Municipal leaders ask legislature to let towns remove overdue double utility poles

Municipal officials told the committee that hundreds of “double poles” — where old and new utility poles coexist after upgrades — are creating safety hazards, accessibility barriers and construction delays in communities across the Commonwealth, and they urged passage of legislation to give towns authority to remove overdue poles.

Adrienne Nunez, legislative analyst at the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said the bills H.3462 and S.2250 would empower municipalities to enforce an existing 90‑day removal deadline for duplicate poles, access the national joint utilities notification system, and recover costs for removal and construction overruns when pole owners delay. “This legislation would empower municipalities to enforce existing statute that requires the timely removal of double utility poles,” Nunez told the committee.

Jeremy Marcette, town administrator of Sherborn, told the committee he has fielded many resident complaints about double poles and said they can force wheelchair users and pedestrians into the roadway. He recounted a roadway project delayed 18 months due to pole relocation delays, which created additional costs and scheduling impacts. Marcette called the bills “a tool to improve municipal relationships with pole owners and to provide essential services to our residents.”

Presenters said the issue has grown as towns accommodate clean‑energy projects, grid fortification, broadband expansion and electric‑vehicle charging, which together increase pole work and the need to retire old poles promptly. The proposed legislation would allow municipalities to remove poles that remain after the statutory removal period and charge reasonable recovery costs to pole owners.

The committee did not take a vote on the measure at the hearing. Officials urged committee members to consult with municipal staff in their districts to see local examples of double‑pole backlog and noted the safety, ADA‑accessibility and cost implications for residents and contractors.

The testimony emphasized safety and accessibility concerns for mobility‑impaired residents and the potential for construction cost increases when pole owners do not timely remove decommissioned infrastructure.