Hundreds of bills are introduced in the
Vermont House each year. Some are very long bills that create new
laws or make major modifications to existing law. A major rewrite of
the liquor control laws that were first enacted in 1934 was recently
undertaken by the General, Housing & Military Affairs Committee.
All of the changes were technical including removal of outdated
regulations and bringing others in compliance with current practices
and relevant laws. This 179 page bill took over two hours to
summarize on the House floor. Other than an amendment to legalize
“happy hours”, which was defeated on a close vote because it
would require more testimony, there was little controversy and the
bill was passed on a voice vote. The committee indicated it would
revisit the popular “happy hours” as a separate bill.
On the flip side of bill
complexity, the Energy & Technology Committee considered a
one-page bill, H.50, that would have simply extended a sunset clause
on a section of law regarding telecommunications from July of this
year to July of 2020, but generated a great deal of controversy This
provision, known as Section 248a, provides
an expedited process for getting a Certificate of Public Good (CPG)
from the Public Service Board (PSB) for siting of telecommunication
equipment such as antennae, wifi transmitters, and cell towers.
Telecom facility siting would then have to go through either Act 250
permitting when applicable, local zoning, or both. Cell phone and
internet access have been seen as essential for economic development,
safety, education, health care, and consumer service. Section 248a
has been a key factor in developing this infrastructure since the
Douglas administration. The House Energy and Technology Committee
took many weeks of testimony from all the stakeholders, including the
PSB, the Department of Public Service, telecom providers, and
municipalities and Regional Planning Commissions.
The
extension of the sunset clause had been passed three times since
2007. Over this time several cases of cell tower siting have been
contentious, pitting local zoning and residents against developers.
Almost all of these had occurred more than a year ago. As a result
of these issues coming to light, the legislature made modifications
to 248a in 2015 which requires the PSB to give "substantial
deference" to local plans, regulations and recommendations
unless there is "good cause" to find otherwise.
Substantial deference means that the plans and recommendations of
municipal bodies are presumed correct, valid, and reasonable. The
modifications also included strong language for co-locating new
equipment on existing structures whenever possible. These
modifications to 248a took effect on 7/1/2016, a mere eight months
ago. After taking weeks of testimony and concluding that the concerns
of the towns had been addressed in previous legislation, the
committee decided to make 248a permanent by repealing the sunset
clause.
As
H.50 was brought to the floor for consideration by the VT House, the
Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) sent a letter of opposition
to repealing the sunset clause. This generated a lot of emails to
legislators from municipal officials, and the Energy & Technology
Committee decided to pull the bill back. We subsequently had more
discussion with VLCT as well as other affected parties and restored
the language extending the sunset for three years and added language
to require the CPG applicants to include in the 60 day
pre-application notice a list of existing options available to the
municipalities, including reference to the substantial deference
clause. This amendment to H.50 was satisfactory to VLCT as well as to
the telecom providers, and the bill was once again voted out of
committee for consideration by the full House and is expected to
pass. The takeaway is that even the simplest bill can generate a lot
of work and turmoil.
As always, I invite you to let me know
your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238)
or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).
