Cities, towns could enforce utility pole removal requirement with penalties
OCT. 29, 2025…..Double poles have been a thorn in the side of Massachusetts municipal officials for decades, but top officials from the Healey administration think there is momentum behind ongoing talks and a realistic chance to address the perennial problem with a provision tucked into the governor’s municipal reforms bill.
The double pole problem emerges when an older utility pole needs to be replaced. Utility companies often install a new pole next to the old one and then transfer everything attached to the old pole to the new one. But despite state law that says the old poles must be removed within 90 days they often remain in place, causing headaches for municipal officials who try to get pole owners to take them down, sometimes for years.
Critics of double poles say they are unsightly, force drivers and pedestrians to contend with unnecessary visual obstacles, and create situations where high voltage wires could be attached to poles that are not set in the ground. Utilities have argued that crackdown efforts do not account for the coordination required when multiple companies have equipment on the same pole.
“After 25 years of experience in municipal government in multiple communities, I can attest that double poles are a priority for every community that I discuss, from the Cape to Western Massachusetts, it’s a common discussion item,” Jeff Colby, director of public works for Yarmouth, told the Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government.
Colby added that double poles “hint at larger problems to come as we, as a population, increase our electricity use in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach our statewide climate goals.”
Gov. Maura Healey’s so-called Municipal Empowerment Act (H 56) takes the latest swing at the problem (the first clear reference in the News Service archives to attempts to address double poles is from 2003) by proposing to double the length of time utilities have to remove the old poles to 180 days while giving municipalities, for the first time, the authority to enforce the deadline with $1,000 penalties for utilities that fail to comply.
“Our goal with this provision isn’t revenue generation, I want to be clear about that. It’s really about the removal of double poles. That’s why since we originally filed this bill, we’ve been working with a group of stakeholders and legislators with municipalities and utilities about how to make this process smoother,” Administration and Finance Secretary Matthew Gorzkowicz told the committee.
Gorzkowicz said the administration updated the double pole provision in the bill since it filed it last session, specifically to push out the effective date of the new requirements. This session’s bill would have the double pole provisions take effect one year after being signed into law.
“I think that’s really the big difference, is really to recognize that there have been ongoing conversations. The conversations have actually been fruitful and meaningful, and we think people are serious about wanting to come to the table and do something about this,” he said. “And so we wanted to give more time for the implementation.”
A popular idea with local officials who stand to gain greater taxation powers and additional flexibility around state regulations, the governor’s Municipal Empowerment Act has never caught on in the Legislature. The version she filed last session was spiked as the cost of living was a top-of-mind issue across the state in an election year.
The Municipalities Committee’s hearing Tuesday focused only on the parts of the governor’s bill that were sent to that committee, namely updates to procurement procedures, an allowance for regional boards of assessors, permanent authorization for municipalities to permit hybrid public meetings, and alignment of the procurement of snow hauling with snow removal.
“All in all, this bill is meant to support the municipal leaders of our 351 cities and towns as they deliver for the people of this state,” Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll said. She added, “We believe that this bill is comprehensive and addresses the need for municipalities to have increased flexibility, increased efficiency and resources.”
Act would also allow municipalities to add a surcharge of up to 5% on motor vehicle excise bills
But it’s the other parts of the governor’s bill, the ones that were sent to the Revenue Committee, that are generating “some heartburn” among constituents, Rep. Kristin Kassner said.
Those parts of the governor’s bill would allow cities and towns to increase local taxes on meals, lodging and vehicle registrations. The maximum local option tax on hotels, motels and rentals would rise from 6% of the price of a room to 7%, or from 6.5% to 7.5% in Boston. The legislation would also increase the maximum local option meals tax from 0.75% to 1%, and allow municipalities to add a surcharge of up to 5% on motor vehicle excise bills.
“If some of those pieces didn’t move forward, but the pieces within this [committee] move forward, would that still be a win for our communities?” Kassner asked the head of the Mass. Municipal Association, which has been a big supporter of the governor’s bill.
“We certainly remain supportive of the entirety of the bill, but we’re excited about each and every aspect of the bill,” MMA Executive Director Adam Chapdelaine said. “I would say we are firmly supportive of the bill as filed, but would like to see pieces of it — if not a significant portion of it — enacted to be able to benefit the folks we have here with us today.”
On Tuesday, the Revenue Committee announced that it will hold its hearing on Healey’s local option tax ideas on Nov. 7, part of a hearing in Gardner Auditorium on local taxes and the property tax.
