House committee hears bill to extend PUC option for telecom siting by three years

Legislative Council told the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday that H.527 would extend by three years the sunset on 30 V.S.A. §248a, preserving an option for telecom applicants to seek a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Utility Commission rather than pursuing Act 250 or municipal zoning permits.

Ellen Despati of Legislative Council, who led the walkthrough, said the bill “extends by 3 years the sunset on 30 VSA section 248a,” noting the statute currently bars new §248a applications after July 1, 2026. She told committee members the statute was created in 2007, amended in 2009 and has typically been renewed in three‑year increments to let the Legislature reassess whether the PUC option is working for affected parties.

Why it matters: Section 248a provides an alternate, state‑level permitting path for telecommunications facilities. Choosing that path can limit the relevance of municipal zoning because the PUC issues a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) under statutory criteria. Proponents of the state process say it streamlines permitting and keeps statewide technical standards consistent; local officials and residents have raised concerns about reduced local control and aesthetic, environmental and historic‑site impacts in specific cases.

What is in the statute: Despati outlined three tracks under §248a. Full projects follow a CPG‑style review with the PUC applying criteria that require a finding there is no undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air or water quality, the natural environment, public health and safety and the public’s enjoyment of designated scenic corridors (the statute explicitly names the I‑89 and I‑91 corridors). "The statute itself is 10 pages long," Despati said, and the full process looks similar to other PUC CPG proceedings.

Smaller projects may follow expedited tracks: "limited size and scope" projects are capped (for example, a new facility not to exceed 140 feet in height or modifications that keep total height under 200 feet, width increases under 20 feet and earth disturbance under 10,000 square feet) and face a shorter review with some criteria waived; "de minimis" changes (statutory thresholds include no more than 300 square feet of added impervious surface, equipment additions that do not extend more than 10 feet vertically or horizontally, and no more than 75 square feet of added equipment face area) follow the quickest path and can result in a CPG after a short notice and objection window.

Municipal input and the PUC’s role: The statute gives "substantial deference" to municipal legislative bodies and planning commissions unless the PUC finds "good cause" to depart from those recommendations. Despati described a process by which municipalities can submit letters creating a rebuttable presumption of compliance with local plans; the PUC must provide a detailed written response to municipal recommendations when issuing a decision. For larger projects the statute requires a 60‑day pre‑application notice to municipal and regional planning commissions, specified state agencies (including the Agency of Natural Resources and Transportation), the Division for Historic Preservation, the Department of Public Service (DPS) and adjoining landowners.

Colocation and technical requirements: Applicants must identify existing telecommunication facilities in the area and demonstrate why collocating would not meet coverage or capacity objectives, exceed structural capacity, be denied on commercially reasonable terms, or cause unmitigable radio‑frequency interference. Despati said the PUC generally prefers collocation unless the applicant makes the required showing.

DPS review and experts: DPS, acting through the director of public advocacy, may review colocation assessments and retain independent experts; Despati said DPS must report preliminary findings within 45 days of receipt of an applicant’s notice and colocation assessment. The statute authorizes DPS to allocate expenses for retained personnel and, in some cases, bill those costs back to the applicant.

Timing and federal limits: Despati reminded the committee that the federal Telecommunications Act creates a ‘‘shot clock’’ that requires permitting authorities to act within a set time (commonly cited as 90 or 150 days depending on complexity) and that federal law preempts state regulation in many technical areas. She said the PUC seeks to comply with federal timing requirements.

Emergency waiver: In declared emergencies (for example, the COVID‑era period), the PUC may grant limited, expedited waivers to allow temporary telecommunications facilities to be sited quickly; such waivers are subject to conditions and safeguards and last only through the emergency plus 180 days.

Where the bill stands: Committee members were told the PUC will appear at the committee’s next meeting to answer procedural and technical questions. No committee vote was recorded during this walkthrough; if passed, H.527 would extend the statute’s sunset so that applicants could continue to use §248a for new filings through 2029. The committee adjusted its agenda to accommodate additional sponsors and set time constraints for the day's business.

What to watch next: The PUC’s appearance at the follow‑up meeting is the committee’s opportunity to probe how the agency applies the statute in practice, including examples of waivers of notice, the use and frequency of the emergency waiver, and how DPS handles expert review and bill‑back costs.