens next?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Okay, so let's say folks intervene, let's say the town intervenes as well, then we would have a, the first thing we would have is scheduling conference. We'd sort out a schedule for the litigation, which includes discovery and things like that, right?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So that's what

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: it starts getting to be a more formal court like procedure. Very

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: much so. So now you have to submit evidence and testimony under folk, And we act like the court in that way. And we go through that schedule and eventually, so we'll have a evidentiary hearing at the end of that schedule. And then eventually we will issue a decision.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Within sixty or one hundred and eighty days?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Like I said, once you get into that schedule usually that time time we won't meet it down.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Might be part of the problem. People are feeling rushed or like they don't have time.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Right, so we've been over backwards to accommodate due process where we can, so we frequently go longer than these time limits in the contested case. For the non contested stuff, we hit all these guidelines.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So thank you. Pro se litigants. Right. You probably have quite a few of those.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Quite a few.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And I know that our regular court system does too. And in my discussions with many judges, this is a conversation about how do judges deal with pro se litigants. Do you have do you collectively, not you personally, but procedures to help pro se litigants? Do you have training of anybody in the PUC for how to help pro se litigants or or interact with pro se litigants? Because they are often at they are always at a disadvantage if they're they're know, unless it's a very unique case.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Unless they're an attorney.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Unless they're an attorney, but then I I guess they're self representative in in different way. But you know, in in talking to a lot of judges, they have things that they do to to, you know, help pro se litigants along with the process, not with their case, but their process.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, you're you're limited, of course, because you are the judge in the proceedings.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Of course. But there are, you know, ways that

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: some have guides. Okay. Citizens guides for participation in our process.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And have the members of the PUC, the actual members of the PUC been trained to, like Especially It just seems like it seems like it's a special skill to be able to work with pro se litigants in a way that helps them feel like they have access to the process.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: We have pro state litigants in almost every case. Yeah. So we're all experienced in that regard. Yeah. I do all of these telecom cases personally. So yes, I've dealt with many, many pro state litigants. You try and help where you can. You have to be fair to all the parties. It's I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: know it's a fine line. Difficult. It's definitely. I get that.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: But again like I said we can go out of our way to go past these statutory deadlines to accommodate the needs of the parties, especially those the the pro state litigants who are not familiar with legal proceedings. That takes them longer to get their evidence together. Their motions are often, know, they're pro state litigants. Don't really know the sonic points of legal motions, things So like you try and help where you can. And that's pretty much it on the procedure unless there's other things people want to talk about, referred procedure, I

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: get to the bill. Better when we finish the rest of the

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Rest of the witnesses.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: As far as the bill goes, so we support S 159, which is your bill, Senator Cummings, which just does away with the sunset. We've done, as the department mentioned, the department did a report last or 2024. We did a report in 2020. Before that, there was the health department report on the RF emissions. I don't recall exactly when that was, maybe 2015, 2016. None of those reports recommended any changes to the statute. So the House version of this bill has us doing a two year, two workshop study on the same exact topics, it's unlikely we're going to come up with any recommended changes. So we object to that. We also we don't have the time or personnel or the appropriations to do this study. It's rather involved.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. We So it's gonna

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: get pinned to the wall across the hall.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, I can't do that, but if you could do that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: No. You can't. No. The the yeah. I believe he was referred to as the butcher the other day. We'll take all the money

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: or anything we'd like. Oh.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And hang it on the wall. Okay. It sounds people who lose are not happy. Yes, of Of course not. We can't change that. We can understand that. I think as Mr. Thompson said, if find out you're the one that's gonna pay the price for the public good, it's not always a good feeling. We pretend but the other one is understanding how people work with the system. It's not the system per se. It's not the law per se. That's it's how people can access it that seems to be some of the trouble, but I may change my mind after hearing from witnesses. But that we can perhaps do something about, and I've got the hundred and eighty days in complex cases or contested cases may not be enough time.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It definitely isn't. Which

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: may be part of what's playing into people's feelings that they're not heard because you've only got five minutes to hear them because there's a 100 of them. Strong. And we deal with that here too.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah, mean, like I said, once we get into the litigation, it takes as long as it takes.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: We don't really look at those guidelines. There's no consequence for not meeting those guidelines.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Can we set up one of those again?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yes, that's very helpful. But like I said, for eighty five percent of the cases we get, we meet these It's only the contested cases which go outside the deadline. So I don't really think that plays a part. It certainly doesn't in my work.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: As long as we don't crack down on any

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: of No, no, don't. It does prevent us from doing things like site visits and public hearings because we do have to cut some non evidentiary stuff out of the process. So it does affect us in that way, but as far as the evidence and the litigation schedule, it doesn't affect

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: There's another question to hit.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Oh my god, what did it just went out of my head? I'm looking at the statutes and I came up with a question now. I think I remember that in the last couple of years, there was an audit done of one of your procedures, and there were

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Did you have an audit?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Did was it this part of it?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Think it was everything.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Was it everything?

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And it was it was just it was my recollection was that it was about this issue of time and whether you were

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It was about yeah. It was about, yeah, case disposition times.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Exactly.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yep.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And there were some cases where you were not meeting the deadlines, and I'm wondering

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I'm sure there were. But what I can say for this, because I I work in this under the statute a lot, for non contested cases we are meeting deadlines.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: can't speak for all of our cases. I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: just wondered, I think there were sub sections under the rot that's seen, so I'm wondering if this process was one that there were issues or not. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, listen. But if the timeline to stopping things from site visits and that and public hearings and that's contributing to people's feeling that they aren't heard, because not everybody has the time or the inclination or the ability to go through the legal intervening testifying thing. That might be something we could look at.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: You could look at the notice time limits as well. Maybe thirty days

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Maybe is not not

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: you want more time on that. As long as it's clear in the statute, and that's great for us. I mean, can work with that. It's just

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, there is a a level at which towns do need to pay attention. If we've given them enough time to pay attention, we can do it, but we will hear from the LCT.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Yeah. You should have done it. They had some really good comments in the house.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. We could definitely help them in. Okay, any other questions?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: But in general we support 248A. The sunsets make our lives difficult as Mr. Thomas was saying. We get 140 in a typical year, I've gotten over 100 in the last five months. Over 100. I just haven't checked March yet, but there's been a lot in March and it's increasing exponentially as we're closer to June when this thing sunsets. Okay. And this happens every three years.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Every three years.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: And it puts a lot of strain on it.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yep. Which means it makes it harder for you to do a good job,

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: which means people feeling less It's not

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: just us. It's the department. It's a and r. They're all we're all looking at these locations, so it makes it very difficult.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Alright.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So I would encourage you to about that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: If we do away with the sunset and a problem arises, nothing says we can't go back in and change the statue.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: You don't have to wait three years. Can do now. Do it now is gonna get you, like

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. We can. Thank you. Back to my agenda. Okay. Peter Gill. It is your dog and pony show, however it works best for you. We all just join him and add Yes. That would be fine. You just have to bring your own chair. We did a quick There's limits for our general long. Okay. So

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: here, should be able to share. Mhmm.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And just let us know what the when you review board, how you fit into all of this.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Well, let's go ahead and maybe I'll introduce us. Yeah. This is Peter Giller, the Executive Director of the Land Use Review Board, and my name is Ruth Hardy. I am a member of the Land Use Review Board. We are the replacement board for the Natural Resources Board. We are a five member board now of professionals with different experiences in land use, land use permitting, law, planning. We have regional planners, municipal planners on our board. So, it's a very interesting diversity of expertise and hopefully coming together, we are able to use all of that broad expertise to be able to implement the changes that Act 181 has presented for the Act two fifty program. You are going to 181 today. Let's take a look Lots at of emails. I'll just say, from my personal experience, I was a land use attorney and litigation attorney for the past thirty years for a Central Vermont law firm, Allison Jackman of the firm at Preston. During that thirty year period, I litigated Act two fifty as well as at the Public Utility Commission on tower cases. So I did tower cases reacting 50 from 'ninety '6 until about 'nine, and then the Public Utility Commission for about the last ten years.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I worked for the Natural Resources Board for about eight years as an attorney, Not handle a single telecom related case during that time. Spent about five years at Norwich. Yeah. Was looking for them. Went back to the board in this current role as executive director to get involved in the study that led up to 181 implementation now, as Ruth was saying. So today, we understood that the committee was interested in looking at the Act two fifty processes as they're kind of comparing those processes with the PUC. So we're not advocating on this bill in any way, but just wanting to get you all understanding kind of where, how Act

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: two fifty works in terms of its processes. Made some significant changes

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: to Act two fifty, so this could be a good update on Yeah, the

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: yeah, and we, I'm gonna focus on kind of our public processes and those types of things for this. We can certainly get somebody in at some point to talk a little bit more about January and some of those changes too. Just to, level set on everybody in terms of, how, act two fifty and the two forty eight a process kind of overlap, as you heard from Hunter earlier today, it's sort of an applicant's choice, right? So within the Act two fifty statute, we regulate development, which includes towers for communication broadcast purposes, as you can see here, independent of what the acreage is involved in those processes. But we also say in that statute that development does not include telecommunication facilities when it has a two forty eight certificate of public good.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: If it doesn't go through 48 a and it's 20 feet tall, it only has to have what was it? The fifty five fifty foot. I forget what he called it. But it doesn't have to be on 10 acres.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Right, yes. So you're probably familiar with our standard 10 acre jurisdiction and one acre jurisdiction, but for these types of projects, it's based on the vertical footing. So let me go past that slide just to give you kind of an overview of who we are as Act two fifty. We have this newly appointed five member land use review board that is overseeing the program, but it is run, the heart of it really is these district admissions that are appointed through the governor's office, and they're the ones that are reviewing and issuing land use permits, or Act two fifty permits at the end of the day. They're citizens that we, provide training to, to do that quasi judicial. They're assisted by the district coordinators, and the technicians in their, in the various districts, as you can see on the map, the layout of our districts across the state. Those district coordinators are issuing jurisdictional opinions determining whether a project needs an Act two fifty permit or does not need a permit. They're also helping shepherd the permit process. They're helping guide the district commission through that process. They're helping applicants, they're helping neighbors, they're helping those that are interested in the process to understand what the process, how the process runs.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'm gonna

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: jump in here. And if I can jump in just for a minute, because one of the tests that I performed during the first year that we were in office this past year was to present a, well, to conduct an appeal study and produce a report, not just on how to speed up appeals, but also to look at our own program in terms of what to do there for the permitting portion, first portion before some decision would be appealed. And one of the issues that the stakeholders spent a lot of time talking about, but it was a little bit outside the rails of the amount of time we had for that project process and study was we looked at ombuds, people, permit specialists, some kind of support nurse, because our program has experienced, we talked about the district coordinator, that is the person that interfaces with the public, helps the permittees, the applicants, also helps municipalities and planning commissions and select boards at those camps to understand how they can be involved in the process. So, we have a person that is far different at the PUC. You don't have that individual that shepherds an application through the process and is able to make sure that people get the information, they get the guidance that they need to be able to participate. Now, the study that we conducted about getting a permit specialist or ombudsperson to help in that is because at ANR, they used to have permit specialists, and they were sort of the traffic cops of these are all the ANR permits you're gonna need. You might need air pollution, and you might need some storm water, whatever it might be. And that person, that job got eliminated at ANR, and there was a computer thing that got, that was a replacement, it was called the permit navigator or something. That's now going away as well. So, the big huge difference, if you're concerned about dealing with the public and assisting pro se litigants particularly, but also very importantly, municipalities who have volunteer staff, you know, select groups and all that. We have that person. And the thing in the study for the appeals report was establishing a separate environmental justice kind of person to help with permitting, or the permitting programs that are all now subject to the environmental justice obligations under that law for 2022, If there were across these primary processes, someone that could, we could reestablish that kind of support position or office. And what the appeals report suggested was additional study in that regard for the LERB to do that, not because the legislature required us to, but to undertake further study of that because what's happened for our district coordinators is they are still serving all comers, but that burden has increased for them because of the elimination of the ANR permitting specialist. So, I'm just presenting that to you. I can certainly provide you with a copy of the That would be very helpful. You could post it on our website and read it. And there was specific conversation about the Public Utility Commission, Agency of Natural Resources, as well as the LRRR sharing that kind of, doing a study to try to see if that kind of position could be employed across permitting programs to have the kind of support that would be necessary and that could be affordable. So, I just throw that out and I will be happy to follow-up and present that conversation and the information we amassed with that report. If you could get that to us, that would be very helpful. We'd be

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: happy to. Yeah,

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: that. I think I remember you mentioning that when you did the presentation to us on the appeals report, you didn't include that in your testimony on 03/25. That would have been helpful to talk about it. I I wasn't specifically on that one, but Okay. So Yeah. And and and unfortunately, because we were short on time for the recording on it. It was like, we identified it, it was like, this really needs more work and more study to figure out how people do it because it really was identified as being something that would be critically important in helping the public and the municipalities to to better participate in these processes. And across all, not just one, but all of them. That's that's really interesting.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. I just feel negative vibrations coming from across. Yeah. I mean,

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: I've got a bit of money, but it might I do might be very well spent. I think it's but not gonna disagree with that at all. Navigators. Good thing. So Okay. Link?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Now we're stuck. Yeah. I'm sick. You already

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: decided that this morning. Remember?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. Those are the AI?

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Moving on to the permitting application process. Our process is a citizen based one. As I mentioned, the commissioners are lay citizens, but we also involve the public in that process moving forward. What I'd like to do now is hope that it works. We will get into a little bit more about that, those public processes in the coming slides here, but I've got the 10 criteria on this page, but if you move on to the following page, you will see the 32 criteria and 18C under Act 181 comes into play, then we'll have 33. But you can see them all listed here that Act two fifty reviews when an application comes in. The commissioners need to ensure that each application that comes through the door meets each of these criteria. Not every criteria is gonna be applicable to every project, but they need to make a positive finding on funding. Yeah, correct.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Yeah, the 248A does import most of the Act two fifty criteria like Greg was talking about. It imports one through eight and then is it 9L's,

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Craig?

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I think so.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: I think it's 9L. Then, Criterion 10 that talks about local and regional or municipal and regional plans, that is covered by a criteria that's called orderly development over the Public Utility Commission. So, it is true that almost all criteria are imported in and most of them are interpreted similarly. Although the public utility efficient does have sort of a card that they can play to say, even if there's an undue adverse impact, say on aesthetics, the public good requires this and they can use it as a get out of jail for sure. I just need to bypass the finding that there's an undue adverse impact. So very similar, but a little.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Okay, so application review process. This gets a little bit complicated, but let me break it down for you. So in that first box, this is just showing, okay, the application comes in, the district coordinator that we were talking about before, they're the ones that make sure that it's complete.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: This has already been through local planning and zoning if it exists.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Well, there's no need to go through local zoning first or anything. They are independent processes. If and I would and I would mention that, you know, but over at the PUC, if you do 248A, you don't have to do local Right. Or active So if there were so the problem that we have is not the active 50. It's probably similar time lines to PUC. It's that we have this duplicative thing of having to do the Well, planning and limiting. Then coming here for funding So, and instead of being the only permitting, being Act two fifty like the PUC, unfortunately, we still have the dual permitting necessary. Yes. Which could be eliminated, but for Act two fifty, it was not. It was left duplicative. And not that and I don't mean to say that they're they're not the same criteria specifically.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: No. It's the local control and our control, our town, and we give that up, we hold that very precious.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: So just to highlight on this screen here, overview, we've got a noticing period that occurs on that kind of middle bar, And then you have three different types of application processes that could happen on an application. You've got an administrative amendment, mostly for record keeping purposes, a minor review and a major review. Both are notice periods and sent to adjoining neighbors and parties that are designated within the statute. So we're gonna start here with the minor review process in these next slides here. So, this is our minor review process.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Before you go on, the administrative amendment process is very similar to the de minimis, where there's just like an intent being switched out and it's mostly just a paper process of filing the information. So, that we won't talk about. I've got one little slide on it at the Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We're not worried about

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the amendments from this assistant.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: So in terms of the minor process, again, the application is reviewed. It's one that is found that it will not present significant adverse impacts under any of the 10 criteria, therefore may follow minor process. Nobody has specifically requested a hearing during that notice period. Again, as you can see, published in newspaper, sent to adjoining neighbors and parties, And we'll get into some of the statutory parties in a moment too. The commission then will deliberate on that application. There'll be a draft permit that's posted for everyone to see with the conditions in that draft land use permit. And then, if no one is seeking a hearing, and the commission will then, issue that, issue that permit. That process, typically on average is somewhere around, three months after it's been determined, a complete application. So the major review process, very similar. However, this is where there is a hearing that is held. And again, you've got, you start with that notice of the application. We have a public database where all these applications can be viewed by anyone in the public. With the hearing process for major applications, we now have a requirement under Act 181 requiring us to have a form that the landowner applicant will put on a sign in front of the parcel so that people can do that as well as something that folks can go and then they can get on to our database and see more of the documents

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: that notice.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Then they will conduct a hearing as you saw on some of those earlier slides where they were conducting hearings. The chair will run that hearing, bring in, the applicant will bring in their witnesses and experts, etcetera. Anyone who wants to participate, make a petition for party status, which we'll go through in a moment here, which allows them to participate in that process. We also have what's called a friends of the commission. So if there's somebody that doesn't want to seek party status, knows that there's, you know, giving away their appeal rights for that process, but they want, they have some information they want to share to the commissions, they can do that as a friend of the commission, essentially. And then the commission will deliberate on that process post hearing, they'll oftentimes ask for additional information and then issue a decision after they've received the last item within twenty days from that end of those deliberations.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Now I'd like to explain a little bit about the hearing at Act two fifty. It's a real hearing. There is a commission and they invite people, people come and they talk and they testify under oath and they they're asked questions. They're allowed to be cross examined. So, everybody hears all the evidence and everybody gets to ask all of the cross examination questions that they think are relevant and it is conducted not terribly formally like a courtroom, but the APA is the standard and we do follow the rules of evidence, but they're relaxed standards. Whereas at the Public Utility Commission, while they say that they hold a hearing, it is not all of the testimony and evidence is all put in ahead of time on paper. And really the only thing that happens at that hearing is, is this your testimony that you put in in writing? Yes, it is. And then people are allowed to cross examine if they have any questions at that point. But it is a very different situation. It is not a bring the community in and have a conversation. I mean, not that it isn't so informal at the District Commission, but it is of, I just want you to understand there's a vast difference when we are using a word hearing, we are describing two totally different processes.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: And our our hearings are generally in the in or near the location of the project.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: And these hearings, the ones you're describing now are the district submission ones, not the whole not you all, the full one.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. So at this at this point, any, the board does not, hear any land use, permits.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Right. So it's the three people in that district question.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. And then alternate, one of them is not available.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, usually we have three, they can have two, but it is usually, three people in

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: the hearing. And they have, a district coordinator with them, who's very familiar with the statute, and then we also have on call attorneys that are our staff attorneys. If any eventary issues arise or something of that nature for legal support to make sure that yeah, because this is a citizenry board. And, you know, terms of the process, this the strength of Act two fifty is that you have the ability to come in here as a member of the public. There is an event that goes on, whereas with Public Utility Commission, it's, you know, the lawyers have put in all of the documents. And so, that's what I'm trying to portray. It's just so different because all the information is talked about, articulated, and discussed, and presented to that tribunal and the public at the same time. And that is the strength of our system in terms of being able to involve the people in that process.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Questions on that? No. What happens at a typical hearing? Sorry, it's a little bit wordy, slide here. I'll leave that for you all. Just so you've got it in your materials and I think we've gone through that pretty clearly here. So party status, as I mentioned before, like how do you get to be part of the process here? So these are statutory parties by rights. That means that in the statute, these entities are listed. They automatically are part of the process. So the applicant, of course, the landowner, the municipality, the regional planning commissions, the variety of state entities or state agencies, ANR, AFM are ones that typically will be involved in our processes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Adjacent landowners aren't already spiral?

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: They still have to demonstrate that they can be impacted by it and have a have an adjust issue that is not otherwise. Yeah. I'm confusing the CDC standard in my head. This is what I was referring to earlier that there's there are standards for people who can have a a particularized Yeah. And that was intentional to limit the number of people who could appeal a decision. And this was we've talked about this a lot in my boarding committee, so that you have to, I mean, should explain it because I, you'll explain it

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: better. You're doing a great job.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, so kind of focusing on that particular interest piece, thinking back to that slide that we had of all the criteria, somebody has to say, okay, under one of those criteria, I have an issue and my participation in that and the result that comes from the commission or potential result from that commission can can be affected by

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Right. Like, somebody's project is draining Yeah. Storm water into your land, that could be a particularized interest. But just being a neighbor doesn't mean you have a particularized interest.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes. So another good example, if you're a neighbor that is upstream and you're complaining about the loss of water withdrawal that's coming from that stream, you may not have a particular interest in that case because you're upstream instead of downstream. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: And a nonparticular interest would be, like, climate conditions or traffic in the whole neighborhood because that's not a particular specific interest. It's just a macro aggregated interest.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Yeah, have to differentiate yourself from the general public. That's basically But the I will say that at the Public Utility Commission, the intervention statute I have found very consistent with, and I have articulated it and argued it as a particularized interest that may be affected by the project. I think Mr. Favor has ruled on those very consistently. So don't necessarily, I don't know if maybe language needs to be added for consistency, I do think that they are very Okay. So,

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: at the end of the process, the commission says, yes, you have final party status. So there, somebody will make a petition at the beginning and say, yes, this is why I need this. Commission will evaluate that. Yeah, and they say, okay, yep, finally, yes you do, or no you don't.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: And that's to hear the evidence and for them to actually provide, you know, the evidence that supports the claim that they provided in the meeting.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: And then I promised that I did have a slide on administrative amendments, our much strifter process here again for record keeping because it's based on this no likelihood of impacts under the criteria standard. And in those cases, the commission will allow the district coordinator to issue an administrative amendment to cover that particular funding issue. Some examples of how those are used. So with that, any questions for us? Oh,

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: yeah, one other thing that I would just highlight in terms of vastly different process is discovery. There's not and as sister Favor testified, you know, all bets are off when you get involved in that litigation process. And so in the appeals study, for example, when we were proposing a model for the board to become an appellate body, one of the things that we were suggesting is under the APA, we reduced the amount of discovery and just require you know, a certain amount of time right before the hearing for disclosures of witness lists, summaries of what the witnesses will testify to, and then all the documents you can put in in discovery. And absent some really important reason that justifies engaging it further in actual discovery, you know, the district commissions don't really they don't have discovery like the PUC would have. So, we're saying if we were to become the appellate board, not the environmental division where all that discovery happens, we were trying to streamline the process by saying you have to give all your information ahead of time so that the information is exchanged to eliminate what tends to be one of the longest delays time wise in the entire adjudication process, and that is the discovery process. You serve questions, you get thirty days to respond to them, it goes back and forth quite a bit. That is the That's quite different at the distribution versus the Public utility commission. You don't get bogged down in that process. And yours, you don't get bogged down.

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

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: But PUC you can't. They have the rules of evidence that they follow. Right, but just to be clear that when our district commission makes the decision, presently it gets appealed to the environmental division and then that litigation process can happen. De novo. De novo, exactly. Okay, So You've been listening. I'm having a Been risking every part.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm student. As I said, it used to be utility lawyers arguing with utility lawyers since everyone knew the voice. With the advent of cell towers showing up in people's backyards, the public became much more interested. And so you've you've got a very legal structure. You were set up more recently, I think, and a a little more of a side brand. That, I think, is what we're trying to do is maintain legality, but also allow the average person with some effort to be able to to access. Yeah. I mean, would say well, I have

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: a question for you, but first, just to it's not there there are other issues that PUC Oh, yeah. Handles that the public has an interest in and and and have. It's not just the sudden piece of ours because there are other We things were

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Distribution lines.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: Yes. Things like that. So people have and, I mean, I think that the because it's much more of a legal courtroom type procedure than than y'all your your procedure is. It's it's more intimidating for The regular history. The layperson. But my question is, I I'm assuming you don't have a a position on this bill. You were invited in to tell us about your procedure and how it differs or do you have

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: a position on the bill? The board does not.

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: We don't have a position. I think we have looked at the volumes to ensure that you know, to understand what percentage is de minimis so that, you know, so that we did not, we wanted to express concerns on capacity if there were any concerns, and I know of no concerns on capacity. The concerns on the Meaning, it were allowed to sunset, I think that our district commissions would have the ability to process that application. Okay. I see. That was one of my biggest concerns, and so I was trying to get an idea from Hunter's testimony, and, you know, and so we looked into that yesterday to be sure that we didn't have any red flags or concerns for you all. But we have there's no board position. We're not asking them to take over the Well We have existing jurisdiction. With whatever is decided, we are prepared to do our job.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We do nothing to pick up the pieces. Alright. Okay. Any further questions? If not, thank you. This was, I think, that was on that economic development. When we did a lot of this, it's very helpful to see what the new system kind of laid out with the land use review and okay. That as well.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Ma'am, we're happy to get you

[Ruth Hardy (Member, Land Use Review Board) — time-bounded overlap]: that appeals report. Yes, I'll that would be send it to you right away and I'll send you two documents, the entire appeals report and then I will extricate, it's actually in an appendix, two pages specific on the ombuds permit specialist. That should be especially helpful. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate your comments.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Annette Smith. Thank you.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: My name is Annette Smith. I'm the executive director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment. We have been working with Vermonters in our communities twenty six years. Modest Hurricane Environment was founded in 1999 to deal with a large power plant and pipeline project in Robynne and Medington Counties. And since then, we've worked with citizens assisting them and having a voice in what goes on in their communities. We've worked with people with PAC two fifty cases, Agency of Natural Resources permitting, public utility commission cases. We've worked on landfills, large farms, quarries, gravel pits, groundwater protection, issues that Vermonters bring to us. Beginning in about 2009, most of our work began to focus on Public Utility Commission because of industrial wind cases. Then 2015, because of lot more solar cases, we have gotten involved in a very small number of solar cases, but still there are not every development is a good development. In recent years, the majority of our work has been on tower cases. And so I'm going to take you through what it's like and explain to you why section two forty eight a is not working. I wanna be very clear upfront. The bill that you're looking at, h five twenty seven, is essentially my list of what to give to the PUC to do rulemaking. And the PUC had said they didn't wanna do it. Then the committee gave it to the industry, and they made some changes. And then the committee made some changes, and they then turned it into these workshops. And then the PUC said, we don't wanna do this either. And so I I've been trying to find ways. I've also given the committee and the PUC a list of proposed changes to the statute, which apparently nobody wants to do either. So I come to you with some frustration for the nature of the type of work that I've been having to do and looking forward to finding solutions. This this slide is a a a good example of what is currently happening. The image on the left is a tower that has been put up in Eady next to Route 100. And this is this company that's relatively new to Vermont Industrial Tower and the waterless. They intend to put these all over the state. They apply for just what you see there with an 18 foot width antenna on top for radio service. Nobody really seems to understand what the radio service is about. We've heard maybe it's for Amazon delivery trucks and things like that. But then there are what some people call rent seeking when they lease out the space. So there is one tower that has antennas on it. T Mobile when when you hear about the volume of antennas, T Mobile's putting antennas everywhere that there's a structure. They're swapping out antennas. We're seeing a lot of of swapping out of antennas all over the state. I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the Sunset Intersection 248 A. I'm trying to see the industry is doing a lot of updating of its technology. So in addition to adding these antennas, they also add a generator and they add a building for generating. And because of the way these are being permitted, those issues cannot be raised. So you can't talk about the aesthetics in a fully built out ITW tower, which can add two other carriers on them too. You can only talk about the aesthetics of what's being proposed. And that's an issue that people have raised numerous times in all the communities that this company is now operating. Representative Southworth summed up very well what I feel came out of the House Committee. The House Committee heard a lot of very good testimony. We got a lot of good public comment. He said, I believe there are issues with the siding process. I'm very concerned that Vermonters through this current effects are not able to be heard. I'm not convinced that the current process will be enhanced by our recommendations in the bill. Revisiting the current statute to me is enhancement and that is why I voted no. And I that rings true to me based on what I heard in that committee. And I do believe that every member of that committee recognized that there was a problem. But at a certain point, they did not produce something that's going to solve the problems that we're seeing. So what are the problems? There are new problems that have been reviewed with section two forty eight A because there are more towers being proposed closer to homes and villages and more towns that are proposed. Now, imagine each of you that if a company has come in and proposed a tower of 500 feet from their house, try and keep that in mind as you consider what it's like to be faced with a Section two forty eight application. Now, I've presented three different images here, and they're color coded. So this one on the left, you see a lot of green. That's AT and T. The orange is Verizon and the pink red is Industrial Tower and Marvels, the new company. When we were here three years ago, we made a differentiation. AT and T was kind of the big guys and the others were not behaving so well. In most of these green towers on the left, AT and T did not place the towers in the initial spot that they proposed. They were too close to homes, too close to schools. They worked with the communities or they dropped the site, and they seemed to be willing to do everything possible to avoid a contested case. There had been only one contested case since 2016. That was in 2017 at Verizon Tower and was opposed by Waterbury and ANR. It was denied. And there were no contested cases until very recent. Now the middle slide shows the towers that have recently been approved, And the slide on the right shows the towers that are currently in process. You'll see one in AT And T Tower that's in town. Previous two contested cases were in Granville, and that was an AT And T Tower, and Enosburg, and that was an industrial tower in Martinezville, Missouri. I will say that since Grandville took place, which they got their CPG in 2024, And now what's going on in panel, I don't consider there any big guys anymore. It's heavy litigation. And they're they're digging in and litigating and burying the neighbors in litigation rather than working with people. So it's all pretty much the same. Verizon and Industrial Talent Wireless are represented by the same law firm. The attorney who did their cases for a long time, something happened to him. They now have other attorneys doing the cases who have no experience with the PUC. So it's just kind of a strange world to see what's going on. I wanna thank this committee because I really have felt that you have listened to us. Senator Cummings, especially, I I I really feel as though you have every time we've come to you, have done something that says we hear you. And so in 2019, we came to you and said there are health issues. And the report, was, required of the health department. And in that report, they said that, this reinforces efforts in public health to minimize the dose of, radio frequency radiation, especially in children. But did anything come of it? Well, we saw after that COVID and a lot of wireless build out, a lot of antennas put on schools, a lot of more exposure to children. This is a study just from this month. And it shows that our current regulatory limits for RF are 15 to 900 fold higher than estimates of exposure levels associated with cancer risk, and also 18 to 24 fold higher than levels of male reproductive health. Health effects and property values are the top two issues that people raise. And I have to tell them, I'm sorry, you're litigators.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We can't talk about it.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: However, we can't we can't we still do have the right to have sighting. We can have setbacks. We can say, not here. Too close. And so it's not like it's completely off the table. And I I have provided the language, that is specific in the telecommunications act in a different, reporting event. So in 2020, he came to you and said, we're concerned about small cell build out, and you required a report. And the Public Utility Commission issued a two page report after we put a lot of work into it. I will say that it personally affected me very deeply. It was like the biggest kick in the gut I have ever gotten in my history. Because it just said, you know, there's nothing we need to do. Well, okay, what was happening in Burlington, Massachusetts? In 2019, they were This is an 11 page document for small wireless This was five gs. Was when there was concern about five gs, but it was also that's when in 2019, that was when the health report came out. But in 2020, there was a lot of concern about, yes, small cells being put out in neighborhoods. And so every other state except Vermont and Connecticut do citing through municipal zoning. And so there are examples of small cell bylaws all over the country. King, New Hampshire has one. Burlington, Massachusetts has one. We are kind of prohibited from doing it because there's no vehicle to do it. There's section two forty eight a, but it doesn't address small cells. And the municipal zoning, people haven't incorporated small cells into their zoning. It's a it's so what's happened? Well, we're seeing small cells deployed all over this line without any regulatory process at all. The one on the left is in Rochester. We're not sure what it is, but the neighborhood says that they get Verizon coverage, whereas they didn't before. The one in the middle went up in zero two ago in Granville. And I told Hunter about these things. They've gone out and looked at them, but they don't have any record of these things. They're trying to fund them. The one in Marlborough is a bit older. I did all the research, absolutely no regulatory approval necessary. So, the reason we have hopped out on smart meters is because I saw trouble come. I'm good at seeing trouble come. I saw we're gonna start seeing more small cells. You want these things right outside your bedroom window, your children's bedroom window? We don't have to have them, but we do need to have some standards. We have no standards. In 2023 Can I stop you just to ask,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: can you go back to those photos? Sure. The small cells, they those are on telephone poles? So presumably, they have to get permission from whoever owns the pole. Right? Presumably. Is there a record of what is As

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: the utilities, I don't know. Not a public record.

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

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm just curious. Mean I

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: mean, in my conversation with Hunter, he indicated they didn't really have a way of finding out. He said, Send me pictures. And and, you know, the people in Grand Vole, it's a it's an AT and T thing. Nobody quite understands what it's for, but it's on this back road that's affected by the Grand Vole Tower. Sometimes that's how they

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: get internet services. Was, yeah, but it wasn't

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: for internet service. And I will address this idea about cell phones and internet and how many people rely on cell phones saying, I live in retail service territory. We've had fiber optics since 2014. We don't have cell service most in most places in my area, but everybody uses the Wi Fi off the phone with the the fiber optic cable. And there is a real issue with building out more of these towers into these rural areas that don't have cell coverage because they're narrow, winding roads. And that you don't want people texting and being on the phone driving on these roads. And so the idea that somehow it's going to benefit the area, there are a lot of accidents that people have because of using their phones. And so you get on these smaller, narrower, winding roads. This is a public safety issue. So in 2023, attorney Beagle Dean, Will Dodge of AT and T, and I put our heads together and said, we need to do something to change this process. It's too legalistic, and you heard us, and you put this in the statute. That we thought what we were asking for was the stakeholder process where the LCT and a group of us would come together, and we would meet, and we would talk about how can we make the process better for that Section 248A. And instead, well, I remember asking Attorney Gulick during the summer, Has anyone from DPS contacted you? No. Well, very soon after that, what comes on is a press release in Vermont Business Magazine that the Department of Public Service is doing this today, and they're holding public meetings. Okay. I know the Brown Girl meeting apparently started at 08:30 at night. I asked why. Oh, we could only get the room. I know two people who attended bank to meeting. They told me all they wanted to talk about was health checks. That was what they talked about. I think Alison went to the one in St. St. John's John's Berry. Half of the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Only three people. Three people.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: There was three.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Okay. So in other words, then they issued a report. Now, at this time, we said, Don't give this to the PUC because of what had happened three years before. So here we are again. Here's the data on contested cases and why there are new problems that had not appeared in 2023. There have been 12 contested cases between 2022 and 2026. The ones with the asterisk on the left are five cases where the towns oppose the tower and have recommended the NAHA. There are currently one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight contested cases at the, Public Utility Commission, some of which are Verizon and some of which are ITW and, two of which are AT and T. ITW has said, we're gonna build out a network all over the state. And so regardless of section two forty eight, they're just plotting along. In Marshfield, Verizon said, well, we had we did some reorganization, and now we're we're doing more. So it's the reason that these towers are coming has nothing to do section two forty eight a. It has to do with the the whatever the business model of the company is. But why why is there a need to have this section two forty eight a? Because it's a statewide network. Well, where is where is there any evidence that the public has about the network? Wouldn't it be nice to have a map of what your plans are so we can plan for it? But there isn't. So the issues that have arisen have to do with the new issues have to do with the use of the words recommendations, comments, and public comments. And this this service in Westmore, and there is currently an appeal at the Vermont Supreme Court of the PUC's approval of this tower next to Lake Wellby. And the one of the complicating factors was that the one of the select board members was the leasing landowner, which creates very challenging circumstances on the town level. And so they didn't immediately get up to speed, but there was a balloon test and the planning commission, Chittenden, who'd been chair for twenty five years, didn't see the balloon and submitted comments to that effect. But it turns out as time went on and discovery was held and that we got the balloon tests from the previous test that nobody was notified about, the balloon had dropped almost immediately. And so, yeah, he didn't see it because the balloon test, it was not manned and and the balloon came down. And so there there were factors that led to the planning mission then going through their town plan and their bylaw and rec and and then they submitted that as testimony. And the select board then looked at it and said, okay. This doesn't comply. We recommend denial. ITW's attorney looked to strike it all and struck the public comment because it was struck as public comment because that's how it was filed. And so the PUC uses these words, comments, interchangeably with recommendations. And section two forty eight a is a very long statute. I don't know if any of you have read it, but, it is a very prescriptive statute. It since the PUC has never done rulemaking. So when I go into a community and explain the process to them, which I have done over and over and over and over now in the last few years, and I'm I'm tired of it, I do a search for the word municipal. And the word municipal shows up 17 times. And then I take them through what their rights are as a municipality, and they learn all kinds of things about what their rights are. But it's something that if you do a search for recommendations, It says, unless there's good cause to find otherwise, substantial deference has been given to the plans of the affected communities to the recommendations of the municipal legislative bodies, etcetera. And then further down, it talks about municipal recommendations. The commission shall consider with comments and recommendations. So comments are different from recommendations. This is this is kinda stupid, frankly, but this

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: is this is where we are. Thank

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: for your presentation. So if this were to expire and all of these were to go through about February, would you suspect from your in-depth understanding of it, those to be just have a better process with more input, or would you expect most of these to actually be denied and these cell towers not being built, or these wireless infrastructure upgrades not happening, they

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: were going through active duty?

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: The statistics from both agencies, I just said, not everything gets approved. There is a what I've seen in Act two fifty is that there is a better opportunity for changes to be made. At the PSC, if you wanna move and companies do this, they they will move a tower to comply with bylaws. They'll reduce the height of bylaws. Every single one of those is a legal filing, then that's comments on it. At at a a p to c or at an acting 50 hearing, I've seen projects redesign at the district commission level. And so there's more of an opportunity for collaboration. I'll tell you the biggest problem and my biggest frustration with this topic is that the industry will not negotiate. It's their way. They get they lock the landowner into a lease, and then that's it. And everybody's frustrated that there's no community collaboration. I think if anything positive, aside from a better public process, could come out of moving into Act two fifty, it is that there will be a better collaboration. I've heard citizens all over say, we're not opposed to cell towers. But this location, nobody in their right mind would pick. And so why can't we work with them? And they will not work with the communities. They may work with the Department of Public Service in modifying locations, but that never happens on the community level. Will there be denials? If it's a bad project, then there should be a denial. But will there be more denials? I doubt it. I mean, talked to one district coordinator and said, Oh yeah, we used to approve towers all the time.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Good. Thanks for that.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: So I wanna flag this problems with recommendations, comments, and public comment. I highly recommend you read the appeal because it's very well spelled out there. All right. I've got a series of slides on problems, and then I have a series of slides on suggestions for changing the statute. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on it, but I want you to see just how bad this is. Okay. All right. Problems with You the your slides, right? Right. We have a new slide. And I have to apologize. This is a massive topic. It takes me two hours to do one of these webinars with towns. It's way too complicated. Alright. You have set up this statute so that the obligation is on the town boards to initiate. They don't understand. They have no idea what they're doing. Your chair of your Senate Appropriations Committee is from Marshfield. And I'm sure you all know John Groteney from the NRCD is from Marshfield. Their planning commission said, We don't have any role to play in this. I mean, is not an unsophisticated town. But that's what their Their Planning Commission wouldn't even talk about it. Now, it's some towns Planning Commissioners take the lead, sometimes it's like words take the lead. But until I am brought into a town with the citizens telling them you need to hear from Annette, they don't know what their role is. I explained to the Planning Commission, you go through your plan. Does it comply or doesn't it? The Select Board can look at other issues too. Sometimes Select Boards and Planning Commission can take different positions, but they don't understand. Well, the state of Massachusetts is doing a change in their sighting. And what do you know? I just got this the other day that they have pre filing requirements under sixty days, and it's on the applicant to initiate and to do an advertisement, which we don't do. And so there are all these things spelled out in that makes perfect sense. We could change the statute to this, and that there has to be notices and they have to hold a public facing pre filing information session, meet with the municipal. Right now, that only happens if the towns ask for it and they don't even know they have to ask. Alright. Problems with the advance notes. The towns and the public do not understand the purpose of the phase at all. Public comments in the advance notice are directed to the applicant. People want to write their comments to the PUC. I have to say, no, this is the time you tell the applicant. The PUC doesn't care about what happens. But the state of the public doesn't know that. Nobody knows. The PUC isn't paying any attention. Because there's an EPUC case, they think this is part of the PUC. Citizens have to ask the boards to put the proposed towers on the agenda, the town board members, and I've heard this over and over. Ain't nothing we can do. It's up to the PUC. Sometimes the leasing landowners are serving on the select boards, and the friends and family of the tower leasing landowners are on the board so the towns stay out of it. Other times, I've seen that the leasing landowners are kind of intimidating, bully type, and the towns these are towns of 400 people, very small town dynamics. The towns will stay silent. There are a lot of reasons why towns don't get involved in these cases. Problems with the petition in the thirty day period after completion. Public comments to the PUC. Okay, so people have really done a lot. And some people do. They get petitions going. They get a lot of public comments on the advance notice phase. And then I say, Oh, well, those don't count. PUC doesn't look at those. You have to do it all over again. Verizon has been having a pattern of doing an advance notice and letting it expire. They expire in one hundred and eighty days. And there can be a lot of activity on the local level, and then it expires, and then it's like everybody's steam is gone, and there's no activity. And then the petition is swung. And so this is this repetitive process. Who can intervene? Well, good question. People don't understand who can intervene. There's a notice of intervention form and a motion to intervene form. Okay, here's your notice of intervention form. You get to read four pages, well, two pages, and it's pretty simple. It is the you can check a box. You don't even have to to to sign it. You can just print the name. But it's only you only do more if it's section two forty eight and two forty eight. What what's that? I noticed there's a case going on right now in Waterville, and a petition was filed, and nobody contacted me. And I noticed that people filed a notice of intervention form, not understanding that was the wrong form. And then they didn't know what to put on the motion to intervene form. So it's an interesting example of what happens when people don't get my guidance. But this form is confusing because adjoining landowners can use up to two forty eight and two forty eight J cases and net metering cases. Alright, so in the motion to intervene form, this one has four pages of instructions, six pages, three pages of instructions. Then it starts out with four boxes. Intervention as of right. It says, This is uncommon. Leap blank if not applicable. Well, why do they put that at the beginning? And one, you identify the statute, in other, you identify your interests. I've never met anybody who can fill this out, but citizens do it because they don't understand. So then in the back, permissive intervention by statute or rule, or without statute or commission rule. How do you fill out this form? Does this make sense to you? Well, okay. I guess if you know the statute sorry, numbers, you can put it in there. But if you don't, you don't. Okay. So which docs to use, what to put on the form, and you have to request a hearing by day 30. It's public hearing, right? In Ennisburg, you've got a comment that I recommend you read from Philip Adorff. I was working with Philip on the first round of the Ennisburg Tower case. And at one point she said, When do we get to be heard? And that really struck me. Because I had not had any of the neighbors put in lay witness testimony. They were focusing on trying to do expert witness testimony. There was there's no time when the citizens get to be heard. They it's they're completely silenced. I request a hearing room. There's no site visit. There's no public hearing. There's no balloon test required in Ira and in Edinburgh. The citizens said, Wait, we didn't see

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: a balloon test. Can you

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: put up a balloon? And the PUC wouldn't require it because the landowner said no. So they couldn't have their own aesthetics expert evaluate where the balloon would, where the power would even be because all they had to go on was the pictures provided by the applicant. The interveners must learn the PUC Section 48A procedures, rules of practice, how to use EPUC, and all the petition documents all in the same time period. So let's see, we have the PUC's website where you can get to their rules. You have to go to their rules of practice. How many pages is that? You're supposed to be familiar with all these in order to intervene. That's 67 pages. EPUC itself, I don't remember Senator Hardy, you asked about, could we get a briefing on how to use EPUC? You don't have time for it. But yeah, there's a dropdown menu. There are all these tabs. You have to learn how to file things. You have to create an account. If you're going to actually participate, you have to add a person. If you get written testimony, you have to add a person, and then you have to add a witness before you can file a testimony. I file almost everything for people that I work with because it's just too complicated to try and train anybody. Then we have the Public Service Department's guide to participating, and they have a section in here that's completely wrong on applicability of to political zoning. And I've told Jim Porter about it, and they haven't fixed it. But then you have the PUC's guidance document. Well, it starts out with de minimis. So then we get down to the actual project, and it talks about, the evidentiary hearing and but it doesn't mention there's a proposal for decision after the briefs or then you comment on the proposal for decision. So it's not exactly complete. But I did get the PUC to fix their guidance documents. All right. Back to So, yeah. Are we having fun yet as a citizen with a tower proposed 500 feet from your house who's thinking, oh my god, I'm gonna have to move, and now I have to learn all of this? What's a petition? Most people call it an application. And then the towns and the RPCs that might have a small board that meets once a month. And if they got the application after their monthly meeting, oh, but they have only thirty days to get the recommendations done. Do zoning bylaws and ordinances apply? I have run into several towns where the planning commissioners have been on for a while, and they say, oh, they don't count. Horizon told that to a public meeting in Manchester, and they continue to file it and that that there and you changed the law in 2016 so that bylaws do count. But the people who've been in these places for a long time, they remember, and they're absolutely adamant. The chair of the Planning Commission in Westmont adamant. No, our bylaws don't matter. All right, problems with PSC Section two forty eight after the day 30. The applicant will oppose every person who moves to intervene. The department will support limited intervention. Neighbors only get standing on aesthetics. So they might get standing on a town plan, but if the town intervenes, then they don't even get standing on that. And then the PUC has added the societal benefit that can overrule an undue adverse aesthetic effect.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: The PUC added that or that's definitely- No,

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: the PUC added that and I actually did a deep dive into the history of societal benefit and they just added.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And what about aesthetics? Is that defined in statute or is that-

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Aesthetics is fairly well understood. I can't answer the question. I'm not a lawyer. I can't answer the question unless you find it in statute. There will be an undue adverse aesthetics to And aesthetics goes way beyond just the view. It's the character's neighborhood.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You're gonna have to move this. I know. So

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: citizens want standing on coverage. If the town doesn't doesn't engage, why can't the citizens

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Weigh in on coverage?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And that it might be more helpful to us because we're not a town. Or if you could help us with suggestions for what would work. Okay.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: So you have this. Yeah. Like you to incorporate into your thinking because I'm just telling you, like, it is soon. And there's all kinds of issues. They keep coming up. Any idea that the time frames oh, let's take a look at

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: the timeframes. I think we're going to look at the timeframes.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Right here. All right. So, on this map with the I think everybody would welcome some more timeframes. Current active contested cases. These cases that are active right now, five seventeen days, four twenty three days, two forty seven days, two hundred Do you think there's benefit to the public to have these things dragging out? It's not the public that's dragging them out. It's often the way the developers are behaving. People don't want to give up years of their lives to this. All right, we got to after the scheduling hearing, after the evidentiary hearing, you can read that on your own. Suggestions for changes. So I'm suggesting changing this is to change the statute. Advance notice process and the recommendations and responses to recommendations and could cause suggested changes in statute for they need to have a drop down menu for recommendations so that the recommendations are identified as recommendations and are not just filed as public comment. Procedures. They need to change their procedure document so that it actually makes a clear differentiation between a comment, a public comment, and a recommendation. And then those are suggestions for the language deals. Okay. Suggestions to changes to public participation process. And this is about what happens if we would like to see this issue of the town recommendation dealt with first before the neighbors have to go through every, you know, bit of and before the towns too have to file on every other issue. Could we get a determination if a town recommends, no, we get substantial deference, this doesn't comply with our plan. Can that just be the end of it? Or does it have to go through the whole process? We'd like to see the end of it if, and and I think that the PUC has been open to this, but it's the the applicants want this to go through the whole process. Yes. We want to see a a site visit, a balloon test, and a public hearing. There has been one site visit with a balloon test. There was one in Granville, so it can happen, but there was The PUC doesn't conduct public hearings. That's not right. Need to

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: go into I think we heard today that the timeframe we've given them in law makes that virtually impossible. Well, it needs to happen. We can look

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: at that. And I am reflecting to you what I'm hearing in community after community. The balloon test they do, they use a three foot party balloon for a tower that's gonna be 10 feet across. That's another big issue. Seriously. I mean, we had a drone operator who said, I can't believe I was worried about getting my drone caught in a party balloon. He thought it was gonna be an inner. It's just ridiculous. And and then it completely minimizes the visibility because and what the travel would be like because you've got this dinky little balloon. In lieu of discovery, parties shall exchange the list of witnesses, summary of the testimony, expert reports, and then you have an end of entry hearing with direct testimony like they do in Act two fifty. And then the POC hearing officer can request further information just like the District Commission does for a recess order, and then they can submit findings of facts and conclusions of law. You can have your proposal for decision and comments and all that. This is what I like to see. Sunset section two forty eight a, site towers and antennas for act two fifty, add the substantial reference language regarding time plan and telecommunication bylaws and ordinance to act two fifty. Regulate small cell antennas through act two fifty with additional state statute or municipal bylaw ordinances and no municipal permit required. Let's do away with the municipal permit, have it all go through Act two fifty, simplify the process, make it so people can be heard. And then if it is appealed, it goes to the environmental division where there is a pro se assistance. Because right now there is no help for the citizens.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Okay, so you have multiple pages of suggestions, but this page seems to That's to use this word, but trunk the other pages. Because if if you're we're sunsetting the two forty eight a process. If we did go along with that suggestion, all of your suggestions for how to change the 248A process would become moot.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Correct? Because you really would like to have it go back.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: And and I will say the same thing is written with section two forty eight. It is a nightmare. And land use does not belong at the Public Utility Commission. Vermont's the only state that does land use through our PUC. We need to move these things to Act 50. It's our land use law. It's a great opportunity with and and I will say, there's a lot of bashing of Act two fifty going on. I'm a big champion of Act two fifty. It was brilliant how it was put together with these regional commissions because it bypasses the small town, I call it the friends and family kind of permitting that goes on. I did a research on in news stories from 1969. They considered municipal statewide zoning. They said that that's where the developers' friends are, on these VRVs. And so by making it into a regional process, it creates an element that makes it so that you don't have this I mean, and I'm not throwing stones. It is natural when you have small towns that there are gonna be conflicts of interest. So this is they really were very smart in how they put it together. And the best thing about Act two fifty is the District Commission process. And we really need to take advantage of this opportunity with fewer cases going through District Commissions because of Act 181 to use that capacity in ways that PUC doesn't need to be doing these things either.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: 181. Is yet to be seen how many decisions are I know. And I'm following it closely. Okay.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: These last three slides are just to give you an example. This is a four sixty seven feet from a couple who were in their eighties. Been in town for more than fifty years. Wonderful people. Nobody wants to see this happen to them. Bargefield. And actually, the closest house is the leasing landowner, but he doesn't live there. It's a rental. And I've got more of these, but I just put three other men. This is the AT and T Tower affecting

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: this house is up on a hill

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: with the most gorgeous views. I visited there in November and it was very upsetting to see what's happening to this family with young children who are exactly the kind people you wanted to be inviting to Vermont to work here. And they submitted comments, Tanya and Jesse Hart in the house side, you should read their comments if they haven't submitted to you. They said they cannot encourage anyone to move to Vermont based on the experiences they've had with this. And I'm seeing that in a number of cases in Washington. There was a couple who moved here to get away from towers, and they left the state because of the tower proposal. So thank you for hearing that.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just eliminating the Act two forty eight process and going to Act two fifty only, what will that mean to the amount of time it takes to get a project completed?

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: It might be faster based on what I've been seeing about the time frames from the reports. I've looked at the PCS report and active item report. I've looked at the time frames, and think they get the active duty gets things through much faster than the DOC.

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, this is crazy.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Gregory Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It's hard

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications & Connectivity, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: to believe.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It's a lot to digest.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: I'm also, in what I've given you, I have given you a page of links.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yes, I've got it.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: And that page of links goes to some of the things that I've shown you here. It also goes to the three reports of the legislature, the litigation that ITW has done over the they've sued this PUC three times over the shot clock, and then they went to Fort Oberheenisburg and the Westmore appeal. And then my testimony from 2023, 2026, and 2020, and the 2023 testimony in the, or 2026 testimony in the House has the Telecommunications Act language, if you want to take a look at it. And then it also contains links to all the videos that we did in 2023. Okay. The discussion that we had then, if you wanna refresh your I do not wanna be back here in three or four years doing this again. So thank you very much. Thank you

[Peter Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: so much for listening.

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: That is the last thing. Is. I get close by saying, I will work with anyone who wants to work with me. I have done my best work through stakeholder processes. I am not a hater and I hate towers.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Can I say that again in your word clearly? I

[Annette Smith (Executive Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: just, I've had it. I don't know, I don't know what everybody says. We don't know what we do without you Annette. Well, I'm sorry. I can't keep leading people into a process that is just going to destroy their lives and they're not going to win anyway. So thank you.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you to your committee. We're gonna take a break until ten off and then I would like to come back and vote out as seven thirty three, inaugurating to