Regulators tell Senate Finance they favor removing sunset on 30 V.S.A. �A7 248A and oppose a new two-year study

Senate Finance heard competing views April 2 on whether to extend or remove the sunset on 30 V.S.A. A7 248A, the statute authorizing statewide review of telecommunications facilities.

For the record, Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications and connectivity at the Department of Public Service, told the committee the department prefers eliminating the sunset. Thompson said the department's practical view is that the statute remains a useful tool for siting telecommunication facilities statewide and that the House's four-year limit is shorter than the department would prefer; he said 10 years or seven years would be preferable if elimination is not an option. He also told lawmakers that the bulk of 248A filings are minor equipment swaps and collocations rather than entirely new towers, and that a recent mobile test driving thousands of miles found nontrivial coverage gaps on rural roads.

Thompson described how the 248A process is structured: applicants provide a minimum 60-day advance notice to towns, regional planning commissions and state agencies, and once a formal application is deemed complete the PUC issues a 30-day comment period for submitted evidence and motions. He said the Department of Public Service publishes test results and guidance online and can require aesthetics assessments or convene additional hearings to address municipal concerns.

A PUC representative also briefed the committee on the statute's categories and deadlines. The PUC official summarized three statutory project classes (dimminimus/collocation; limited size-and-scope projects, often up to about 140 feet; and larger projects) and said statutory decision times can be tight for non-contested matters (examples cited included 60/90 days for limited projects and 60/180 days for larger projects, depending on issues). He cautioned that contested cases that proceed into litigation commonly run far longer than those statutory windows because of motions, discovery and negotiated extensions.

Senators pressed both regulators on how towns and residents learn about filings and how easily the public can intervene. Witnesses said towns receive the advance notice but that municipal officials's ability to respond varies: many towns rely on volunteer selectboards and planning commissioners, and some officials told the committee they did not always realize the need to ask the department to schedule a town hearing within the advance-notice window. The PUC official said the commission can and does accommodate pro se participants where practicable, but the formal process and discovery rules can be challenging for residents without counsel.

No committee votes were recorded during this session; members said they would continue to hear witnesses and suggested possible statutory adjustments to notice periods and procedural guidance to improve municipal participation.