Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate backs temporary extension of 30 V.S.A. § 248a, adds required community meetings for large telecom projects
Summary
The Vermont Senate voted to propose to the House an amendment extending the sunset of 30 V.S.A. § 248a and adding mandatory public meetings for material (non‑de minimis) telecommunications projects, aiming to preserve PUC‑led siting timelines and federal compliance while increasing community engagement.
Senator Chittenden, reporting for the Senate Finance Committee, urged lawmakers to extend the sunset of 30 V.S.A. § 248a to preserve a state Public Utility Commission (PUC)‑centered process for siting telecommunications infrastructure and to avoid litigation risk under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and related FCC "shot clock" rules. He said: "If we let section 248a expire on 07/01/2026, telecommunications siting would default back to local municipal zoning and Act 250, which are not designed to meet strict federal shot‑clock deadlines."
The committee recommended extending the sunset for three years to 2029 and added an amendment to mandate a public meeting for material (non‑de minimis) projects. Under the amendment, the town must hold the meeting and the developer must attend within the 60‑day local notice window; minor modifications and small‑scale equipment are exempt. "This shift would strip away the burden from local towns to actively track and request meetings when a new cell tower telecom project is proposed," Chittenden said, adding the Department of Public Service would take community input into consideration in its recommendations to the PUC.
Senator from Rutland questioned who determines whether a project is de minimis or material and whether the change would override municipalities that spent time updating town plans or communication annexes. Chittenden responded that the PUC's application process is structured to identify whether a project qualifies as small scale or de minimis but offered to provide further specifics at third reading. Another senator said the concern about local planning and municipal voice led them to a negative vote in the floor straw poll.
The Chair put the question on whether the Senate should propose the committee's amendment to the House and order third reading; the ayes prevailed and third reading was ordered. The action preserves the PUC pathway while adding a formalized public‑meeting requirement for larger projects; the amendment also carves out explicit exemptions for minor work and small equipment replacements.
What's next: The Senate has ordered third reading of H527 and has proposed its committee amendment to the House; further clarification about definitions and implementation is expected at third reading and in subsequent PUC guidance.
