 I'm going to call our meeting to order. And this morning we're going to be discussing each 110 and act relating to extending the sunset under 30 BSA section 248A, which we often just refer to as 248A. And our first witness is with the Public Utility Commission is joining us via Zoom. Welcome, Greg, Bobber. Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is actually Greg Faber. I work for the PUC and part of my job there is the process 248A application. So you've asked me to come over and give an overview of the 248A process as I understand it. Yes. Well, I could certainly start doing that now if you'd like. I would. Okay, great. So as I said, my name is Greg Faber and we typically process about 140 to 248A applications a year. In general, title 30 section 248A was created back in 2007 to allow for a statewide level review of the siting of the telecommunications facilities. The section sets forth the requirements for the applications and allows the PUC to develop rules or orders governing the process. Prior to 248A, all facilities needed to act 250 and town approval. Section 248A is optional, meaning that a telecom provider today could choose to go through the town level review process instead of using 248A. In my experience though, most if not all providers now use the 248A process. The PUC has created standards and procedures that govern the application process and these in turn are based on the statutory requirements set forth in section 248A. The application process is divided into three main categories. So you have small projects or de minimis modifications as they're called in the statute. These typically consist of swapping out antennas or equipment like a generator at an existing facility or possibly co-locating equipment on a building or another existing structure such as a farm silo. So these are your smaller applications and these comprise the majority of the applications that we get. And then the next category is medium or limited size and scope projects. Now these can entail the construction of a small facility with a tower of up to 140 feet tall and some limited earth disturbance or they could include more significant modifications than limited size and scope modifications to an existing facility. And then the rest are the larger projects and these involve the construction of new facilities with larger towers and more earth disturbance. So you have the three categories. Now the rules or our standards and procedures require notice for these applications. So for medium and large projects, applicants have to provide 60 days advance notice of the application to the town, the regional planning commission, the joining landowners and state agencies including A&R, DHP and the Department of Public Service. Once the application is filed with the PUC and the entities that receive the advance notice, this will be 60 days after they file it, that the parties that receive the application have 30 days to file comments and file motions, request hearings, that sort of thing. For de minimis projects, the smaller ones, there's no advance notice requirement but the application goes to the town, the department and the landowner of the project site. Parties still have 30 days to file comments or motions on those projects as well. And now let's see, so the application or the standards and procedures require certain information be provided by the applicants in order to get approval for non de minimis or larger projects. The standards require applicants to provide information on existing permits, a detailed project description with site plans and elevation drawings, signal propagation or coverage maps. They have to show consistency with all the applicable environmental and aesthetic criteria including things like wetlands, natural areas, floodways and dangerous species, historic sites and other all the active 50 criteria basically. They also have to show consistency with the town and regional plans and they have to show co-location opportunities if indeed this involves building a new tower. For de minimis applications, as you can imagine, there's less information provided but they still need to provide a site plan and show that the project qualifies as a de minimis modification. Let's see, oh, so once we get all this information for projects of limited size and scope, the PUC is required to issue a decision within 60 days if there are no significant issues or 90 days where we do have significant issues and for larger projects we're required to issue a decision within 60 days if there aren't any significant issues and 180 days if there are and that's a statutory requirement. So that's the basic overview. I'm happy to answer any questions about specifics that the committee might have. Sure, thank you for that. Sounds like maybe, maybe that goes over. Do folks have questions? Can you talk about the difference between the active 50 and the PUC public good? So that's the sort of, as I understand it, the significant difference between the way that the PUC looks at these types of projects versus an active 50 review of them? Yeah, that is a difference between active 50 and the PUC. So in active 50 world, a project must comply with all of the criteria or it can't be approved, period. At the PUC, a project could fail one of the active 50 criteria and we could override that failure by saying that the project, even though it does not meet this criteria is in the public good in spite of that. It has such an overarching public good that even in spite of failing that criteria, we would approve it anyway. So that's the difference between active 50 and the PUC. However, we seldom use that. That is very seldom used. Typically, if a project does not meet the criteria, it does not get approved. And when you do use it, how is it applied? Like, is there a standard kind of sequence of questions you pose or yeah, how does it work? No, it would be project dependent. The last time I remember being used was on a large wind project. That was several years ago and I forget what criteria it didn't meet, but things like that, it's really project dependent. And does every tower need to go through this process? Yes, but again, keep in mind that it is optional. A telecom provider could choose to go through the active 50 process and the town level review. So, but if they do enter into 248A, obviously they have to go through this process. Representative Pat. Technically, you mentioned a wind project. That would have been a section 248, not a 248A, correct. That's right. We've never used this in a 248A setting, representative Pat. 248 is the older part of the statute that deals with energy siting issues and was adaptive for telecom by making 248A a little bit later on. That's right, yeah. It's sort of a carve out of 248A project or 248A projects. Okay, representative Fongard. So what an application under the 248A process look the same in many ways as an application for an active 50 project? Through all the 10 criteria and all the sub criteria with the same level of analysis and review that would happen in the 250 process or is it somehow different? It's similar when it comes to the active 50 criteria. We use the same criteria. We both use the same criteria. 248A has some of the criteria are waived in the statute. So we don't use all of the criteria. So it is similar, but it does have some differences. Okay, because some were statutorily waived. That's correct. Okay. And just, June, well, I can look at what doesn't matter. Do members have further questions? Yes. Representative Sebelia. Yeah, Greg, can you help me understand or just kind of high level contrast the 248A and the use of that for telecommunications and when we are building out or replacing electric lines with end poles. And here's why I'm asking. So those systems are really, I mean, they're mutually dependent right now in terms of the build out. We have fiber being strung out on those poles. We have a lot of those poles being replaced. At the same time, we have a lot of our utilities trying to underground and do work on hardening their lines because of weather. So I'm just trying to understand how those two things might kind of come together. Well, I guess the short answer is that they don't. 248A is for wireless telecommunications only. So wired telecommunications would not fall under 248A. That's great. All right. Anything else you can provide for us? I don't know if this is a lot, but I can. Do we have the update? That's why the update is in the unit. That's all right. So you can ask it. I guess I would be curious about why this section of statute expires and needs updating regularly. That is a very good question. I am not entirely sure. This comes up for sunset roughly every two, three years and it's been doing so for quite a long time. I'm not really sure why if the legislature thinks this is a good idea and it promotes the build out of wireless. And that is a goal of the legislature why you wouldn't do away with the sunset, but I really can't explain that one. Representative Febelia. So I would note it has been my experience in the past, Madam Chair, that a number of the wireless companies have been fairly careless in their placements and a number of legislators in the past have wanted to not reauthorize this and have been modified with that. We'll see you in three years and make sure things are going well. Okay. Continuous check-in. Yes. Got it. Further questions? Representative Pat. Just add my understanding also in terms of past legislators reasoning was there was some concern about the more expedited type of provisions in the statute as to whether there was sufficient review of those so they wanted to pass legislators. I'm not talking about myself. Wanted a check back and a further review on that issue. Greg, I want to go back to my first question and just the utilities and I'm gonna use the wrong analogy but the AMI devices that they're putting on their houses Avram helped me for managing their energy. I'll come back. I'm not prepared to ask a good question here so I'm gonna not take it any time. All right. Thank you for joining us. Are you able to stick around for a few more minutes in case we go? Absolutely. Yeah, I'll be here. Thanks. All right, so our next witness is Jim Porter who's also joining us via zoomed. Thank you. Good to be here this morning. I'm Jim Porter. I'm the director for public advocacy at the department. And one thing I do remember going back to your question about the sunset provision was when this was established, if you don't know, there are three categories of projects that fit within 248A. There are de minimis, which are basically the replacement of existing or upgrade of existing antennas, structures that are already there. There's limited size and scope, which is a smaller tower. And then there's a full 248A, which is a brand new, what you think of as a typical cell tower. The de minimis category is very strict and you really can't increase the size or scope of what's already there. And I know that when we were setting these up years ago with the legislature, there was concern about companies maybe trying to take advantage of the de minimis category. And I can say that to this day, the PUC continues to view the, view de minimis petitions very strictly as do we. And I think that concern has not necessarily borne out. One thing I would say about the department's participation is Greg said, the department and ANR or statutory parties in all of these. And one thing that we changed about 248A a few years back was that during the, and I should also say the vast majority of petitions we get are de minimis, which are basically upgrades to the existing antennas and radios on these structures. But one thing that I think is a little unique about 248A is the department, sometimes if there are aesthetics concerns, we will hire an independent aesthetics expert to review a project. And sometimes we will retain a radio frequency engineer who can look at where I think most often comes up is if a viable alternate site is proposed, then we can have someone do an analysis to say, if you moved this proposed tower from site A to B, would you get the same amount of coverage? And that has been successful, but typically under statute, the department has the ability to retain these experts and bill it back to the petitioner. And so one thing that was changed about 248A that I do think has been successful in many instances is once a notice is filed, we were also given the ability to hire experts during that period that the town can request a meeting where the company, the petitioner has to come in and explain the project. And the department is able to retain experts during the notice period before the petition's ever filed. Cause as Greg said, once the petition is filed, there are certain time limitations that are kind of are put on it. And so we have had some success. And most of these petitions come through and they are really not contested, but sometimes like certain solar projects, a notice will come in and you just get enormous opposition from the town as to where it's proposed to be placed. One company in particular literally bends over backwards, in my opinion, trying to work with the communities. And then the other companies are perhaps a little lesser in that, but we've really had some good success stories. And during this notice time and meeting with the communities and the affected neighbors and trying to come up with a solution that works for everybody, generally before the petition is even filed. That's at all helpful, but I do think that's an important piece to note. And I guess with that, are there any questions that I can answer about our review or about how these things kind of work generally? Yeah, thank you for that. So solar goes through 248 or 248A? 248. Do folks have questions with public service or, can you tell us how you do review the projects? Like kind of walk us through, you get an application? Sure, an application comes in and it goes to our telecom division. And one of the things they look at is a telecom engineer checks to make sure that the structural analysis that's been provided is sufficient. And that's really just to ensure that the thing's not gonna fall down as proposed. And then go through and we will review whether there's an aesthetics issue. There has to be in the petition, depending upon the type, some type of aesthetics review. And typically what we do, unless we see something that just doesn't look right to us, we rely on comments from neighbors or the town. And if anybody raises an aesthetics issue, then we really just automatically hire an aesthetics expert to look at the project. And then we will make a recommendation to the PUC in all cases as well. And as I say, the vast majority of these petitions are not litigated. Sometimes though, when they are, they can go on for quite a while. Thank you, Representative Smith. Thank you. Thank you. You were just speaking a second ago about aesthetics involving any particular projects. Does that apply to government projects? Yes, sir. Like federal government have put towers up along the border and Derby line. And to the objections of all three of our legislative people in Washington DC. And aesthetics did not enter into the picture at all. Well, let me ask you though, are those, I know what you're talking about. I'm not sure those have come through us for permitting. And are you talking about the towers that have been put up for the monitoring? Yes, I am. Those we don't, they don't come to us. I'm not familiar, unless Greg can think of any of those coming to us. Do those projects answer to anyone? Do you know? That is, that's a good question. Some years ago we had a solar project that was being built, I think, by Homeland Security. And that one, I believe that one was permitted. So I'm not familiar with our getting any of these federal tower permits. I remember one that came before the PUC that was a federal solar project. All right, thank you. I don't know if this is a question for you. Which one of you, this might be a question for. But I guess I'm curious how the public notice works. In my area, we had a tower appear. And certainly I wasn't, I didn't know about it coming. And it's on the edge of the wilderness area up in the Green Mountain National Forest. And I'm just curious how many people might have even been aware of it before it was gonna go up and how they would have found out about it. I think and Greg will correct me where I'm wrong, but I think the notice is to the municipal bodies and joining landowners and the relevant state agencies. Yeah, then there's very few landowners up there. Interesting. Representative Bondar. This is just, this is a new area to me. So what goes through 248 and what goes through 248A? Where's the line of demarcation? So 248A is exclusively dealing with telecommunication dealing with telecommunication or cellular facilities, telecom facilities, and then 248A really all deals. I mean, 248 deals with electric generation projects. So I'm gonna ask Representative Sebelius. Good morning, Jim. With regard to these structures, or antennas or other items that are put up, does the department have the ability to to weigh in on what those are intended to do? What kind of coverage they're intended to provide at all? So typically, I think, you know, going back to 248 projects, there are some projects that you look to see if it's the least cost alternative and there are criteria that deal with, you know, is there an economic benefit to the state? So as far as that goes, I think the fact that it is the companies and without benefit of public investment that are fronting the money for these projects, that that does not come into play. I can tell you that if someone is willing to increase the cellular coverage somewhere, I think it's a little bit more than that. I think you would have a wide variance of people that say what's in the public good. You know, if it offers any additional coverage, which, you know, then I think a lot of people might say that is in the public good. These companies, though, typically are trying to maximize the coverage for the money that they're spending. If that answers your question at all. It starts to, when, do you have the ability to say, you know, where is the coverage going to be? To monitor where the coverage is and to do anything if the coverage is not where it was supposed to be. So I know that it's So those are, and Jim, I want to just interrupt you because those three questions are important to me. So if you could answer each of those three questions. But let me try to answer those for you last year. And I believe this year in the governor's budget, there was a proposal to, or it is a proposal to take a certain amount of money and to identify locations where cellular coverage is needed. And then to go through a process with the communities where these are located and do outreach and try to find areas where we need the cell coverage and where the communities are open to hosting those. In those instances, which would be funded through the state, I think we absolutely have that ability and that's something that I think we would do without question. That's kind of built into the proposal. An interesting thing that came up this year is. Jim. Yeah. You said in those types of proposals, you would have the ability for all three of the questions to ask them where the coverage is going to be to monitor if the coverage has gone there and to do something about it, if it is not there. That's correct, but that's correct under that proposal. One thing I will tell you though, this year for the first time that I can remember, we had a company and they are seeking permits for it's a private radio network that's really made available to businesses. And it does not, typically when a petition comes in, we know that it's going to be an AT&T tower or a Sprint tower or a Verizon tower. These did not come with that. And so essentially I think they were building these as spec towers. We had one of those that for the first time I can remember it was very much opposed in the community where it was proposed. And we were going to make an argument that it was not in the public good because there was not a broader public use that would come from this unless somebody happened to locate on it after it was built. That tower actually was withdrawn. And I am, frankly, the statute does not require it. And I don't really know that that would be a good thing. But in that instance, that's the first time I remember we were going to make that public good argument. I'm not sure we would have prevailed but we were willing to try. But as I say, that tower, that proposed tower got pulled. So Jim, I just wanna clarify what I believe you said and what you did not say. So I believe you said, governor has a proposal for public towers and that the department has or believes that they would have some regulatory oversight there in terms of coverage. And what you did not say is right now existing, not those proposed public towers, existing towers. Do you have that ability to find out, ask for what the coverage is going to be, monitor if the coverage is there and then do something if it is not what was asked for. Okay, that's a good question. So as you know, when the petitioners come in, they have to file coverage maps of where they think the coverage will be if they build it. And we have hired people to do analyses of what they propose for coverage. And sometimes they're in the ballpark, sometimes they're not, the one thing about that that I've learned over the years is when you're talking about the coverage of a cell tower, there are very scientific people who do this. But I think at the end of the day, and I think the providers will tell you, until the radios are actually installed and calibrated and operational, I don't think you entirely know what the coverage is going to be. I think there's somewhat of an art to that. And a lot of it depends upon are the leaves on or the leaves off. And so it's a very, unlike in a solar project where it has to be built here and it has to have this spec. And that's a very easy thing to monitor. And that happens on occasion. They don't build them as they're supposed to but you can go out and the engineer can say, yes, they have built it 150 feet away from where they got a permit to build it. They got to move it. The coverage is a little bit of a harder thing to prove. Does that make any sense? It doesn't make sense. Can you do anything about it if it's not as promised? I would have to think about that a bit. What I'm thinking is if we chose to bring a petition about that, I think that you would have dueling RF experts. And I- Excuse me, Jim. What's RF? Radio frequency. What's RF? Radio frequency. Where the signal goes. But we have certainly done that. I think recently during the pandemic, there was some emergency money and we funded some fixed wireless locations for broadband. And we absolutely went out and did individual testing of every site that was funded. The department went to every site that was funded and tested it itself and did not ask for attestations from the fixed wireless providers. Is that correct? I'm really not the person. I know that we do ask for attestations. I know that in projects that we have funded, I think we have done our own, when I say our own, we'd either retain somebody, we've retained someone to go out, or we have had them provide the testing. And I think at times we've been on site, but I'm six years removed from telecom and I would have to, if I've told you anything wrong, I will correct it. But that's what I believe we've done. Okay, so I think it would be helpful to make sure that we're clear on whether or not self attestation was a part of the COVID, the COVID wireless installations. Because I believe that it was, Jim. I believe it was too. And I've actually had a conversation recently with the guys in the telecom division and they are confident that the project, and the projects funded for that were verified to their satisfaction. Yeah, I know that they are. I've also had those conversations. We've had some pretty significant, as you know, you and I have worked on some pretty significant failures of self attestation in the past, massive failures of that. And so that's why I'm looking for this distinction. Madam Chair, I actually found the question, the information that I was looking for with Greg, may I ask that Jim may be able to answer as well. Yes. So just going back to the AMI, I'm going to, that is the right thing. It's the advanced, thank you, Representative Tori for the lifeline. So with regard to that, does AMI utilize Act 248A? And that is, it's a system of managing load. That's, I'm from shaking this head. Maybe you could throw me another lifeline from, but yeah. What is it, advanced one? Metering infrastructure, yes. So our utilities are installing this so that, hold please. It's technology composes several elements, consumption meters and two way communications channels in a data repository. And it's really meant to help manage what's going, it's part of smart metering, smart homes, modernizing our grid, helping to reduce emissions, having a lot of flexibility. So the AMI projects, I know that GMP is largely done with that. Some of our co-ops may be done with that. I know our munis are working on that, our municipal utilities. So do those AMI projects utilize 248A? How are we going to say now? No, maybe not. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Pat. Anything that's part of the distribution system is not covered. If, as part of AMI, they have to build a facility somewhere, that might be. But the running of lines on the poles and putting different, changing out different kinds of meters in people's homes is part of the distribution system that wouldn't be covered. Some AMI is wireless. Some of the AMI is wireless, correct? That's what I'm saying. If a tower or that kind of facility needed to be built in order for the AMI to work, that might. But the actual services to people's homes would not be. Right. So it's a tower. Representative Sabilia, if I can stretch my memory for a minute to the member about 10 years ago when Vermont got the first big grant for the AMI implementation, and Green Mountain Powers was a wireless solution. And I do seem to remember that for, they may have used existing, an existing carrier to assist, and where they needed a little extra coverage. But I think that I don't think anything was built for that. I think it was. So I think Greg is correct. 248 a is not used for that, but it's a little, I do think some systems have used. Cellular providers in assisting in areas. Good members have further questions. Representative Morris and then Tori. Thank you madam chair. And thank you gentlemen for being here this afternoon. This morning post copy. So yeah, could be afternoon. Is during the permitting process. And I know a lot of times emergency communication. Towers or or radios get installed on these sites and the wireless sites. And I'm wondering, is there any consideration for that in the permitting process or the public good? And then I have another follow up question. So emergency services. Are they considered in the permitting process for the location of the wireless towers? You want me to take this gym or. Sure. So there's really no. Let's see. So usually if you're putting antennas on a tower, that would fall under a de minimis modification, whether it's. For de minute for emergency services or for expansion of, let's say 18 T service. There would really be no distinction between that. It's usually the very small ones. And all you really have to show. Is that it qualifies as a really small modification. That makes sense. Thank you. My second question is more of a comment. I think being involved with emergency services and wireless communication between base station and the units on the scene, we call them dead spots, but it's within a coverage area. But occasionally we run into issues where for some reason one, one reason or another, the radio communications don't go through, whether it's a line of sight or the terrain of Vermont hills and valleys or whether it was mentioned, whether it's in the fall or summertime when there's leagues covering the trees versus this time of year. But I just comment on if utility was going to promise that they could cover a certain area that the expectations of 100% households 100% of the time does come within and does come with some issues with the communications and they might not be covered at certain times. That's just the experience that I have from EMS services with our radio transmissions. Representative Tori. Thank you. My question is about a notice to adjoining landowners. And I'm just wondering how do you define adjoining? Is it very narrowly defined, especially as you're talking about larger projects? I guess I could answer this. Basically it's if your property is touching the property where the project is going to be cited. I mean, that's the basic rule of thumb. You could be across the street and if your properties go to the middle of the street as they do in some towns that would be considered adjoining as well. But basically it's the people, the neighbors surrounding the project site property. So members, I recommend that you pull up the section of statute and peruse it if not read it thoroughly. Thank you gentlemen for joining us this morning. It was very helpful. I'm not seeing any further questions. I think with that we'll take a five minute break. Seven minute break and come back at five minutes before the hour. We're going to reconvene our morning meeting and welcome Rob Dietzky, the director of Pecuda. Welcome. Good morning. And thank you for having us back. The team had a great time with you yesterday talking about CDs and such. So I won't do a renewal on that. I appreciate the invite to talk about 248A this morning. And I think as you heard this morning for most health communications facilities that don't go high up in the air, this isn't used very often. But we did want to kind of set some context for you for the way we cite equipment around the state and the, you know, the circumstances where we might consider trying to go through it. That would be pretty quick. So I'm assuming there are no more questions about what a communications union district is, but the slides there are for the record. And if you have any questions, of course, we'd like to answer them. So here's a picture of Montpelier. And I think the green lines here, you see the way telecommunications lines might be wrong. And these would be run on poles or underground. This is just meant to be representative of the kinds of things that we think about. So we need to cite equipment in these poll sheds to support these customers. And, you know, there's some limitations. There are distance limitations. For instance, we need to be within about 12 and a half miles of our equipment to the farthest home. That can be reduced by the number of places we have to drop along the way. We have these things called splitters. And optical light gets split. And as you farther, the more splitters you have, the less light you have. And so you need to kind of size the service area based on the number of splitters and the number of homes you're serving. We look at the layout of the poles. And, you know, obviously you have to have continuity from point A to point B, from the center of where your service and your equipment is to the farthest point. We look at things like power and where it's going to be most reliable and how it's at least likely to go out if we could get a substation, for instance. That would be a better location than being at the end of a single fed street. We look at interconnectivity to other parts of the network. Where are the intersections of the fire rings to other towns and other hub sites and other parts of the network that give us resiliency? We look at security of the site. We look at environmental issues like we wouldn't want to be in the bottom of a flood water. So there are a number of things, parking and service ability, the ability to drive up and change a car or not have it be plowed in in the winter. And of course, probably the most important for us is the post-sites willingness to host us. And if we can find synergies, I'll talk a little bit about that with both sites. So these are kind of constraints that we look at. You know, unsurprisingly, in this map, you'd probably look somewhere right here in the middle between the two major service areas if you could. Just like one set of equipment to serve both areas. Okay. So I need to put on a full screen, sorry. Okay. So this is what the vast majority of the hundreds of equipment cabinets we're going to be citing around the state look like. And so, you know, EC5 has already done this. They probably have dozens of these out there. You know, as I talked to the other CUDs in preparation for today, this is very typical of what they're citing. Typically we'll go on the side of the road, set back enough that, you know, again, snow and access and other things. So any questions on the picture? Okay. So that's a typical site. Or, you know, in the larger sites, we might place a temporary building or a prefab building like this. Or more typically, in the way the CUDs are working, we work with the town to find a location. So here's a site in Peachham where we're locating at their fire station. There's some benefit there. We might have shared backup power, for instance. I was obviously a highly accessible location. It's going to be available year-round and probably has reasonable power and service flow. So in the case of the self-contained hunt, we're not doing many of these from on. But, you know, we might do something like this. These buildings come in various sizes. You see these at the bottom of towers as well. But for us, you know, we wouldn't obviously be at a tower site. But sometimes they have a generator in them. Sometimes they have fuel. So there are considerations about where you place them and what they might be. They might have a battery bank in them, et cetera. So the difference between this and the previous slide, the smaller equipment is that? Is the generator or other? So the smaller sites, typically in this cabinet, the top half of the cabinet, is equipment and fiber-captioning from the bottom is batteries. And a lot of CDs, with their operating partner, have strategies for backup power. In some cases, they will cite a small generator there and either very tank or put, you know, propane tank or some of the fuel source. In a lot of cases, what they'll do is they'll put 14 to 24 hours of batteries and they'll have a generator on the truck. So in a power failure, they've got 14 to 20 hours to get a generator out there. They'll plug it in and then they'll run a portable generator during the average. But that's the difference between these two facilities. One has it sort of... Yeah, it's also just size. So for every network, you may have one big hub site or maybe let's say two where you connect to the rest of the world and you have additional equipment. So the pure distribution sites, they're just serving homes like this. But for each network, there are typically one site that's a little bigger, it has more gear and that would go in the bigger building. And a network, is that 12 and a half miles? No. So again, based on sizing, you might be able to serve a 12 and a half mile radius with one of these kind of this. But typically with any CD, it sees some larger facility that has more capacity. This type of rack typically just supports just the equipment called the OLT that serves the homes. Whereas in a site like this, you might have the routers and switches that connect to the internet. You might have caching some of the providers like Acombi, Google, YouTube actually provide local caching for content. So you might have additional equipment beyond just the distribution equipment or each site. Thank you. So what you really want to hear about is our take on 248. So far, in canvassing all the CUDs, no one has used 248. We have been working with the local municipalities and siting equipment in collaboration with them and then following the laws as appropriate for a local site. And so the CUD have used this as an ultimate path for siting. If you read this definition in 248A, it is clear that this is for two-way telecommunications facilities. It typically is used for towers. But it does appear to be an avenue through which you could site equipment if you needed to. And so we appreciate that additional avenue. We have not had to use it so far. We support the three-year renewal. You know, in general we think that's a nice sunset. We're going to be building for more than three more years. It's nice to have a check-in to make sure that you know, as conditions change or such we have the ability to make modifications if needed. We don't see any at this point. But we do support the three-year check-in. And then the last one is you know, the group so it was important just to convey to you both that having statewide standards for telecommunications, siting, are important. And in contentious situations, providing additional avenue to make sure that we can fulfill this to get a public good for general purpose use. But we also really, you know, we are community-based organizations. We are bottom-up grassroots organizations. We also think it's really important to have local input in siting decisions. One of the things that's a path we've chosen is to go local. And I expect we will continue to go that way. That's it. Thank you. So what process do you use or do you have to go through to site or to, I mean, you're using existing infrastructure largely. So what is your requirement there? Yeah. So for the most part so we simply work with the towns and as we get closer relations to them with the decision to form a CUD, there is support in statute for towns to provide a location for us to site equipment for each town that joins that votes to join. One of the provisions is that they work with us to find a provision to locate equipment. We don't always need to put one in every town. So depending again on what the scenario is on the map, it might be that the edge of one town and that can serve two towns. But we generally go through the local process. In the case where we're going inside a building, there is no sighting. In the case where we were going on someone's property, let's say the town's property, we just follow their local ordinances and their local approval process. And so there's no state level review? Correct. And that's the process we've been using that's been working for us. You certainly can see and we do operate in a competitive environment where someone could try and stop site someday in the coming years that hasn't happened yet. Thank you. Do members have questions? Great. Thank you again. And we'll see you soon. Next we are going to welcome Karen Horn from the Vermont League of Citizen Towns. Welcome for the first time this year. Yes. Thank you. I'm Karen Horn with the Vermont League of Citizen Towns and a few, a couple of you I have not met before. So we're the association of all the 247 cities and towns around the state. And we follow all the legislation that might affect a municipality which works out to be somewhere around 250 to 300 bills a year because we're a Dylan's rule state and I can go into that some other time, but essentially if a town wants to do something that's not already allowed in the statutes we need to seek permission from the legislature to do it. As an association we also provide insurances to municipalities through risk pools and technical assistance, legal advice to any local official about the responsibilities of their jobs. Not the job of the person in the next office, their job. So sometimes an distinction at the local level. So thank you for having me come talk about 248A. We do support the extension of the sunset and I've been here for about 110 years so when this was initially adopted the system that was in place was that municipalities could permit telecommunications facilities and we had a model telecommunications bylaw that a lot of towns adopted, but there were other versions as well and so the industry was concerned that it was scattershot, which is often the case with local bylaws. So they asked for the utility commission and the public service board to be the regulatory entity and the legislature didn't go the whole way down that path. They put in the three-year sunset which has been renewed several times now. If this were to lapse our understanding is that the authority would revert to the local governments. So that would be one result and if you were to make it permanent we feel fairly strongly that there wouldn't be the requirement for a check-in with the legislature on a periodic basis and technology changes a lot what telecommunications companies are trying to do changes a lot and so we think that the three-year sunset is a pretty important feature. I did send to Kate just for your information right now there's a proposal for a Verizon cell tower in Warren and my understanding is that the application has actually been withdrawn so they were going to come talk to the community but because they're not proceeding right now they're revising their application that that period for discussion isn't happening right now and they have not representative Torres my new rep he's also my neighbor up the hill so we're delighted she's here but they haven't actually met with the town yet so and then I also sent you an informational piece of the town Warren put planning commission put together around the 248 a process and sort of answering frequently asked questions from the community and I think it gives you a good idea of the range of questions that people ask when a big cell tower is proposed in the community there's always the only other thing I really need to point out or actually don't need to point out is that there's always this tension between people wanting good service and people not wanting a tower right next door to them so that's something that in fact the utility commission might be better able to mediate than some communities who might actually be neighbors to the proposed facility and so they're better and that's the process we have now is the PC so to the point just made with the communications union districts business actually has a choice they can go the local level or they can go to the utility commission and most I mean I think that the cell companies I think they always go to the public utility commission I yeah and do you want me to know who put this document together from the Warren frequently asked questions I think that it was the planning commission that put it together they did have a bylaw well it's still in the books and Warren and in a lot of other communities there is a bylaw that addresses the regulation of cell towers and it's pretty much our model bylaw that we put out years ago but yeah I think the planning commission put that together great this is really very helpful I encourage members to check it out it's under Karen Horn's name on our webpage I'm not seeing the Warren application did you send that in also well no it's been withdrawn oh I thought you mentioned though that you sent it in anyway no I sent you two things I sent the frequently asked questions and what else did I send you now I forgot 248A so there's only one thing up from Karen so if you could check on that it would be great I might have just sent you the language did you just check okay thank you so my understanding is that there's not an actual application right now from Verizon for that tower they're sending that great do members have questions Representative Pat just curious in your experience if applicants are going to the town rather than using the option of going to the town are there projects the reason for 248A or 248 and the public good issue is that frequently I mean a facility a tower will be located in one town but it will also extend so you don't want one town having the so I just wonder how much that if your experience whether there's any issues around around that where the town where a proposed facility would be located the facility would actually be serving people in a broader area I think that certainly the case that facilities will serve more than one town and my understanding is that almost all the applications go to the public service board and if it's a de minimis application you know which as Greg said most of them are you know that there's sort of a truncated process but I think it was kind of a revelation to me that the communications union districts have made the choice to go locally versus 248A and we're also in a communications union district and I'm waiting with Bated Grat as representative civilian Tori now for my high-speed image in that service I've been waiting about 15 years then we're happy to come back if anything thank you for coming in all right next up we have Owen Smith from AT&T Vermont and he'll be joining us to be a zoom welcome Owen are you with us I am can you hear me we can good morning and thank you for having me and nice to see you all some new faces in the committee but chair Sheldon and vice chair civilian members of the committee again I thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of 248A and with the House bill 110 my name is Owen Smith I'm the state president for AT&T here in Vermont so AT&T's ability to increase the number of towers in the state by almost 30% since 2019 is in large part due to 248A which is a very workable efficient wireless permitting process for both the municipalities which I think we just heard and also from certainly a company's perspective that's why I'm advocating that the committee not only renew 248A but consider extending it permanently or at least sunset after 10 years which would be extremely helpful in our planning so extending or repealing the sunset clause will provide AT&T in the industry with greater certainty to plan out our network investments and the construction of cell towers providing Vermonters with a better wireless experience so just a quick history of what we've done AT&T has done over the past few years in fact over the past five years we've invested about a hundred million dollars on our Vermont network we've added 51 additional cell sites since 2019 we've performed over 675 upgrades upgrading antennas emergency generators adding spectrum to keep up with capacity demands as you probably all are aware we're using our phones more data data data that's grown 520,000 percent since we introduced the first iPhone in 2007 so AT&T now has 227 cell towers in Vermont providing LTE 4G LTE across the state for both AT&T customers and also first responders through FirstNet and let me just say a little bit about FirstNet back in 2017 the federal government put out an RFP to build a nationwide interoperable network that provided priority and preemption for first responders AT&T won that contract it's a 25 year contract our commitment is to invest 40 billion dollars over that 25 years we're in year five right now and our commitment through that contract with the federal government the FirstNet authority is to build 36 sites in Vermont of which we built 31 and we have five remaining sites that we plan on completing this year so again but in total along with our business as usual we built 51 cell sites over the last four years or so there's still work to do we realize that we have another total of 12 sites that are in progress somewhere in the permitting or construction phase that will be completed this year again with our FirstNet obligation with Vermont and in our contract with the federal government we have remote places in the state it's just not viable to go with commercial service and we've been doing that through FirstNet at the same time we need to densify our network for the reasons that I suggested just the capacity demand we need to add capacity in places like Burlington South Burlington Chittenden County in general and then still Vermont would be another area that we see a lot of a lot of traffic increases it's you know mostly year round and the access road going up is a very busy spot for all of the providers so that's an example so on 248a in that process we pride ourselves in working with municipalities we've had meetings with towns and the majority of the majority of the time that we propose towers if the town wants a meeting they have one 248a is sort of a one-stop permitting process which gives substantial deference to a town's recommendation based on the town's ordinance and again if the town wants to have a public hearing they have a public hearing which is the case the majority of the time in all we've attended over a hundred meetings with municipalities and regional planning commissions to both explain our coverage needs and objectives and to listen to municipality concerns AT&T has made changes to the original proposed design for about half of our proposed sites including you know maybe a change in height maybe lowered it moved it to another parcel aesthetic design concerns environmental concerns etc so we've also suspended the timeline with 248a voluntarily to perform maybe a second balloon test for the residents to see conduct more environmental studies or to work out mutually acceptable solutions with the town in some cases we've totally aborted a particular cell site because the town concerns and moved someplace else within the town 248a also encourages companies to co-locate on existing towers which AT&T and other providers do whenever that's feasible most municipalities have neither the desire nor the expertise to review telecommunications applications given that the PUC and the department have been doing most of that work over the last 10 or 12 years in fact the firm that does all the permitting for AT&T is frequently instructed by municipal officials not to file a local telecom permit and to use 248a the need to expand and upgrade over a month network will be continuous certain certainty is very critical when it comes to planning investments and building out a network as has been said earlier 248a was enacted in 2007 with a sunset in 2009 since then I think four times it's been extended by two or three years and it's currently due to sunset on July 1 so once again I ask the committee to support H110 and consider making 248a permanent if permanence is an option certainly consider a 10 year extension if there's going to be amendments made to this would be to give the PUC the authority to review and process what is called eligible facilities requests applications in accordance with the requirements of title 47 with the federal code the same way that a de minimis modification are processed with 248a so this would allow for substantially easier minor modification including adding backup generator compound expansions microwaves additions tower replacements and the like so in closing I would be remiss if I didn't refer to another bill that is out there dealing with 248a I would assume at some point that this committee will take up H70 that bill raises a lot of concerns for AT&T and I think we would have a lot more to say about that bill so thank you again for this opportunity and certainly answer any questions that I can thank you for your testimony I'll start I'm curious how often are how many of your towers are shared with other providers I don't have the exact percentage but I would take a guess at 80 or 90 percent however over the last four or five years because of FirstNet in our obligations we have gone to some places that no one's gone to before sounds like a stark thing but essentially we've gone to places where there was not a business case to go and one example would be at the snowball we just recently turned on a tower top of the Middlebury Snow Bowl and ripped in it's a man-mith site it was a site that ended up costing us almost four million dollars and but it's a great site it provides lots of coverage my guess is that other carriers will follow so there's in fact the majority of the sites that we built or at least of the 31 that we built the total of 36 are in areas that are very difficult to permit there's a reason why there's no self coverage there and you know we'll get there and I'm sure others will follow so a couple of follow-ups does the FirstNet have to go through the same review process and when you say other carriers will follow they'll join on your tower yeah so that's called a co-location and we all none of us own a lot of the towers there's usually third parties that own them and that's not true in all cases but you will see AT&T T-Mobile Verizon VTEL maybe on the same towers providing close to the same coverage there's different heights we all can't be at the same height so the lower you are on the tower the less coverage you will get if you're on the top of the tower you'll get the most coverage but that's called a co-location and yes that's done the majority of the time yeah I just wanted to be sure because that's my neck of the woods and it was very surprising to many of us to see that tower go up the edge of the wilderness and the spine of the green mountains and I'm hoping we don't see too many more in our neighborhood I'm sorry is that the Ripton yep well it's a good tower and one of the reasons that it is such a great tower we really don't want to build any more towers in that area if we don't have to yeah great and it is out of ski area and that's good and it does provide service for where there was a gap it's also a change do members have questions Representative Sebelia so let me just start by acknowledging a number of community resilience projects that I'm aware of that AT&T has done over time in Vermont including responding to emergency issues like your tropical storm Irene hospital in southern Vermont that had lost coverage getting some of our more our villages with really deteriorating copper lines small cell coverage and so thank you Owen I know you have been a big part of making that happen my questions I have questions I will not surprise you of the 100 million investment that AT&T has made in Vermont in the last 5 years I think that's what you the figure you used was 100 million in 5 years how much of that was first net funding well all of it was AT&T funded because we haven't received any money from the first net authority yet so that has been built as I said 51 sites over the last 3 years if you go beyond that since opt-in we've actually built more than the 51 sites but those are really it's been since 2019 that we've turned on some of the first net sites and our business as usual so at this point all of that all of that is first net AT&T and how much of that is first net build in the last 5 years of that 100 million investment so we have again 51 sites we've turned on and not all sites are created equal as we just heard about ripped in at almost 4 million dollars but so we've turned on 51 powers since 2019 and 30 one of those is first and as you I think know representative Sebelia when all is said and done it makes no difference because whether it's an AT&T site which means we budgeted for it as our business as usual for a first net site which we're obligated to do when all is said and done it works for first net, first responders and AT&T subscribers my question is trying to understand the level of public investment versus private investment in that and so with first net you will be reimbursed if you have not received any money is that right? Partially and to be honest with you I don't understand exactly how all of that works but yes there is some funding coming from the first net authority but keep in mind we've also committed to spend 40 billion dollars of our own funds over the 25 year period that's not first net yes are there any other federally funded or federally reimbursable projects in the last five years outside of first net that you all have done? Not that I'm aware of, not you, not even honestly okay thank you and then my last question actually I have two questions so I want to ask you about the thing that you asked about eligible facilities but that's not you could wait for a second on that what does not fall under your data caps? I'm sorry can you repeat that? What does not fall under your data caps for your cellular customers? So is there anything that's exempted from that that is not part of that's not counted towards data caps? I don't believe so so on a subscriber's bill when they get data yep so you've got voice you've got text and you have data and data is really anything that you're doing on the internet and a lot of the apps that you would be using on your wireless phone will use data so there's been a lot of consolidation in telecommunications companies and so I'm not actually sure what other companies AT&T is affiliated with now but my question is more around at one point I don't know if you still are you were affiliated with Direct TV and so it's more a question of you know are those companies exempted are those services streaming services other things exempted from your data caps? No they aren't and as you may or may not know we do not own Direct TV anymore we spun that off for a shareholder but we do not operate Direct TV anymore okay and then if you could just explain to me just a tiny bit more about the eligible facilities request just in a little bit more detail what that means yeah so there's some federal guidance that falls under section 6409 from the FCC and essentially it's for de minimis type projects smaller projects that the FCC would like to expedite and some of the some of the examples I mentioned would be placing a generator at a cell site for whatever reason didn't have a generator as you know we took over this network about 12 years ago 14 years ago now some of those sites may not have generators the majority of our sites do but we want to add a generator to a site we want this to fall under this eligible facilities request if we want to put a microwave link which would be an antenna up on a cell tower that would fall under this eligible facilities request if we want to redo a tower you know not make it any taller than 10 extra feet or 20 extra feet go any wider but just rebuild it to hold more capacity maybe another provider would like to be able to get that expedited through an eligible facilities request now that sounds very similar and it is to the de minimis level of projects that currently is available through 248a but this takes it a little bit of a step further includes the more you know it's expanding a shelter for instance at the bottom of the site something that is going to be very minor in the scheme of things so that's basically what I'm talking about and giving the excuse me the PUC the authority to and responsibility to review that process so are there any public notice requirements as a part of that federal is it a bulletin is it what is it it's similar to the de minimis process that has within 248a and I'm not an expert on 248a but with a de minimis piece there is a 30 day notice okay oh yeah so are you requesting that the 248a de minimis be replaced with this federal procedure there wouldn't be a need for de minimis if this was in and again it's very similar it's just it's expedited it includes a few more items and it's already a federal guideline and there's just been some confusion maybe not confusion but the my understanding is that the PUC doesn't feel that they have that authority today and it would be great if they were given that authority if in fact they don't have it today so they would be administering it yeah so it's not duplicative now it doesn't apply because we have the de minimis in 248a yeah again I'm not the expert here but I think if we wanted to use the federal 6409 on some of the stuff we could I don't believe that we could use it through 248a but I think we could use it through act 250 in local zoning which we really don't want to do and so yeah we would rather not do that we would rather continue to use 248a and just have that eligible facility request made a part of that okay thank you members have further questions thank you for your testimony thank you and next up we have Stephanie Lee from New England Verizon and Stephanie is also joining us from zoo good morning everybody how are you today morning hi so thank you so much for giving us at Verizon the opportunity to talk about 248a and the benefits of that particular statue thank you chair and vice chair and all the members of the committee I am Stephanie Lee I lead state and local government affairs for Verizon in New England and I have been representing Verizon in Vermont for about four years I'm here today as I mentioned not only to support 248a but also to express support for house bill 110 248a as you know does provide a streamlined process that enables wireless providers such as Verizon the opportunity to expand our network in areas where there's a need for more coverage and capacity we like the statewide process and it has worked well because it provides an efficient framework that not only provides predictability for applicants and the communities we're serving but for consumers in Vermont to stay connected whether it be public safety to their jobs, school healthcare as well as their family and friends we believe the statue does offer an effective job of balancing the interests of the local communities and the applicants and each year Verizon also invests millions of dollars to improve the quality of service and coverage of our wireless networks for consumers in Vermont and similar to AT&T we have invested about 60 million over the last five years and we are looking at ramping that up in the next several years as we continue to focus on bringing our services in more rural areas to reach unserved and underserved residents Verizon will be increasing our investments we're going to be doubling our investments this year and that will probably increase exponentially over the three to five years to ensure that we can bridge those gaps for consumers wherever they are in Vermont as we look towards the future we would ask the committee to consider extending section 248A sunset beyond the three years because that would again give us that predictability as we take a long range view of our network requirements and provide for more certainty in our planning and budgeting process our ultimate goal is to reach more consumers as quickly as possible with the fast reliable service that they deserve and desire and we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the benefits of 248A I did want to also mention as Owen did that the other bill House Bill 70 does add a lot more onerous requirements that are concerning to us we really like the process right now as it's been established but we would be concerned that it would slow down the process because it adds more days to the front end before we even go to the department of public service and it could really slow down our ability to ramp up our investments and ensure that we are reaching as many Vermonters as possible as our plan continues to accelerate in the next few years I'll take any questions Members have questions Representative Sebelia Yes, good morning Stephanie, nice to see you again a question for you around any federally funded investments that you have made in Vermont in the last five years or federally reimbursable investments that you've made in Vermont in the last five years No, all of our investments in Vermont have been out of Verizon's budget and will continue to be everything that we're proposing right now we have not applied for any federal stimulus funds in Vermont Okay, and then around data caps with Verizon So Verizon has unlimited plans and with those unlimited plans we do not have data caps However, there are different plans like through we acquired Trackphone and they have a prepaid service so you pay for what you get in advance and there are some services that are measured, but if you go with the unlimited plans which really are the most cost-effective plans and we have them at different levels of amounts of data, we do not cap out Okay, and so for your lowest plan I would be interested I don't know if you have this information with you right now and if not I'd be happy to have that as a follow up for your lowest cost plan Trackphones, others for low income for monitors with the data caps What is exempted from the data caps? Sure, let me follow up with you on that I could easily get that and send it to you following this hearing Thank you, thank you very much That's it, Madam Chair Representative Von Garz Hi, is there a coordination between Horizon 2 when this build out is sort of nearing completion will there still be areas of the state that are not served will there be rural areas of the state that still have no good cell service or is there a plan to actually do the equivalent of last mile? I can get started since I'm on so our goal is really to reach as many consumers as possible in Vermont and that's why we're ramping up this plan is we're all aware and been reminded through the pandemic how important connectivity is it does take time to get to everyone but the goal is to get to as many people as possible however there are situations where you know Vermont is a mountainous state it's very rural sometimes wireless facilities in service it can be difficult to reach every last person based on just how the network works if there's mountains if you're in a valley or in a very very wooded area it can be challenging without having equipment in your home but the goal is to really reach as many people as possible as we continue to build out I have one town where I hear a constant we talk about wireless that always says don't forget about cell so okay further questions not seeing any thank you for your testimony this morning thank you for letting me testify today all right members that's all of the scheduled witnesses we have for today sort of public service announcement oh actually Avram would you be prepared to tell us about the bill you introduced H70 that came up a couple of times or just at a high level what the intent is I did not want to get into a discussion with it but I'll just say very briefly the intent is to get bad actors such as the one that proposed the project in my town to do what AT&T and Verizon do and to go through a more communicative process with the communities so that's the intent whether there are specific things that they would like to see changed I'm personally open and Representative Cary Dolan and I are the sponsors of that but yes great I have a clarifying question the municipal level process that they were discussing that is not so that's referring to the municipal level process for stating that you're talking about rather than the 248 no it's that the what those the two companies that we heard from today go through a fairly extensive informal communication process in the communities before they file a notice that they're going to be submitting an application and that gives everybody the opportunity to learn about it and to say well could you do this could you move this a little bit over to see if there are a foundation that can be made that's not what happened in the project that Jim Porter referred to that was withdrawn that's Worcester and it happened last spring basically so in other words you're asking for there to be municipal level in other words you're asking for there to be municipal level stakeholder engagement prior to notice yes I don't want to get into this more in detail but in that case the town was notified and it was because the town officials went and told everybody in town that this application was happening otherwise no one would have known and that happened in Worcester that might not happen in another town so if I'm understanding correctly we have this issue also with Act 250 where some developers will do a lot of pre proposal outreach in a community but it's not required and that sounds like a parallel thing where providers might do outreach more actively before they propose it and get input before they actually finalize their proposal and your bill would require that public engagement I think the question in the balancing is how specific are the requirements or how much are we simply asking that when you come in with an application we want you to also include what outreach you did rather than getting too specific you must do this meeting and etc etc I think that's the balance just speaking of someone that went through the 248 utility process a number of times it's to the benefit of the proposer to do that because if someone says well could you move it over to this corner of the property you can say we can do that it will cost us a little bit but if it makes people be okay with it then it's in the interest of the proposer whether it's a communication power or energy related thank you further discussion on the testimony we heard this morning I just have a quick question so we don't we don't want to make this a permanent requirement or a permanent extension that they prefer the three-year check-in well I think that we just took testimony they prefer it to be extended permanently and then if not permanently at least ten years and then other testimony we heard was like stick with the wait as three years I apologize for that for a work thing so I think I heard the three-year is okay testimony and not the but it does seem that 248A is beneficial so I guess I understand why folks would want to extend it longer but that's not what you're proposing Vice-Chair Sebelia no no I'm happy to explain why explain why so this is an unregulated massively publicly funded industry which is it's an unregulated massively publicly funded industry have a lot of concerns around data privacy I have a lot of concerns around net neutrality when we have we're federally preempted from regulating these providers we can do some consumer protection work but it's been very difficult to hold these folks accountable both for coverage or for the dollars that have been invested in them and so this is literally our only way that we actually get to them is by this sunset but you don't want to permanently we'll have no means of having them come to talk there'll be no reason for them to come to talk to us I mean permanently extend just you know not sunset it ever so if we don't sunset it there will be no reason for them to come and talk to us I see what you're saying okay gotcha because they'll get their certificate and then never have to check back in again I believe I'll have to double check but I believe that the request for us to put in federal law into 248 would lessen the requirements that we have and again without these folks are critical for Vermonters but they're not accountable to Vermonters and they don't have to be accountable for the public investments that are made into them and so this is almost our only way of holding them accountable so thank you thank you all right members we're going to move towards taking a break but I want to remind folks there's budget adjustment caucus of the whole community break from committee we'll give you time to get lunch and get to that and also we're back at 115