2023-05-25 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2023-05-25 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Joint committee hearing, telecommunications, utilities, and energy, but the subject matter, as I think you all know, today are towing, telecom, questions, and and several208 miscellaneous bills. We're going to First, before proceeding, I want to introduce senator Paul Mark, a member of the committee. We will have other senators joining us remotely and we'll be introducing them as they do so.
We're going to call witnesses in the order in which they signed231 up, and so233 we will start with
Jim Horr and Heidi Mahoney, and we wanna welcome them to the committee today. Thank you, Senator. Thank you.
I think we we may have had the pleasure of seeing you yesterday.
SPEAKER2 - Yes. You
SPEAKER1 - did. So I thank you for providing a tutorial. Of sorts.
SPEAKER2 - I forgot my glasses, so I have to hold this a little further away than I anticipated. Would you like?
HEIDI MAHONEY - GO NET SPEED - SB 2133 - Chairman Barrett and members of the joint committee on telecommunications, utilities, and energy, my name is Heidi Mahoney, and I'm the manager of government affairs at Go Net Speed. I offer this testimony on behalf of our company in support of S 2133, which aims to establish standards for the poll attachment process to facilitate the construction of broadband networks. Go net speed is a facilities based broadband provider dedicated to deploying fiber optic network in Central and Western Massachusetts. This proposed legislation represents a crucial reform in expanding broadband access throughout the Commonwealth. It has296 the potential to accelerate and expand both298 private and public investment in broadband infrastructure, benefiting consumers and businesses across Massachusetts.
The importance of broadband services has significantly increased in every sector of the economy. Broadband is now an essential infrastructure that supports education, health care, commerce, entertainment, and employment. To meet the growing demand for connectivity, particularly in underserved residential areas, it is vital to establish conditions that facilitate the construction of broadband infrastructure. Regrettably, there are parts of the Commonwealth where broadband availability is lacking and even more areas that have limited335 access with only a single provider. Our experience in339 other markets demonstrates that competition among providers leads to lower prices and improved service quality. By347 entering the market, Go net speed not only benefits our own customers but also enhance351 the experience for all users. To deploy our fiber optic network, Go net speed requires access to357 utility infrastructure, primarily utility polls owned by electric companies and the telephone company. Although Massachusetts and federal laws provide for poll access, poll owners often cause unwarranted delays371 and obstacles, impeding the373 timely provision of critical broadband services to the citizens of the Commonwealth.
Companies like Go Net Speed must apply to the poll owners for access to these polls, and in Massachusetts, that process can take years. For example, Go Net Speed is currently planning the expansion of our fiber optic network in Amherst, we submitted our poll attachment applications to the relevant owners in October of 2021 and received a main Credit determination in December of 2022, a delay of 14 months. Unfortunately, that is just406 the beginning of the delay, the408 completion408 of the make ready work can add an additional six months to the process, In comparison, other New England states that have adopted standardized poll attachment processes like one touch make ready, are processing make ready determinations within two to three months with make ready completion in one month. In conclusion, the passage of S 2133429 is429 of paramount importance to promote the development of robust broadband networks in Massachusetts by establishing the clear standards for poll attachment process. This legislation will enable timely and efficient deployment of broadband infrastructure ensuring that all citizens have access to high speed Internet. Thank you.446 SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yes. Yeah. Hi, Tim.
JAMIE HOARE - GO NET SPEED - SB 2133 - Chairman Barrett, members of the joint committee, I am Jamie Hoare, Chief Legal Counsel for Go Net Speed. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S 2133, which will establish one touch make ready in Massachusetts bringing the Commonwealth into competitive parity with the other states of New England. OTMR has been around since 2018, first being rolled out in FCC regulated states. Today, more than 30 states nationwide have OTMR protocols in effect, and the process has been shown to be effective at accelerating the pole attachment process. More importantly, the process has been shown to sure the safety and reliability of the electric and communications networks for the process is used. Clearly, safety and reliability are paramount importance to Go net speed. Our workers and our contractors work on these poles, our customers rely on our network and the electric network as well.
OTMR has internal guardrails to ensure the safety interests of poll owners, detachers, workers, and more importantly, the public. Importantly, the OTMR process applies to work517 only in the communications based on poles and does not apply to work on electric facilities. Allow me to describe the OTMR process. First, a party wishing to access polls conducts a survey, the actual survey is conducted by contractors approved by the poll owners, ensuring that the engineering decisions will be consistent with the poll owner standards. The applicant must provide notice to the poll owners and any affected parties that the survey will take place and all are permitted to attend. After the survey is conducted, the applicant submits the survey with engineering determinations to the poll owners who have an opportunity to review the determinations. That is, they may reject the application where the engineering does not meet standards.
The poll owners may also reject the application where the proposed make ready work is not simple. For example, if there are poll replacements involved or work outside the communication space on the poll. Thus, in addition to the use of approved contractors for survey and engineering, the poll owners have the opportunity for direct input as well further ensuring their safety and reliability standards are met. After the survey and application are completed, and the poll owners have had the opportunity to review, the applicant gives notice and the affected party and the poll owners that it will be performing the actual make ready work. Affected parties may be present during the make ready work, and the work is conducted by appropriately bonded and qualified contractors. After this construction is completed, an inspection ensures that all work is correct. Safety is the poll star of the entire process. Passage of the S 2133 will help bring broadband construction in the Commonwealth and615 parity with the other states in the region, attracting more private investment, and ensuring the public broadband funds have maximum intended impact. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you both. Just a preliminary question, and then I'll invite question of my colleague as well.
SEN BARRETT - I just want to make sure I understand the process you just described, is that established by the Bill or is that existing law?
HOARE - That's established by the Bill.
BARRETT - The Bill is quite detailed for over 13648 pages, I believe. Why so much detail in order to establish what on the face of it seems to be a quite reasonable process?
HOARE - The detail is in the Bill because it is a well established process. So the Bill closely tracks other OTMR protocols elsewhere. So for example, the you know, FCC regulated states or main, which has a robust OTMR process. So the language in the Bill is detailed, but it's detailed because that's what's690 been tried, and that's what works.
BARRETT - Have have you submitted legislation to our small office in the executive branch of702 telecommunications and regulation? There is a small office that707 oversees.
HOARE - I don't know that we have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
But my last question before Oh, I wanna introduce state senator Julian Seer who's joined us as well. For Senator Sears, benefit, I'll I'll mention that this is legislation of a special interest to settle on Western mass but also presumably probably to the Cape to any place that's outside Greater Boston perhaps732 that would give additional competitive telecommunications players, providers of telecom services access to polls in in what the proponents claim is.
We will be quite interested in this and the capabilities.
Yeah.
So so my last question is
BARRETT - There are other New England states that follow the process you mentioned, Maine, are there any others?
HOARE - Yes, every New England state.
BARRETT - With the exception of ours?
HOARE - With the exception of Massachusetts, yes. They've all arrived a little bit differently. So Rhode Island is regulated by the FCC, it's been an effect there since 2018, right? Connecticut and Maine have781 arrived there through regulatory proceedings. I believe it's New Hampshire took a legislative approach and enacted it by legislation.
BARRETT - So I would just mention because it's something that we Senators are aware of because one of our colleagues has been named to the job that there's a new office of rural affairs in the executive branch created by executive order, I think, since the new Governor's taken office, and it would seem to me that the office might take an interest in this since it tends to affect rural parts of the state one would think. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
But with that, I want to ask my colleagues if they have any questions.
Indeed.
SEN MARK - So first of all, Senator from Western Massachusetts, Berkshire, I appreciate very much the necessity and the interest in deploying broadband as quickly as possible. I live in one of the underserved communities that is deploying its own broadband network right now, so very, very interesting, very timely. Also, I was a former line technician for 10.5 years at Verizon and Bell Atlantic, so also very familiar the actual work on the polls and how utility polls are set up. So my actual question, and I think this will help everyone understand, my colleagues understand, like, what is actually being talked about here. When you talk about make ready work, you're talking about, you would have a spot on the poll for your actual wires or fiber optics, and the delay is having the incumbent utility poll owner move their equipment. Is that correct?
HOARE - So there are two parts of delay, and the first is in getting the initial survey done, which in our experience is taking over a year. That is a process that should take a few months and so the OTMR process allows us to directly contract with the approved contractors. So these are by definition contractors that the poll owners are comfortable with and that are911 familiar with the poll owner standards. But we can directly contract with them, which allows us to control the timing of it. If we're expecting large influx of applications to them, we can give them notice of that and they can staff up appropriately rather than having it sort of funneled through the poll owners and that creating a bottleneck. On the make ready side, yes, again, an additional point of939 delay. One of the problems there is that if you had a few attaches to a poll, right? So you will have the telephone company, you'll have the cable company, you might have one, two or three other competitive providers already on a pole. Under the current system, staging that work is the first party to move has to move, so they need to schedule their crews, get that taken care of, get it done, give968 notice, which then allows the next company to schedule their cruise, and so974 on down the line. So you're adding weeks and months into the process rather than having a single truck roll with, again, qualified contractors to make each move in a single day.
MARK - So for everyone else's benefit, the electrical utility has to do their work for generally because theirs is the most dangerous998 and most important to the process assuming they're on the poll and then after that, I believe it'll be the cable and such as the next game, as they call it on the pole. And then the bottom is the classic telecommunications, the old phone companies. Are there people that are qualified1016 to move all of these different forms of wires that are regularly available?
HOARE - So we are not talking about moving electric wires, the power company is still going be handling that and that work is qualitatively different than communications work and requires a different type of training. Having a communications worker work in the power space is probably illegal. So, yes, the power company has to do their work but it's been our experience that the contractors who do work in the communication space are already performing work for the majority of parties in the communication space. If not all of them, certainly, you know, drawing a venn diagram would might be pretty chaotic about it but contractors routinely do work for several of the parties and so it should be not a difficult process finding contractors who the phone company certainly is comfortable with. One other point I'd like to make is that the legislation does not just apply to sort of private competitive providers, it also applies to municipal projects as well, which could significantly speed up the completion of their products so they can begin serving their constituents.
MARK - Before I was a legislator, I was an advocate for a Bill, and as1125 a legislator, I've co sponsored a Bill regarding what they call double utility1129 polls, so polls that are being moved, also very slow, very not beautiful for communities where they're waiting, and piece of legislation to try to rectify that has been imposing fines1141 on the incumbents for not doing that work. Do you think imposing a fine if they are moving too slowly after a set period could possibly be effective as well or instead of this legislation?
HOARE - Well, this legislation doesn't really address either the creation or disruption of double polls.
MARK - No, I'm saying, but similarly, it could have fine because why are you taking six months to do this work?
HOARE - Double polls are just problem with, like, barbs on it, you know, it's really a sticky problem. In our experience, the best way to correct it is to avoid creating1189 double polls in the first place. In our efforts to build network, we have noticed that the engineering that's being done under the current process is recommending an abnormally high level of poll replacements. We are actually trying to work through that issue at the DTC. So you know what boxing a poll is, right? And so for the benefit of those who haven't worked on polls before, if you are driving down the road and looking at utility polls, first, you should be having your eyes on the road. But but if you're looking at the utility poles, you'll notice that the majority, if not all of the communications facilities are on the side of the poll facing the street.
There is a wide open sort of greenfield on the backside of those polls and you can attach to that side of the pole consistent with the National Electric Safety code, consistent with the Belcor blue book which is the telephone standards. Because of having that extra space in many in you will not have to replace a poll with a taller poll to add more space to the pole for the new entrant to attach to. You know, that has a benefit because poll placements take a very long time to do, they range between exceedingly expensive and breathtakingly expensive. Another great benefit of it is avoiding the poll replacements because transferring the facilities from the old poll to the new poll, again, with buyers at level of coordination that one touch make ready certainly helps. In other states, they are applying that sort of one touch poll transfer process. In Connecticut, it's being done as a pilot program, but it's been very successful. So that's one way of approaching it is, again, using the single contractor model and just having them knock out a whole town at a time to correct the product.
MAHONEY - Just to follow-up on your question in terms of a fine that could be imposed, they do have a specific amount of time that they need to respond to us in terms of an application. There is not currently a fine imposed on them, I don't know whether or not that would make a difference or not. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
It couldn't hurt though.
Certainly.
Well, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you,1349 mister Chey.
Thanks, senator Sears, negotiating a bill, and this we're1355 we're debating the Senate budget this week. So we're multitasking all of us.
First of all, thank you for bringing
BARRETT - This is the first time the Bill's been filed, and it's important that we get new issues before us and new proposed solutions, so thank you for doing that. I presume that there's a federal or state association of telecom providers, competitive telecom providers, competitive suppliers of your services, and so far, you're bringing this forward as an individual company rather than as a product that's been endorsed by a state association?
HOARE - On the competitive side, there is not as much sort of cohesion and how do I want to approach this? There isn't an organization, you know, like the cable company have not done, right? On the competitive side, we don't really have that, there are telephone associations in the various States. You know, a lot of smaller providers are sort of outgrowths of rural telephone companies and so you have that. But we aren't a member of a sort of national association of competitive providers. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Let's see.
BARRETT - If I were to ask you to put yourself in the shoes of those who would oppose this legislation, what are the two biggest obstacles they would invoke or arguments, counter arguments, they would articulate to us if they were testifying this week?
HOARE - Sure. So the first thing they will1475 raise is safety and reliability, right? I'm confident in that because when the FCC was considering the impact in 2018, that was the primary issue raised by the poll owners is that it would impair the safety of the system and the reliability of the system. In addition, when individual states have considered it, again, that's the concern that's brought1500 up. But you can see in1502 the process how the safety concerns and the safety standards are absolutely adhered to through each stage of the process and the poll owners still have the opportunity for direct input into the process that they would like to an individual poll addressed in a different way, they have the opportunity to request that. On performing the actual make ready side, you know, it's a practical matter, it's the same contractors that are going to be hired by individual companies, it's just allowing that process to be done in a more efficient way. So you will hear about safety and reliability.
BARRETT - And what's the other issue? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I wanna yield to center here who's been able to1549 join the set. But but I I ask you to1551 name, you know, what are the 21553 pictures we're going to hear?
And is it
HOARE - So the other issue particularly coming from the electric company side is that this ends up shifting costs to the ratepayers, right? I don't think that has borne out from the process. So when we apply for polls, if work needs to be done on those polls, under the current system, we pay for it under an OTMR1582 web system, we pay for it. There are instances where there's preexisting safety violations on a poll and whatever party caused those safety violations should bear the cost of that, right? You shouldn't be punishing the party that comes to the poll having not committed it and just alerted the parties to the fact that there is the safety violation. Not all National Electric Safety Code violations require immediate correction, and the National Electric Safety Code does allow new attachments even if there is an existing non compliance so long as the new attachment itself can be made in a compliant manner. So there are ways of mitigating any of the costs caused by preexisting noncompliance as well. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I wanna yield the center this here in just in the event Sure.
Good good warning. My apologies for for stepping out, but when Sun always means call on a budget that you take the call. Thank you for being here. I just you know,
SEN CYR - I'm sure you may be familiar with this, but of course on on Cape Cod, we've had, actually, for more than a decade, a resource called Open Cape, which was realized through, actually, recovery dollars in the last recession, ARAA, of course, leap frog to several other packages. But this was a $40,000,000 federal investment establishing a fiber backbone1674 on, you know, on the kit that essentially runs from the South shore, all the way down to Cape Cod, along Route 6A and then back along route 28, all the promise happened back. You know, and it's been a helpful initiative, I think, for municipalities and others who've been able to plug in. Unfortunately, some of the planning of this really focused on just sort of building up a whole spine of the network, and there was no sort of middle mile or last mile dollars. So, you know, we essentially have this, like, huge underutilized information superhighway, right? That we just can't tap into. I assume this would sort of benefit efforts, this Bill would sort of benefit or sort of enable for further build out of that1719 system or others, potentially other sort of competitors when it relates to broadband access on Cape Cod?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
if you can indulge a lawyer talking about engineering for a bit, a switch.
I too I I am neither a lawyer nor an engineer, so I can just thank you. Just bear that in mind. But
HOARE - So what we do is we build fiber to the interior of the customer's house, okay? So we aren't just last mile, we're last inch, you know. So we build a robust local fiber network, and we have what's called the point of presence, a pop and the point of presence has equipment in it that sort of consolidates all the information coming in with fiber and then it needs to1771 be taken to the actual Internet. So that fiber backbone could absolutely be a great1777 asset for that sort of backhaul to the main Internet from our individual markets.
BARRETT - Thank you. So usually, it's my been my observation, My colleagues can correct me, but typically a first time file Bill doesn't become law immediately because it just takes time for other parties to become aware that it exists and then to be heard, there's a learning curve that results in epiphanies and light bulbs going off at any point once you start sitting down with multiple parties. So one additional question I have is1822 have you considered in addition to this and you've raised some serious issues here, so I don't want to suggest that they're not going to be thought about. But have you thought about going to DTC and, well, requiring the legislature at the very least to mandate DTC to conduct a serious study of the issue that would touch all the parties you mentioned in passing that the interests of municipalities might be involved. So we would have to go to the Mass municipal association and see if there are questions here which we haven't thought about that would affect either their interest today or maybe instances in which they'd want to reserve their rights or provide for limitations of any exposure towns and cities might have as a consequence of our passing this. All kinds of things come up as lawyers know. Have you approached the DTC and asked them to undertake? Because you're saying that the FCC has already approved a process similar to this in states that subject themselves to FCC jurisdiction. Is that right?
HOARE - Yes. And so if FCC regulated states, this is in effect but in New England, the majority of the states have local jurisdiction over poll attachments.
BARRETT - What feedback have you garnered from the DTC, the state agency with regard to1909 your proposals here?
HOARE - So we have an active proceeding before the DTC right now. In our experience sort of litigating your way through an issue, gives you relief on the specific issues that are becoming ripe for adjudication even when you can see the additional issues coming down, it does sort of narrow the issues there. When the 96 telecommunications act was passed, there was, you know, certainly a period of time where even the FCC did not have actual rules in effect, and they sort of approached it in sort of common law way, right? That okay, here's what the statute says, and we'll interpret that statute for this dispute. It's not the most efficient way to approach that and so the FCC through several rule makings first came up with time frames, then came up with self help for when time frames are delayed and one touch make ready and things like that. This issue1991 is not a new issue, certainly, I want to be careful because of the pending proceedings, but, you know, certainly, I believe that the DTC can give some relief here. But rule making process takes a long time.
BARRETT - So my last question is purely informational, when do you expect the DTC proceeding to culminate one way or the other?
HOARE - We have a motion pending that's papered by both sides. So I don't know the answer to that.
BARRETT - Well, we want to thank you very much for approaching this at the legislative level. We need more inputs here before we'd feel secure about legislative. In the end, we would have to touch all these bases, clearly, the bases aren't going to be touched this morning, there's no one in opposition, for example and nor is there anyone else in support. So to the degree that you could help us fill in all the interstices, we would appreciate it. We need to hear from what parties I think, but you've raised some very important questions for us to think about. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Are there additional questions of the witnesses? Thank you.
The next party scheduled to to testify today is mister Christopher Stark?
Who's got a a full lineup of hits and misses present to us, I think.
Only the greatest hits, Chairman.2088
CHRISTOPHER STARK - MASSACHUSETTS INSURANCE FEDERATION - HB 3698 - SB 2085 - SB 2185 - HB 3174 - HB 3692 - Chairman Barrett, members of the committee, my name is Christopher Stark, I'm the Executive Director of the Mass Insurance Federation, the Trade Association for the property, casualty insurers, and the state, and we represent about 80% of the private passenger auto market, so a big interest in the towing and storage Bills before you're committing today. We'll start off on the good note, we are supportive of S 2085, Senator Brownsberger's Bill, relative to towing practices. A lot of pro consumer, pro policy holder languages contained inside that legislation that would actually knowingly or not actually follows a lot of the recommendations from the National Counsel of Insurance legislators that did a model act several years ago on towing for consumer protections, like making sure that people have access to their vehicles after a a tow has occurred for car seats or medications without fees. To ensure and this goes into some of the other Bills, but to ensure that only the fee scheduled fees are able to be charged if it is a tow that should be an involuntary tow that should be subject to the fee schedules that DPU has.
So this Bill is a very good Bill, and I think, could even serve for further reforms to ensure that we're protecting our policyholders and our consumers. We're also in favor of Rep Howard's Bill H 3174 regarding equitable towing rates. We are still reviewing the text of the Bill, but given yesterday's testimony by the Representative, the intent we clearly agree with, we just have to go back and make sure that the languages is meeting the intent of that legislation. Bills that we're opposed to are H 3698 which is relative to the tow lien2216 reform.2216 What this does is it changes the application of when lien made on these vehicles for insurance purposes from accidents to non consensual health. I believe that we actually need to head in the opposite direction of this legislation. Towing is difficult because there are so many federal preemptions to towing, though courts have given far more leeway in terms of storage. But 1one of the things that a few states have been able to do, which is very pro policyholders, to find that any police called tow as an involuntary tow, so, thus subject to fee schedules. Any involuntary tow that is called by police, so accidents, those sort of things or any police call should be considered an involuntary tow. The way that it works today2269 is if you're even at the scene of an accident, if you2273 make a request that that vehicle be taken to a location other2277 than the tow yard of the towing facility, it's no longer an involuntary tow. That is now a consensual tow because you've made one thing. Now even the most educated consumers, I think, even if they knew that there wasn't a voluntary towing fee schedule, wouldn't think that just because they may have chosen a shop that very well could be between the location of the accident and the tow yard that it has to go to, all of a sudden denies them all protections under the fee schedules.
2314 BARRETT2314 -2314 Like2314 what?2314
2314 STARK2314 -2314 DPU,2314 the2314 towing2314 rates, the ancillary fees that can be charged, all these things, it's now a consensual tow, and it's subject just to their contracts that they have. So what some states have done, and have survived challenges hamstring challenges, it said that any police ordered tow at the scene of an accident is an involuntary tow regardless of any negotiations that go on there. So we would suggest going in the other direction, that H 3698 is attempting to2347 go. The last two2349 Bills go together, and that's H 3692 and S 2185, which increase the storage rates. Again, this increase from $35 to $48. Again, there's a lot of ancillary fees that are still being charged, gate fees for premises where they're leaving the car on the street. There's no gate, how are you putting a gate fee on the towing Bill? So until we start to rain in the abusive pricing practices, we shouldn't, in our view, want to incentivize those practices by increasing that daily rate, not to mention some of those facilities that will hold the car hostage for negotiation purpose of this part of the story, trade, and those things. So we'll just urge caution on that. I think that we're working off of Senator Brownsberger's Bill. I think that there we can make some good strides towards putting together a very pro consumer package one that relates to towing and storage. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Are there questions of our witness?
I do have 1 or 2, but thank you.
BARRETT - First of all, I'm surprised that this is an area where federal preemption pass a long shadow. I don't get it, since in my naïve view, Feds wouldn't be involved unless there was an interstate tow.
STARK - That's the way that it started but the way that a 1980s era interstate Bill was written, that towing of any personal property or movement of any personal property. Now, back then, I think the intent was talking about interstate movers. If I was moving to somewhere else and need to get a big truck to move the whole house down there, that that's federally regulated. Over time, and in a similar case in the 1990s of towing Association versus the City of Atlanta, they found that this law applies to tows as private property, and it is the movement of those. So therefore, regardless of moving it across state lines, it's still federal preemption on a lot of the towing regulations.
BARRETT - Are you sure that the Brownsberger Bill and the other Bills here operate comfortably within portion of this2513 activity that still deserve for state rather than federal regulation?
STARK - Absolutely. Senate Bill 2085 does because it's really focused on the storage side of it right now, and the courts through several decisions have said that storage is fair game for the states. If in that Bill, we wanted to work in the the changes that I suggested relative to H 3698 in terms of determining the tow aspect of it, that non consensual means any police order accident that I believe now, three states have gone in that direction. They've had challenges, they've survived those challenges. So because what it is is that it's that the states can only regulate and voluntary tows and so it then becomes the state's responsibility to define what involuntary is, and2575 they found that it's within their purview to2577 define that police ordered tow regardless of the end destination as an involuntary tow. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Interesting.
And
BARRETT - Finally, if this were a more robust proceeding, I know this Bill has been submitted once before in the last session. If this were more inclusive today, what are the two arguments we would hear against your position and against the Brownsberger's Bill, let's say?
STARK - I think that probably on the other side would be timing for the increase in fees, for example. Yes, they have not been increased, and the rate has not been increased for some time.
BARRETT - How long?
STARK - I'd have to go back and look at the legislative history on that, but probably over a decade on the rates. But what that doesn't take into account is all of the ancillary fees that have popped up in that time to make up for that. We're not naïve to the fact that prices increase and the payments that we have to make as the insurance company increase and so there's been some allowance for those ancillary fees but now it's also trying to rain those in because we're seeing them grow rapidly out of control. More on the towing side than the storage side, but on the towing side, we're seeing numbers start to really shock, which isn't easy. Some of our claims folks when they're coming in because of the sheer volume of extra man fees, extra vehicle fees, winching when it's really just driving the car up on the back of the the, it's a drive up flatbed tow. So a lot of these fees that we were once okay with as part of the negotiations because of other confinements, we're seeing rapidly grow out of it.
BARRETT - And what's the other issue that would be raised?
STARK - In other states where I've seen things similar to Senator Brownsberger's Bill, that they they've have got to make money that it costs them employees to make sure the facilities are secure if people want access to their car seats or prescription drugs that they should still have to pay for that access because they have employees that they have to pay, which is the main argument that I've heard.
BARRETT - What other states have adopted the Brownsberger's approach so that it's actually locked today?
STARK - This particular approach, I don't want to say any, but in my written testimony, I'll make sure to make note of it of the number of states that have passed the NCOIL, the National Counsel Insurance legislators, their model which has many of these aspects. There's some that are missing here, and so I'll also link the NCOIL model Bill for the committee to look at if you want to consider any of its other proposal.
BARRETT - Well, just speaking for myself, I find this an interesting area, I think my constituents would welcome some sort of restraint on ancillary fees charged and on overall dollar amounts of fees charged by towing companies. So I encourage you to give us some additional information and help us take us care for as we can about this, I think it's an interesting issue. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Absolutely, sender. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And we wanna hear from Georgia Barlow. On s 2108, if George is still here.
Hi. I'm this is Georgia Barlow. I am actually virtual right now.
You are virtual, but you're coming through loud and clear.
Great. I am actually chairman Barrett. I'm added just finish up an event right in your district. So we are calling in and making this work. So I'm happy to be here today virtually.
Happy to have you with us.
Perfect. So hi.
GEORGIA BARLOW - METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL SB 2108 - My name is Georgia Barlow, and I am a government affairs specialist at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. MAPC is the regional planning agency for Greater Boston serving the people who live and work in the 101 cities and towns of the region. We work to build a more equitable region by promoting smart growth and regional collaboration. A safe accessible and affordable transportation system is integral to this mission. MAPC has been working with our cities and towns to understand and plan for the implications2839 of transportation network companies,2841 or TNC's like Uber and Lyft that quickly emerged and became a staple of our transportation system in recent years. We support Senate Bill 2108 to update the fee structure of TNCs,2856 not only to raise additional funds for transportation infrastructure, but because it's an opportunity to encourage mode shifts and get more people using public transportation or active transit.
MAPC's Fair Choices report found that almost 60% of ride hailing trips would have used a non polluting travel mode if ride hailing was2875 not an option. As the state is working to implement policies that will encourage more sustainable modes of transportation, it's experiencing rapid growth in this industry that's adding2885 to the carbon footprint of the state. We estimate that TNC drivers spend at least 1/3 of their time driving2891 without passengers while waiting for a ride request, clogging our roads, and adding to congestion and emissions. Currently, Massachusetts has a flat 20 cent fee on TNC rides, that is then split between the municipality where the ride originated and the Commonwealth Transportation Fund to support the MBTA and RTA's across Massachusetts. In the past six years of these fees, the2913 Commonwealth has raised about $74,000,000. But this fee is dramatically lower than the other metro2919 areas and states across the country, including Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York state.
Senate Bill 2108 would increase the fees to 40 cents for a shared ride, $1.20 for a regular ride and $2.20 for a luxury ride. It would also2934 give municipalities within the MTA system the ability to charge extra congestion assessment of up to $2.25 cents for rides taken during regular MBTA hours to target trips that could have otherwise been and on more sustainable modes2949 of transit. We estimate that2951 if we use this new fee structure that is more in line with other states and metro areas, we could generate over $100,000,000 a year when we see a return to a pre pandemic ridership. The DPU recently really2963 their data on the 2022 TNC trips, and one key takeaway is that in 2022, 338 of our 351 municipalities had at least one rideshare pickup, and 47 of those municipalities had more rideshare pickups last year than they had pre pandemic. Ridership is returning, and we saw a 52% increase from 2021 to 2022. This component of our transportation system here to stay, and we'll be submitting written testimony with additional information on this sector. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you very much. I have a number of questions, but I wanna yield to my my colleague.
BARRETT - First of all, I want to thank MAPC for all its terrific work. All my communities are within the MAPC jurisdiction and you guys, you and your colleagues, Georgia have been terrific allies as we've passed these two landmark climate Bills that we've processed in the last three years. So thank you for that. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. You saw a lot of those communities today, so it's great to hear that. Happy to be working with them.
BARRETT - However, could you slowly repeat the sentence in your testimony that indicates that if TNCs did not exist, over 50% of riders would3047 have taken a non polluting alternative. I want to make sure that we understand the point that you're making there and the audio is a little muffled. So, if you could give it to us somewhat slowly, I'd appreciate it.
BARLOW - Yes. So, in our research, we've found that when talking to riders using these transportation network companies, if that was not an option, 60% of them would have used an alternative form of transportation.
BARRETT - Very good. So I've got a couple of questions. I'm a dad, I have two, 33 year old daughters who've lived around Greater Boston lived and around the city today and have have lived3093 here ever since graduating from college 10 years ago and have worked around here. In my experience, they're often taking Uber and Lyft's because it's point to point and Mass transit may be nearby somewhere in the Greater Boston area but it may be dark outside, it may be winter, they may be at a party or at a friend's house, there is no point to point alternative other than a taxi. So, I'm troubled by the idea that we3135 would burden the one transportation option that is point to point because these are young people and I think they're channeling their generation in this respect, who choose not to own cars themselves and instead use Mass transit when it's convenient and use Uber and Lyft when that's convenient. The subtext of the Bill here is to penalize TNCs like Uber and Lyft as if they are subverting Mass transit, and I'm sure you use Uber and Lyft occasionally yourself, so I know you're not3180 a Uber hater but still, it's odd to ask us to go after TNCs and lay a costs on them when the cost will be paid by consumers who either need the point to point option or have chosen almost as a matter of philosophy not to be car owners themselves but simply use cars occasionally when they have to. Why is that not a good idea?
BARLOW - Yes, I'll respond to a few pieces of that. I would say, first, we recognize that this is absolutely a component of our transportation system that seems to be here to stay and we see this as an opportunity to raise additional funds to supplement the MBTA, RTA, and local projects that are happening within the transportation space to ensure that those are also viable options.
BARRETT - But the money is being collected from the consumers, really, because the cost presumably will be passed so while it is an opportunity to collect more money, you're collecting it from a demographic that's quite young and often doesn't own a car.
BARLOW - I will say, the Massachusetts fees are much lower than they are elsewhere in the country. Other states have much higher fees and that are either tied to the total price of the ride or congestion pieces, our flat fee of 20 cents is still much lower than those that exist in other states and jurisdictions and this would really get us to a level that is similar to those other locations. There are protections that are in place that in theory, you should prevent the cost from being passed simply to the rider. At the moment though, our fee structure is just much3292 lower than those exist elsewhere.
BARRETT - I want you3296 to know because I respect the MAPC that I test3300 marketed your Bill when I was having dinner with my colleagues last night, I3306 was sitting with a Senator who represents a gateway city to the North of Boston, second Senator lives significantly to the South of Boston, and a third represents a city very close to the city of Boston, and I basically described the gist of the Bill which would help out the MBTA by adding a fee to Uber and Lyft drivers, really to Uber and Lyft consumers or users. I just want you to know, I was surprised by the spontaneous reaction because I thought I'd put this situation very briefly and pretty objectively to a person, they said absolutely not, they all went on to rant because they all used the T. They then went on to rant about the decline in service, they said the decline in service has nothing to do with the options afforded by transportation network companies.
That's a good thing, it's a plan B, if granted, they would like a better T, first of all, but since the T and their descriptions is failing and fading, they need plan B was the gist of it and their constituents need plan B, It struck me after reflecting on their spontaneous reactions that the decline in T service is no longer or T patronage3397 is no longer on the TNCs if it ever was, it's3404 clear that perceptions now of3406 the MBTA is that the system is failing of its own accord for reasons that fix the culpability on the system and that going after plan B and making it more expensive for people would have the perverse effect of penalizing people who have already been penalized because the T itself isn't doing a good job. I'm not saying that these three points of view are dispositive but I was taken aback by the emphatic nature of their condemnation of the T and their insistence that the alternatives not be made more expensive. What do you think about this evolution and perceptions of the T from a system victimized by the bad bad TNCs to a system that just can't deliver?
BARLOW - I don't think we're suggesting that the TNCs are to blame for the current state that we would like to see the T come back3476 to, and certainly, we understand there are a number of components that are a part of the return to full service and reliable service within the MBTA, we see this as a component of that larger transportation system. In looking at transportation systems elsewhere in the country, using TNC fees as a way to supplement some of that work that's being done to ensure that public transit is a reliable option. I don't think there's going to be one single solution to the returning reliability and ensuring that there's state of good repair across the MBTA system, but we see this as a way to put some more money towards that really necessary work and then and to encourage people to do that mode shift. These are also funds that could be used for local projects and that are already being used for local projects across the state, not just within the MBTA service area and that's a component that we also see as an opportunity for municipalities to really engage in3539 updating some of their transit systems as well.
BARRETT - So folks like my daughters and members of their generation leave the T because it's failing them and what we do as a legislature is impose a penalty on them an additional cost when they resort to an3559 alternative?
BARLOW - So there is already a fee that is there and within other states and cities, there's additional fees that are even than what we're proposing here. The hope is that with this shift to a higher fee structure, we can make those necessary investments in the public transit system. We know that TNCs are going to be continued to be utilized throughout the state and this fee structure isn't meant to penalize people for using this. I understand, as you spoke to earlier, there are few other sources to do that point to point transportation piece, and we recognize that this is a piece that is going to continue as well.
BARRETT - So my last question is this, for what it's worth, just to state a personal view, I happen to be a proponent of congestion pricing but I'm startled to read the fine print of this particular Bill, and to see that the congestion price would only be levied on common carriers which I assume would include taxi companies but again, Uber and Lyft as well. So I get to drive my car into Boston as I did this morning because I may be here late, my wife by the way takes the T and she texts me with annoyance almost every morning about delays, but I had to drive in because of an irregular schedule today. I wouldn't pay a congestion fee under the terms of this Bill but if my daughter takes an Uber into her job in Cambridge today, she would pay a congestion fee. Why limit congestion fees to common carriers? Why not impose it on everyone because as you say the T eats dollars and needs more of them?
BARLOW - I will say we are in support of congestion3692 fee or congestion pricing in other situations as well. With this one particular piece, one thing that is specific to TNCs is component of it that also includes that often these drivers are driving in the cities or towns where they are located without passengers adding to additional congestion without even delivering riders during times of traffic and during those high congestion hours, which makes them a particular burden on the already stressed transportation system is, we're not at a point where cars are driving themselves without riders, but these TNCs are often driving without riders, adding to that traffic in areas that are already overburdened during those high volume times. So that is what we're hoping to do here with that additional fee is not only ensure that there are opportunities for mode shift within the riders themselves, but that these TNCs, which are waiting for their phone to ding with a3753 new rider within the app, are not adding that additional stress to the system as well.
BARRETT - My final note is I'm disappointed to read that a key provision of the 2022 Drive Act which this committee had a key role. Well, we produced at the House and Senate members of this committee. A key provision was to require that the T by only zero emission vehicles in the year 2030. As we've all read, the MBTA now does not believe or does not propose to meet that deadline, to buy only zero electric vehicles beginning in the year 2030 buses, I mean, either buy them or lease them. So the T is telling us that because they haven't renovated their car barns, they're not going to go clean and green by the deadline set by the legislature. But on the other hand, we're still supposed to target TNCs with the congestion fee that doesn't apply to other single occupancy used vehicles3828 and it just seems like there needs to be a grander bargain.
I can3835 appreciate the points you're making, TNCs are obviously not the good guys and some bad guy, good guy, melodrama. There are problems with transportation network companies. God knows, but it seems like there needs to be a grander bargain in which the T commits to stop using diesel and to stop being sources of pollution itself and commits to meeting deadlines imposed on it by this legislature before we bend over backwards to remove competition to both taxis and the T's by further going after Uber and Lyft. I like at the idea of imposing labor and workforce standards on Uber and Lyft even if it raises prices for my daughters and other users of the systems, so I have no problem coming down hard on TNC's, but removing a source of competition to a dysfunctional Mass transit system raises all kinds of philosophical and moral questions itself. So I look forward to working with your fantastic organization and with you as we think through contradictions in this particular proposed Bill and the larger problems as well. So thank you so much for taking the time to testify. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Where were you this morning? And where should I have been?
We are currently in Maynard doing our magic subregional breakfast.
I love that meeting. I love that meeting. But I I did have to be here, and I apologize for that.
We understand. We're happy we can participate in this way. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
I wanna mention that we were graced with the presence of senator Mark Pacheco for For maybe 30 or 40 seconds, and then a roll call was called up in the Senate roll call that I am missing. Detracting from my almost perfect roll call record but I I need to be here so
For the record I want to indicate that I was still doing my job even though I'm missing the roll call. I know I will not be the decisive vote So no harm is being done to public policy, upstairs in the senate chamber. I think we I wanna ask Whether there is anyone additional who wishes to testify this morning before before we call an end to this hearing?
Okay.
I I heard you yesterday, so I I'm already educated about your point of view. Thank you very much. I I appreciate that, and you have very nice handwriting I might add, so it's It's very legible, and4013 and I did listen with interest to the4015 point you made. So thank you very much. If there are no additional witnesses, we will Calling into this hearing and I wanna thank you all for attending.
Have a good4028 day.
© InstaTrac 2025