Complexity and Tradeoffs - 6/5/26

I hope you are enjoying this beautiful summer weather we are having. My youngest daughter graduated from college and moved into her first apartment over the weekend. Last night I went to an art opening at the West River Coffee Barn for Bev Foster, my daughter’s kindergarten teacher at Flood Brook those many years ago. Life keeps circling and rolling…

I want to continue with my theme of exploring complexity and trade-offs. Bear with me as I try to take you inside the journey of a bill.

One of the bills we worked on in Energy and Digital Infrastructure was a bill on how cell and radio towers are sited (H527). We thought it would be a relatively straightforward bill, but we were wrong. We all know that cell coverage in Vermont is terrible, even on some of the major highways. It is a public safety issue and an economic development issue. We need to be able to conduct business (and personal matters) while on the road.

Recognizing this, the legislature many years ago set up an expedited process for cell tower siting called 248a, that is handled by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) instead of going through Act 250 review. The PUC is basically a legal authority and the process is still robust, but the rules are different. Over 80% of the applications are minor, such as equipment upgrades, that go through administratively. Of the major applications, mostly building new towers, most of them go through the process without issue. But, there are a few applications a year that are contested by nearby landowners and/or municipalities for a variety of reasons. The PUC process is opaque, difficult and expensive – making it all but out of reach to push back against these big corporations with lots of lawyers. What to do?

Do we get rid of the 248a process and let everything go to Act 250 review thereby slowing everything down significantly? This might make sense for the few contested cases, but it would affect all siting issues. And Act 250 is under major stress with the creation of the Land Use Review Board (LURB) to professionalize it (remember Act 181?). Not great timing. But Vermonters are not being given a fair process to contest these few, difficult cases.

The Committee ended up keeping the 248a process, but required the PUC to evaluate how the process can be improved to give people more say. The Senate took out this piece, but forced the PUC to hold a public hearing in contested cases to allow concerns to be heard. Better than nothing, but not robust enough for my liking. But this was the choice at the end of the session – take it or leave it. I did not want all the siting issues dumped on a very busy and distracted LURB, so I voted for this compromise.

All three Republicans voted against the bill and for revision of cell tower siting to Act 250. The Democrats and the Independent voted to proceed. So, this could easily be spun by the press as the Republicans being anti-business and public safety and the Democrats being against local control. Meanwhile on Education Dems are promoting local control and on Act 181(s325) Republicans are vociferously against Act 250. It just ain’t simple… There is absolutely a problem with Vermonters not having enough say in the process of tower siting AND we need more cell towers. There are flaws in both the PUC process and the Act 250 process. Where does it belong? Is a mandatory hearing enough to capture Vermonters’ concerns? There was no right answer, just trade-offs…

For what its worth, my suggestion was to keep the 248a process for everything but contested cases. Once a case was challenged, it would revert to Act 250.  Maybe next year…

By the way, we are still waiting for the Governor to sign this bill, or not.

Plenty more to come on this session’s activities in the coming days.

Be well,

Chris Morrow

Morrowforvt@gmail.com

www.morrow4vt.com