Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Section 248a topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witness tells House committee §248a is failing towns, urges rulemaking or move to Act 250
Summary
Annette Smith of Vermonters for Clean Environment told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee that 30 VSA §248a’s advance-notice and contested-case procedures leave neighbors and towns without meaningful participation; she urged PUC rulemaking or shifting land-use siting to Act 250 to restore accessible public process.
Annette Smith, executive director of Vermonters for Clean Environment, told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee on Jan. 15 that the statutory process created by 30 V.S.A. §248a leaves towns and neighbors unable to participate effectively in cell-tower and other siting cases. The testimony was delivered as the committee continued consideration of H527, a bill to extend the statute’s sunset.
Smith described the advance-notice period under §248a as the community’s main opportunity to engage with a developer but warned that those notices and comments are directed to the developer rather than to the Public Utility Commission (PUC). "You in the advance notice, you're just telling the developer," she said, adding that municipalities can ask the developer or the Department of Public Service to attend local meetings or, at the petitioner’s expense, retain outside experts.
Why it matters: Smith argued that the current process imposes procedural and financial barriers on neighbors. She told the committee, "The PUC doesn't care about health issues. You can't talk about health issues," and noted that property-value impacts are also not considered by the PUC. Those limits, she said, constrain the grounds on which abutters may intervene and present evidence.
Smith traced the case flow from advance notice through petition, scheduling, discovery and an evidentiary hearing. She highlighted three recurring problems: (1) unclear EPUC filing paths for municipal "recommendations," which can be treated inconsistently in contested cases; (2) aggressive applicant schedules and repeated motions that compress public deadlines; and (3) costly discovery and the need for paid experts, which can require thousands of dollars to mount an adequate defense. She gave examples drawn from recent contested cases (including Enosburg, Westmore and Granville) where towns and neighbors struggled to meet procedural requirements.
On remedies, Smith urged the committee either to direct the PUC to undertake rulemaking to clarify the role and filing process for municipal recommendations and to limit abusive motion/discovery practices, or to move land-use siting out of the PUC and into Act 250/district commissions. She said the Act 250 process offers public notice, site visits, less adversarial discovery and lower dependence on expensive experts — processes she described as more accessible to ordinary citizens.
Smith also raised separate concerns about small-cell deployments and lease transparency. She said many small cells are being mounted on existing poles with no public notice and urged municipal zoning standards to address that rollout. On leases, she described examples where landowners received unequal offers, faced penalties when trying to exit leases, or where neighbors were subjected to intimidation.
Representative Kathleen James and other committee members asked questions about timing, potential solutions and whether communities have been successful under the current system; Smith said denials are rare (she cited Enosburg as an example) but pointed to collaborative local processes that have produced alternatives in a few towns.
The committee has scheduled further consideration of H527 and requested additional materials Smith offered to provide. The hearing recessed after about an hour of testimony and committee discussion.
