by Annette Smith

As I awaited my turn to testify in the Senate Finance Committee on April 2, with the noise of the HVAC system and the softspoken witness, I had a hard time hearing what Hunter Thompson, Telecommunications and Connectivity Director of the Department of Public Service was telling the committee.  I heard the words “sacrifice” more than once.

When it was my turn, I described the arduous process the public experiences at the Public Utility Commission (PUC) over the siting of the increasing numbers of telecommunications towers proposed for rural areas of Vermont.  Some people describe the PUC’s process as “brutal” or “torture.”  

For a decade, in the rare instances when legislative committees have briefly broached the PUC’s public participation process for land use siting of wind turbines, solar arrays, and communications towers, I have described my role as “leading the lambs to slaughter.”

When towns and citizens somehow find Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE), the only organization that assists the public in participation in regulatory processes at Act 250, Agency of Natural Resources permitting, the PUC and AAFM large farm proposals, I tell people up front about the difficult, potentially expensive and always time-consuming PUC process, and, unless there are unusual circumstances, “you will lose.”

Later when I listened to the video and read the transcript of what Hunter Thompson said about sacrifice, I was and still am shocked by his analogy:

“Everybody is in favor of throwing one person in the volcano if it means the greater good. Everybody realizes that sacrifices must be made for the greater good… Nobody ever thinks they’re the one that is going to get thrown in the volcano or they’re the one that’s going to have to make the sacrifice.”

No more leading lambs. Now, this is the image of my work:  

This is me, and the Vermonters who seek out assistance from VCE to understand the incredibly complicated PUC process.

Now that the Department of Public Service has acknowledged the sacrifice neighbors must make to enable their neighboring landowners to capitalize on leasing or selling space to mega-wealthy communications tower companies to satisfy the greater good of people who use cell phones while driving (residential and commercial needs are covered by the fiber optic cable build-out), it is time to revisit Article 2 of the Vermont Constitution that says “That private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it, nevertheless, whenever any person’s property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money.”

The standard interpretation of Article 2 considers the taking of a property through eminent domain, and not the impacts to neighboring properties.  

This “taking” of neighbors’ lands was raised as an issue with industrial wind turbines when the audible, low frequency and infrasound they produce trespasses onto neighboring properties and cannot be mitigated.  Some solar panels produce glare that interfere with neighbors’ peaceful enjoyment of their properties.  Outdoor wood boiler smoke sometimes trespasses into neighbor’s homes.

Hunter Thompson told the Senate Finance Committee, “I feel that a fair amount of push back on these 248 petitions are from the folks who realize I’m the one that’s now going to have to make the sacrifice and nobody wants to see that.”

If Vermonters must sacrifice, compensate them.

The top two issues Vermonters raise when confronted with a communications tower are property values and health.  I tell them “the PUC doesn’t care about those and you can’t talk about them,” despite evidence that communications towers lower nearby property values^[1], and the FCC standards for radio frequency emissions are magnitudes greater than necessary to protect public health from cancer and male reproductive risks.^[2]  

To argue property value reduction, the PUC requires a showing that the project will result in a reduction to the municipality’s grand list – an impossible standard to meet.  

Health effects are off the table due to Section 704(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that “expressly preempts state and local government regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The FCC has been defying the August 16, 2021 judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which found that the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act and failed to respond to comments on environmental harm; i.e. “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.”  Five years later, the Court-ordered review of scientific evidence has not been done.

Be aware, rural Vermonters.  With the push to build more towers, Vermonters in rural areas can expect they, too, will be thrown into the volcano, without compensation and with the potential for your property to lose value and your health to be harmed.  That is our state’s and our country’s policy.

^[1]https://ehsciences.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Cell-Towers-Drop-Property-Values.pdf

^[2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-026-01288-6