House committee debates whether to extend, remove or replace the 2‑48a sunset; PUC and carriers disagree on workshop role
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members reviewed draft changes to the telecom-siting statute including workshop procedures and invited stakeholders, with the Public Utility Commission urging removal of the 2‑48a sunset for certainty while carriers and some advocates said the workshop process adds low yield and risks codifying federal preemption language.
The committee reviewed draft 4.1 of a telecom-siting bill that would adjust the workshop process and extend or eliminate the sunset on the 2‑48a streamlined siting pathway. Legislative counsel summarized changes that include adding regional planning commissions as invited participants, clarifying advanced notice and public hearing procedures, and specifying evidentiary burdens and rebuttable presumptions.
Greg Taylor (QC) told the committee the PUC-led workshop approach in the draft would require a significant amount of work for little yield and cautioned that one line—"eligible facility requests"—functionally recognizes a federal "shot clock" preemption. "That is a code name for the shot clock violation, which we talked about earlier," Taylor said, and he warned the committee against embedding federal preemption into state session law.
Municipal advocates and carriers presented divergent views: carriers said the streamlined 2‑48a process provides predictability developers value; municipal representatives and advocacy groups said residents and towns feel shut out and called for greater deference to local planning. Committee members discussed three main options raised in testimony: allow 2‑48a to sunset and move projects into Act 250, extend the sunset while convening stakeholder workshops, or remove the sunset at once and pursue statutory fixes while the law remains in place.
PUC Chair Ed McNamara recommended removing the sunset to provide certainty that 2‑48a will remain while any comprehensive stakeholder process proceeds. The PUC's position is that removing the sunset would create a stable baseline for a longer, more comprehensive review of siting rules rather than repeating cyclical short-term statute changes.
The committee asked the Department of Public Service to weigh in on who should convene stakeholder workshops and asked parties to provide suggested statutory changes. No vote was taken; the committee signaled it would seek additional input from the department and consider the sunset timing before advancing the bill.