Arizona Joins States Enacting 5G Small-Cells Legislation
Arizona enacted small-cells wireless siting legislation as states continued to push forward small-cells wireless bills this week. Industry and localities continue to negotiate different terms in different states, while the FCC looks at ways to speed wireless infrastructure deployment at the federal level (see 1704260058). California senators promised more revisions to their bill after listening to many public comments -- for and against -- at a committee hearing Wednesday.
Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) Wednesday signed the 5G infrastructure bill the legislature passed last week (see 1704200025). The new Arizona law "streamlines processes, at fair rates, and enables us to densify our current network while paving the path to 5G deployment," said Eileen Mannion, vice president-government affairs at Verizon. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns negotiated with industry and supported the final bill, said League Legislative Associate Tom Savage. Ducey is the fourth governor to sign small-cells siting legislation, after those in Ohio, Colorado and Virginia -- though cities have challenged the Ohio bill in court. Indiana legislative leaders signed off this week on their own bill, SB-213, but the governor hasn’t signed it yet.
About 10 other states are moving small-cells bills through the process (see map). The California Senate Governance Committee voted 6-0 Wednesday to send a small-cells bill (SB-649) to another committee, despite continuing opposition from local governments and others. Thursday, a Florida small-cells bill (S-596) -- amended to match the House version -- passed the Senate on second reading. The Senate’s third and final reading is expected Friday, but Florida localities “still oppose a set arbitrary rate” for pole access, emailed a Florida Association of Counties spokeswoman. Also, the Illinois Senate was to vote Thursday on whether to send SB-1451 to the House, while a Hawaii House-Senate joint conference was to hear HB-625 after our deadline.
Many edits were made and more are expected to the California small-cells bill. The Wednesday hearing revealed more than 20 revisions since the bill cleared the Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee (see 1704040060). The tweaks address concerns over local control raised by municipalities and technology neutrality raised by cable companies, CTIA California Government Affairs Counsel Steve Carlson said at the hearing. Amendments for localities included allowing local governments to have a say on what small cells look like, reducing the maximum size of the small cells, grandfathering existing agreements with industry and allowing localities to reserve space on poles, he said.
The California Senate Appropriations Committee is next to consider S-649, and chairs of the Energy, Governance and Appropriations committees plus Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D) are to convene a working group to work out pole-access and other remaining issues, said Governance Committee Chairman Mike McGuire (D). Long lines of witnesses both in support and in opposition to the bill showed up for Wednesday’s hearing. CTIA, Verizon and other wireless companies supported S-649 at the hearing, but the League of California Cities and other local groups continued to oppose it. Others raised concerns that RF radiation exposure from small cells could cause cancer. A vote for S-649 “is a vote to take money out of your own local communities,” testified Rony Berdugo, a member of the league’s legislative team. The bill’s intent is to give private companies guaranteed access to rights of way for free, with no “real discretion” provided to local governments, he said.
Hertzberg dismissed many of the concerns raised as exemplifying a “Diet Coke society” in which people want benefits without any burdens. On the RF radiation issue, Hertzberg said cars kill people, but their benefits outweigh potential harms. Communications Committee Chairman Ben Hueso (D), the bill’s sponsor, urged senators to support passage. “The opportunity cost of not acting now is quite significant,” he said. “If we set a buildout fee that is out of whack with other states and jurisdictions, the cumulative revenue collected will [be far less than] the cost of buildout delays and deferrals, and the ultimate victim of this will be the medium- and smaller-sized and less-densified communities."
Meanwhile in Rhode Island, localities hope to reach agreement with industry and policymakers by the end of the General Assembly’s session in June 30, Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns Executive Director Brian Daniels emailed Thursday. “We’ve had some good conversations with industry and our Division of Public Utilities and Carriers,” which is part of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission. “We’re hoping to come up with language that fulfills the public policy goals of small cell expansion while still protecting municipal revenues and oversight.”