Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Thomas A. Golden, Jr. House Chair
The Honorable Benjamin B. Downing, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Golden, Chairman Downing and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association strongly urges your committee to act favorably on H. 2892, An Act Relative to Double Poles, filed by Rep. Stephen Kulik. The bill would grant cities and towns the authority to enforce Section 34B of Chapter 164 of the General Laws, which calls for the removal of double poles by utility companies within 90 days. The bill would allow cities and towns to establish a local ordinance or bylaw to enforce the removal double poles, including the option of imposing fines when utility companies have not complied with the 90-day removal time period mandated by state law.
Utility companies replace existing utility poles when old poles reach the end of their useful lives, or poles of greater height are needed. The replacement process usually includes a period of time when new and old poles are installed side-by-side. These situations are commonly referred to as “double poles.”
Section 34B requires electricity distribution and telephone companies to complete the transfer of wires, all repairs and the removal of the old existing pole from the site within 90 days of the installation of the new replacement pole. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for these double poles to obstruct the vision of drivers, block or crowd sidewalks and intersections, hide or partially hide road signs, and create a hazard for vehicles and pedestrians. Further, many sets of double poles have only one pole attached to the ground yet carry high voltage wires. These are all serious public safety issues. In addition, double poles are unsightly and extremely unpopular with homeowners and residents, who do not appreciate the utility companies’ long delays and inattention to the issue.
For years, cities and towns across the state have been experiencing problems due to the failure of utility companies to complete this work within the statutorily prescribed 90-day time period. Many municipalities have adopted, or are considering adopting, local bylaws or ordinances that establish fines for the failure to comply with the 90-day time period mandated by state law.
H. 2892 is a much-needed solution for many important reasons: 1) state law dictates that double poles be removed by the utility within 90 days; 2) the courts will strike down vitally needed local laws enforcing this provision unless the Legislature acts to grant communities the authority to act; 3) the system in place now to enforce the statute’s provision is totally ineffective; 4) utilities are using municipal rights-of-way, and are doing so only with the express permission of cities and towns, and citizens expect their local governments to effectively manage their public rights of-way; and 5) the most effective and efficient enforcement structure possible is community based – not a state agency that lacks the resources and capacity to respond to this issue, which is why the current system is failing and why H. 2892 is needed.
Cities and towns are simply asking for the authority to enforce existing state law. Right now, the utilities offer excuses, and conveniently blame each other for the delays and inaction. They can get away with this artful dodge because there is no consequence. Unsafe and unsightly double poles will not come down unless communities have the ability to impose a fine for violation of the 90-day statutory requirement.
The double-pole issue is pervasive: the problem exists in every corner of the state and in every legislative district. We encourage you to contact your municipal executives to solicit their input, and we are confident that you and all of your colleagues will hear similar stories of delays and inaction by the utility companies. Ultimately, this is a public safety matter that exists across the Commonwealth, which is why the removal of double poles should be of primary and urgent importance to all parties. H. 2892 is a very modest measure that simply gives cities and towns the authority to increase compliance with the law and compel the removal of double poles in a timely fashion.
Again, the MMA strongly urges you to support H. 2892. Please do not hesitate to have your office contact us at any time if you have further questions or wish to receive additional information.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director and CEO