Jeremy Reed, chief engineer for the Agency of Transportation, told the Senate Transportation committee on Jan. 9 that Vermont currently lacks the precise, GIS-linked data needed to confidently monetize telecommunications infrastructure in the state right-of-way.

“Communications infrastructure data is lacking in both completeness and accuracy,” Reed said, summarizing a consultant report required by Act 145 (2024). He said the study’s purpose was to inventory current practice and review peer states, not to produce definitive revenue estimates.

Reed outlined two broad approaches states use to regain value from right-of-way telecommunications: barter or in-kind arrangements (for example, requiring buildout of broadband or installation of ITS — intelligent transportation systems — equipment) and direct revenue generation through fees or long-term leases. He cautioned that each approach carries trade-offs and that Vermont’s current data limitations make reliable valuation difficult.

“Right now we don’t have precise enough data to have any certainty in exactly where this stuff is,” Reed said, and added that construction tolerances and historical permit records mean it can be unclear whether an asset lies a few feet inside or outside the state right-of-way. That uncertainty, he said, undermines confidence in charging a fee or assigning leases that would be defensible and administrable.

Committee members pressed Reed on where revenue might reasonably be sought. Senators suggested prioritizing main fiber routes and limited-access highways (interstates), where alignments are straighter and boundaries better surveyed. Reed agreed the program “does get exponentially easier if you limit it to your limited-access highways” and noted that, aside from Utah, peer states that monetize typically confine programs to interstates or other limited-access corridors.

The presentation flagged additional complications: permit records (referred to in testimony as “1111 permits”) are not consistently searchable or tagged by utility type, and available broadband reports often record service by customer address rather than by corridor or location relative to the right-of-way. Reed said the state would need to develop GIS overlays, improve permit metadata, and create new administrative workflows before a monetization program could be implemented.

Reed also warned of distributional effects. Per-foot or per-hookup fees are effectively less costly per customer in urban corridors than in rural areas, he said, meaning a blunt fee could be regressive and could reduce the incentive for private providers to extend service into less dense areas unless policy mitigations were adopted.

On possible next steps, senators and Reed discussed narrower pilots and enabling legislation. Reed recommended focusing initial efforts on interstate or other limited-access highways, where the right-of-way is clearer, and building statutory and administrative clarity first. Several senators expressed interest in working with staff on draft language to enable in-kind barter provisions or targeted leasing on limited-access routes.

The committee did not vote on any legislation. Reed concluded that “a successful right-of-way monetization program in Vermont requires precise data management, significant development of workflow and process, legislative support, collaborative industry engagement and transparent fee-structure frameworks,” and he said the agency currently lacks sufficient capacity to stand up such a program without substantial up-front investment. The committee agreed to continue discussions on a narrower, phased approach.