Legislative Report 2/20/2019 - Broadband Key to Economic Development

Vermont's economic growth has been nearly stagnant pretty much since the turn of the century.  Looking at employment statistics since 1999 we can see that Vermont's employment numbers have remained fairly level at roughly 340,000 even during the 2008-2010 recession. On the other hand, they haven't grown since the recession either. While Chittenden County has experienced growth, the rest of Vermont has not.

The factors affecting the overall economy in Vermont are many, and the interaction among them is complex.  I am not attempting to address the issue comprehensively here. However, the House Committee on Energy & Technology is looking at one aspect of the challenge -- how the limited access to high speed internet affects Vermont's economy.  For the past two weeks we have heard testimony from Vermont's telephone companies, cable providers, community broadband companies, small businesses, municipalities, and the farming community which utilizes access to the internet for GPS controlled tilling, fertilizing and harvesting. One thing is clear: outside of Chittenden County and city centers, Vermonters' internet speeds are slo-o-ow. While most Vermonters are able to get DSL with speeds of 4 Mbps (Megabits per second), many in more remote locations have only dial-up. The federal standard for satisfactory speeds is 100 Mbps, which requires cable or fiber connectivity. As we become more of an information-based economy, access to high-speed internet is essential for economic growth. So, the question becomes, how do we achieve this in Vermont?

The limiting factor when it comes to building high-speed broadband is cost per connection.  In rural areas where customers are relatively far apart, the investment required to run miles of cable for few connections is prohibitive. Wireless connection is possible, but the wireless transmitters require a fiber or cable connection, and Vermont's terrain often limits the effectiveness of those devices. Some communities have formed organizations called Connectivity Union Districts (CUDs) that are non-profit entities that aggregate investments from several municipalities to build independent fiber networks to serve the member communities.  There are several in Vermont including EC Fiber in the Connecticut River Valley and Kingdom Community Fiber (KCF) in the Northeast Kingdom.  KCF has been given permission from the state of Vermont to connect to an existing fiber network owned by the state. State connectivity funds will be used to install the connection interfaces at various locations that will be leased to KCF to build fiber networks in communities running from St. Johnsbury north and west to Highgate.

  

The Energy & Technology Committee is now working on legislation that will encourage further development of fiber networks throughout rural Vermont. The 2 percent VT USF charge on our phone bills supports the E-911 system, the Lifeline phone access program for seniors, and the TTY service for hearing impaired persons. What is left over from those revenues is used to support the Connectivity Initiative Fund.  Governor Scott has proposed a $1M infusion to the fund to increase broadband.  We believe that we can do better. We are working on a bill that, in addition to the Governor's proposal, will increase the USF charge to 2.5 percent with the additional revenues dedicated to connectivity.  This would amount to a 50 cent increase on a $100 phone bill.  We also hope to benefit from additional federal dollars as a result of the recently passed federal Farm Bill.  Back in the 1950s Vermont made a concerted investment in getting electricity out to the last mile. Broadband is the 21^st century equivalent to that effort.  It's a key ingredient necessary for growing Vermont's economy.

I am very happy to have been able to meet with constituents during my “office hours” at the Charlotte Library and most recently at Spear's Store in East Charlotte. My thanks to both venues for their hospitality. The next “office hours” opportunity will be announced on Front Porch Forum.   I welcome your emails (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com), phone calls (802-233-5238), or in-person contacts.

The Word in the House 3/2/2017 - The Long and Short of Legislating

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).