Residents press lawmakers for changes to telecom siting and PUC process as committee considers extending 30 VSA §248A

The Senate Finance Committee opened a broad hearing on extending 30 VSA §248A, the state’s telecommunications siting statute, and heard more than a half-dozen witnesses describing persistent town-level frustration with PUC procedures and industry representatives urging predictability for infrastructure deployment.

Allison Despathy, who identified herself as a community environmental health director, told the panel that towns and residents find the PUC process difficult to navigate and under-resourced for ordinary citizens. She said applicants often outpace towns with lawyers and paid experts, leaving towns unable to participate meaningfully in proceedings and urging an ‘‘honest conversation’’ about setbacks and process reforms. Despathy cited peer-reviewed literature and study committees that have recommended setbacks in the 500–1,600-foot range to reduce public exposure and urged changes that would allow towns better participation.

Several residents and intervenors gave specific case examples. Donna Tazuka Smith recounted a Westmore proceeding that took two and a half years and is now in superior court; she said her town received insufficient notice, that no site visit was held despite repeated requests, and that mandatory parties (ANR, DPS, historic preservation) provided little active oversight. Alice Peele, a town planning commissioner and regional-planning representative, described wetlands and habitat concerns in a Marshfield case and said ANR site visits were not completed as requested. Rochester abutter Tara Murray said Verizon representatives told residents they ‘‘can’t stop us’’ and alleged inaccuracies in the applicant’s filings and gaps in the PUC’s public-comment handling; she said towns must hire their own experts to rebut company reports.

Industry testimony came from Jeremy Crannle of CTIA, who said siting is technical, time-intensive and costly; he argued 248A currently balances environmental, aesthetic and municipal interests with predictable procedures that benefit communities and public-safety functions such as 911 coverage. Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications for the Department of Public Service, declined to comment on RF-health questions but described departmental work in contested cases (hiring an aesthetics expert in one instance, asking for a site conference in another) and noted the PUC’s judicial role and the limits that imposes on process form.

Witnesses urged a range of fixes: better notice and clearer deadlines, more robust interagency coordination (ANR and DPS), site visits when requested, clearer standards for expert reports, and consideration of financial participation or benefits for host communities. Industry urged retaining statutory predictability and said a sunset extension (the House bill proposed four years) would be acceptable and that elimination of a sunset would be preferable for investment certainty.

The committee did not vote on the extension during this session and signaled it will continue to take testimony and consider possible statutory adjustments.