Please vote NO for HB 1491. Families in SW Va are already burdened with bills they are struggling to pay. We can not take on more expense. Please do not make us pay for the development of a project that is unproven and will not benefit the residents of SW VA.

I am commenting to oppose HB 1491 which would permit American Electric Power and Dominion Energy to recover costs from small modular nuclear reactor development. This bill would force us ratepayers to finance SMRs.

The bill changes current policy and directs the SCC to permit reimbursement of "reasonable and prudent" utility expenditures on SMR development. In practice, utility lawyers and experts are very persuasive. Does the SCC have the staff or outside resources to fully evaluate the information the utilities provide about “advanced” reactor design and engineering? Implementing HB1491, sunk costs from front-end government subsidized capital and relatively low, early ratepayer costs will help APCo attorneys and engineers convince the SCC to require ratepayers to continue reimbursing ongoing SMR expenses incrementally. Continuing to require ratepayer credit for SMRs becomes the default choice. Throwing good money after bad. Utilities win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers to reimburse all other expenses. Like the $600 million “recovered” from Virginians for the shelved North Anna #3, designed but never built as this bill would allow APCo to force ratepayers to take the risks and pay even if a SMR nuclear plant is never completed. Then to be able to request a profit on top of the ratepayer subsidies, as if the plant were already producing electricity. The proposed SMRs are far from small. SB454 permits multiple SMRs, each up to 500 MW, at a single location. 500 MW is a standard-sized reactor, according to the Department of Energy. At the 500 mW limit a “small” modular nuclear reactor would be more than half as big as the largest nuclear reactors currently operating in Virginia. In a number of ways, this is no small thing. Please spare Virginia’s APCo customers - residential, commercial and industrial - from being forced to bear the risk and burden for SMRs. The risk for a risky project rightly falls on the company and its stockholders. Vote ”NO” on HB-1491.

I am opposed to this Bill and, if you care about your constiuents, you should be too. The bill changes current policy and directs the SCC to permit reimbursement of "reasonable and prudent" utility expenditures on SMR development. In practice, utility lawyers and experts are very persuasive. Does the SCC have the staff or outside resources to fully evaluate the information the utilities provide about “advanced” reactor design and engineering? Implementing HB1491, sunk costs from front-end government subsidized capital and relatively low, early ratepayer costs will help APCo attorneys and engineers convince the SCC to require ratepayers to continue reimbursing ongoing SMR expenses incrementally. Continuing to require ratepayer credit for SMRs becomes the default choice. Throwing good money after bad. Utilities win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers to reimburse all other expenses. Like the $600 million “recovered” from Virginians for the shelved North Anna #3, designed but never built as this bill would allow APCo to force ratepayers to take the risks and pay even if a SMR nuclear plant is never completed. Then to be able to request a profit on top of the ratepayer subsidies, as if the plant were already producing electricity. The proposed SMRs are far from small. SB454 permits multiple SMRs, each up to 500 MW, at a single location. 500 MW is a standard-sized reactor, according to the Department of Energy. At the 500 mW limit a “small” modular nuclear reactor would be more than half as big as the largest nuclear reactors currently operating in Virginia. In a number of ways, this is no small thing. Please spare Virginia’s APCo customers - residential, commercial and industrial - from being forced to bear the risk and burden for SMRs. The risk for a risky project rightly falls on the company and its stockholders. Vote ”NO” on HB-1491.

I am writing in opposition to HB 1491 and asking you to do the same. This bill puts even more burden on regular citizens to become financiers of the nuclear industry. People in southwest Virginia are already struggling to make ends meet with recent electricity rate increases. This bill would put even more financial hardship on so many families. This bill would be a big win for the wealthiest corporations but a huge loss to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Please stand with "The People" and not with big money. Oppose HB 1491.

I am voicing my strong opposition to House Bill No. 1491, sponsored by Delegate O'Quinn. This bill, which aims to amend the Code of Virginia regarding the recovery of development costs linked to small modular nuclear facilities, poses a severe threat to Virginia ratepayers who are already grappling with financial challenges. I implore you to consider the potential adverse impact on the wallets of hardworking Virginians and vote against this legislation. The proposed bill allows Phase I Utilities to recover all project development costs associated with small modular nuclear facilities before obtaining a certificate for their construction. This approach places an unfair financial burden on ratepayers, particularly those who are already struggling to make ends meet. Here are key aspects of concern that must be considered: Financial Uncertainty: Allowing Phase I Utilities to incur project development costs before obtaining a certificate introduces financial uncertainty for ratepayers. Investing in a project without a guarantee of approval could exacerbate the financial hardship faced by Virginians. Expedited Review and Limited Public Input: The bill sets a brief 180-day review period for the Commission to assess a Phase I Utility's decision to incur project development costs. This expedited process may limit the thorough examination of potential impacts on ratepayers and hinder meaningful public input. Disproportionate Cost Recovery: The proposed mechanism for recovering project development costs through a rate adjustment clause, amortized over a period equal to the costs' incurrence or five years, may disproportionately burden ratepayers, especially those struggling financially. Unfair Jurisdictional Distribution: If a Phase I Utility serves customers in multiple jurisdictions, the bill mandates that all project development costs be recovered from customers in the Commonwealth. This arrangement raises concerns about fairness and equal distribution of costs among ratepayers. Financial Hardship for Vulnerable Ratepayers: In a time when many Virginians are facing economic challenges, focusing on small modular nuclear facilities may exacerbate financial hardship for ratepayers. Allocating resources to more sustainable and affordable alternatives should be prioritized. In consideration of the financial difficulties already endured by ratepayers, I urge you to vote against House Bill No. 1491. Protecting the financial well-being of Virginia citizens is paramount, and we must ensure that energy policies do not add to the financial hardships faced by our communities.

Please Vote No on HB 1491. The definition of Small Modular nuclear Reactor is incorrect in some of the legislations that has come up--it is 300 megawatts and under not 500 megawatts shows a great lack of the most basic information, research, care regarding nuclear energy. Passing laws and then holding public hearings in the county where all this is planned. How can you? The utilities rule over the captured ratepayers --over the citizens who vote. They donated so much. Cat and mouse game. The legislation is being rushed, getting way ahead of where it should be. Rushing it through shows that if the public knows the legislation would not pass. The people back here are against nuclear despite what you are hearing.

The bill sets a limit of 500 mW as the upper limit for SMALL modular nuclear reactors SMRs. 500 mW is as large as some conventional nuclear reactors. This is not a SMALL modular nuclear reactor.

Per the rosy employment comments below: There would be little job dividend, because Southwest Virginia SMnR and data center employment is mostly a mirage, especially high-skill jobs the Governor is touting in related nuclear education bills: SMnR are modules, which means they would be produced in a factory and arrive on a truck bed. Then a specialized itinerant crew would assemble the reactor. Consequently, no local employment will accrue from manufacture of the facility and very little construction employment beyond site preparation. SMnRs are being designed to have multiple reactors controlled from a single site as a cost-saving measure. “NuScale developed the information needed to obtain NRC approval that allows up to 12 SMnRs to be operated from a single control room.” All high-value technology jobs would be elsewhere, NOT here. What's left would be jobs tending to scheduled and forced reactor outages, that is, security, mowing the grass, and likely occasional cleanup work during fueling and shut-down. We are told by Governor Youngkin’s November 1, 2023, announcement of a “Landmark Land Development Agreement to Transform Southwest Virginia” and jobs the development project has the potential for bringing communities “1,650 new high-paying jobs.” Since SMnRs will offer negligible local employment, the Governor may be thinking of jobs in the job-rich renewable energy sector, since job sources are not revealed. The Governor’s announcement pairs SMnRs with high energy-consuming data centers. Data centers apparently fail to offer much local employment: “In Boydton, VA, profiled in the New York Times, Microsoft recently built a large data center housing thousands of computer servers. “People thought when Microsoft came in it would create jobs, but that’s just not the case,” said E.W. Gregory, the head of the local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. Instead, they brought in outside technicians to do most of the work, he added. About 25 local residents got jobs, primarily as administrative assistants or janitorial staff.” Taxpayers end up with the tab: “‘The underlying issue is that the state and local governments provide incentives such as tax breaks, land, infrastructure, and services, usually in a competitive bidding process with other governments trying to land the data center,’ Todd Cherry, Center for Economic Research and Policy Analysis at Appalachian State University, said. “The incentive packages can be quite outlandish–far exceeding any reasonable economic justification. This is a form of what we call ‘the winner’s curse.’ When governments engage in a competitive bidding process over an uncertain benefit, the one that wins is the one that overestimates the benefit.’ This kind of competitive bidding to attract companies often becomes more of a political game than an economic development strategy, Cherry said.”

I would encourage you to vote NO on HB1491. SMRs are a never built or tested concept. planned to be placed in a seismically active area. I feel this is a bad idea. I object to this project and having Virginia's taxpayers and ratepayers on the hook to subsidize such a risky, pricey and highly speculative venture.

Aristidis Loumis, PHD student. Virginia Commonwealth University, on behalf of the Dept. of Mechanical and Nuclear engineering. We need a diverse energy portfolio to achieve the clean energy future we all want and that needs to include nuclear so why not use the least outdated technology we have now? We support this bill.

How do SMRs meet the criteria Governor Youngkin set for his “all of the above” Virginia Energy Plan. The Governor stated new energy solutions must be “reliable, affordable and clean.” SMRs CANNOT BE RELIABLE. No commercial SMR has been successfully built. The NuScale project meant to debut SMRs in the U.S., collapsed one week after Gov. Younkin announced plans to power data centers with SMRs in Wise Co. Nuclear has a historic project cancellation rate of nearly 50%. SMR project completion expectations are 10-20 years. Unlike solar and wind, SMRs cannot be built and brought on line predictably. SMRs cannot meet baseload reliability requirements, but pairing renewable energies with storage offers real reliability at far less cost. SMRs CANNOT BE AFFORDABLE – SMR projects are so blatantly financially risky, utilities will not consider them without a captive public serving as angel investor - that’s why HB1491 is before you today. AEP/Appalachian Power wants to win either way - scooping up front-end federal nuclear subsidies - then saddling ratepayers with financial risk for completion. Levelized cost data documents that nuclear energy is the most expensive way to generate commercial electric power. Do you want angry constituents complaining about power bills for SMRs not producing power? If not, oppose HB1491. SMRs CANNOT BE CLEAN - They produce high and low-level radioactive waste, along with risks associated with accidental radioactive releases, transportation, and storage, particularly on geologically unstable abandoned mine lands, where the Governor proposes to place them. If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing this costly, unproven, failing nuclear technology. The utility company is where the risk belongs, do not vote for cost shifting of risky financial investments from utilities to Virginia ratepayers. Please, OPPOSE HB1491.

The Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA) is an independent non-profit think-tank funded focused on creating the conditions for success for advanced nuclear energy as a clean energy solution. NIA supports HB 1491 and thinks that this bill can help accelerate the deployment of small modular reactors in Virginia and West Virginia as part of the region’s future clean energy mix. NIA believes that state level support for advanced nuclear energy will be critical to accelerating the deployment of new nuclear power plants. Advanced nuclear energy and small modular reactors can play an important role in Virginia’s clean energy future by complimenting renewable energy sources and providing a source of reliable clean energy. The clean dispatchable energy from new nuclear reactors can help ensure affordable and reliable energy year-round for residential, industrial, and commercial customers. It will be important for Virigina to create a pathway for utilities to consider investments in these new nuclear projects. HB 1491 enables utilities to explore potential new nuclear projects and consider long-term investments in nuclear energy that could provide Virginia with clean energy for the next 60 to 100 years. Enabling the utility to recover project development costs can support effective and efficient project planning and management by ensuring that adequate internal resources are available to best inform decision makers. It is important to remember that this bill does not commit Virginia or West Virginia to investing in new nuclear projects but enables nuclear energy to be considered as a long-term energy solution for the region. The Commission will retain the authority to ensure prudent spending by utilities on any project development related costs. This oversight will help protect Virginia rate payers from unnecessary rate increases while still enabling utilities to seriously consider and evaluate the potential benefits of new nuclear projects. NIA supports HB 1491 because it creates a pathway for Virginia utilities to consider long term investments in new nuclear energy projects while protecting rate payers and enables new nuclear energy and small modular reactors to be included as a future clean energy solution for the Commonwealth.

Good afternoon Mr Chairman and members of the committee, My name is Peggy Milota and I am a PhD student in mechanical and nuclear engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University as well as a former navy nuclear mechanic. I am here to speak in favor and support of this bill, as bills that support new SMR technologies bring opportunities for future jobs that will keep myself and people like me in Virginia, where many of our predecessors have left the state and country due to lack of opportunities. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Carol Lane, Vice President of Government Relations for X-energy, a company specializing in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) reactor design and fuel manufacturing. The emergence of SMRs, with their capacity to deliver clean, highly reliable energy - 24/7 - could position them as indispensable to Virginia's continued global leadership in data centers and growing electricity demand. Our First-of-a-Kind plant will be constructed in Seadrift, Texas, at a Dow Chemical facility. Powering their site with nuclear energy will allow Dow to reduce their CO2 emissions by 400,000 tons per year. This first plant is part of the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program designed to reduce cost, schedule and regulatory risk for future customers. Virginia, potentially positioned as a fast follower, has the opportunity to adopt SMRs to meet the escalating power demands, driven by data centers, electric vehicles, replacing retiring coal plants. We strongly support House Bill 1491 and 1323, recognizing it as a catalyst to expedite the deployment of SMRs in Virginia. This legislative initiative has the potential to play a vital role in fulfilling the state's future energy needs in a manner that is clean, safe, and economically viable.

Please oppose HB 1323 and 1491 With all due respect, we do not need to follow Utah on their failed smr project last year. Even with lots of DOE funding, the projects cost ballooned to over 100 dollars a kWh. Please oppose these 2 bills that use Virginia as a test project for an unproven experimental nuclear technology. Thank you, Erica Gray

Comments Document

How do SMRs meet the criteria Governor Youngkin set for his “all of the above” Virginia Energy Plan? The Governor stated new energy solutions must be “reliable, affordable and clean.” SMRs CANNOT BE RELIABLE. No commercial SMR has been successfully built. The NuScale project meant to debut SMRs in the U.S., collapsed one week after Gov. Younkin announced plans to power data centers with SMRs in Wise Co. Nuclear has a historic project cancellation rate of nearly 50%. SMR project completion expectations are 10-20 years. Unlike solar and wind, SMRs cannot be built and brought on line predictably. SMRs cannot meet baseload reliability requirements, but pairing renewable energies with storage offers real reliability at far less cost. SMRs CANNOT BE AFFORDABLE – SMR projects are so blatantly financially risky, utilities will not consider them without a captive public serving as angel investor - that’s why HB1323 is before you today. Dominion Energy and AEP want to win either way - scooping up front-end federal nuclear subsidies - then saddling ratepayers with financial risk for completion. Levelized cost data documents that nuclear energy is the most expensive way to generate commercial electric power. Do you want angry constituents complaining about power bills for SMRs not producing power? If not, oppose HB1323. SMRs CANNOT BE CLEAN - They produce high and low-level radioactive waste, along with risks associated with accidental radioactive releases, transportation, and storage, particularly on geologically unstable abandoned mine lands, where the Governor proposes to place them. If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing this costly, unproven, failing nuclear technology. The utility company is where the risk belongs, do not vote for cost shifting of risky financial investments from utilities to Virginia ratepayers. Please OPPOSE HB1323.

I am writing to express Framatome's support for HB 1323 and HB 1491. As a leading nuclear energy technology and services provider headquartered in Lynchburg, we believe it is important to support the future of the nuclear industry in the Commonwealth. Creating a sustainable environment for nuclear energy projects is key to maintaining Virginia's leadership in the industry. Developing new projects takes time and legislation like HB 1323 and 1491 will allow for deliberate planning to take place. Framatome and its more than 1300 employees in Virginia is planning for growth in our workforce over the next five years to support the expanding industry. We support legislation like the bills being considered to continue to ensure Virginia is the home to the growth in new nuclear energy projects. We appreciate the Committee's consideration of this legislation and encourage the passage.

Vote NO on HB 1491. As I read the comments of my fellow residents in Southwest Virginia, I not only agree with everything they say in opposition, but it is beyond belief that such a bill would even be introduced! As a 35-year resident living in the Commonwealth (Wise and Lee Counties) and a native West Virginian, what possible justification could there be for this bill? We know the utility companies want their customers to pay for their risky schemes, but to take on the costs for another state in which we Virginia taxpayers have no input is outrageous. Over 1,000 citizens have signed a petition raising concerns about SMRs being pushed into the coalfields of Virginia - not on isolated abandoned mine land but in our neighborhoods, near schools and businesses. We are now expected to be exposed to the safety and health issues created by SMRs AND to pay for the development of them - here, there, and everywhere? Really!!!!

Vote NO on HB 1491. As I read the comments of my fellow residents in Southwest Virginia, I not only agree with everything they say in opposition, but it is beyond belief that such a bill would even be introduced! As a 35-year resident living in the Commonwealth (Wise and Lee Counties) and a native West Virginian, what possible justification could there be for this bill? We know the utility companies want their customers to pay for their risky schemes, but to take on the costs for another state in which we Virginia taxpayers have no input is outrageous. Over 1,000 citizens have signed a petition raising concerns about SMRs being pushed into the coalfields of Virginia - not on isolated abandoned mine land but in our neighborhoods, near schools and businesses. We are now expected to be exposed to the safety and health issues created by SMRs AND to pay for the development of them - here, there, and everywhere? Really!!!!

I live in Scott County and am writing to voice my strong objections to the following bills: HB741 reduces the level of oversight and permitting requirements for siting small nuclear reactors (SMRs), classifying them as "clean renewable energy" projects when, in fact, they are not clean or renewable energy technologies -- they produce radioactive waste and, if there is an accident, they release radioactive material into our air or water. These are risks not associated with clean energy projects and small modular nuclear reactors should have the same level of permitting and siting scrutiny as full scale nuclear plants. HB741 would allow siting in previously undisclosed locations across Southwest Virginia without public input. SMR sites proposed in a LENOWISCO Planning Commission study are predominantly on disturbed mine lands, which are more likely to be structurally unstable from past blasting fractures. These sites should require greater scrutiny rather than less. Please vote NO on HB741. ******** HB1074 amends the definition of “renewable energy” to “zero-carbon”, which is not in keeping with Virginia's Clean Economy Act that was designed to encourage truly renewable energy sources, and which specifically excludes nuclear power. Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. Please vote no on HB1074. ********* HB1323 would allow utilities to recoup development costs for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which may never be constructed or deliver power to ratepayers. HB 1323 would force Virginia  ratepayers to finance the development of SMR technology when there has never been a successful SMR facility built. It is the utility stockholders who should finance this risky and costly technology if they are so enthusiastic about it. Please vote no on HB1323. ************** HB1491 would force Virginians to pay the costs of planning, building, and operating a generating facility that is serving customers in another state. We, Virgina ratepayers, would be liable for all the costs, and the larger the capital addition to the rate base, the larger the profit for stockholders, the larger the bonus for utility executives, and the larger the utility campaign donations to Virginia legislators. Please vote no on HB1491 and instead support cheaper, faster, and far less risky solar and energy storage capacity.

I write to oppose bills, HB741, 1074, 1323, and 1491, which potentially take Virginia in dangerous directions. Nuclear power has not lived up to its predicted potential of being "too cheap to meter". Indeed, it has turned out to be expensive, dangerous, and unreliable: an excellent example of our technological CLEVERNESS outrunning our WISDOM to foresee negative consequences. Put more simply, just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. Known unresolved problems include: Disposition of radioactive waste Environmental effects of Uranium mining Potentially unstable substrates for siting reactors, especially on mine sites. Energy "Demands" continue to be exorbitant and not consistent with a sustainable future.

I rise (in my home) in opposition to HB 1491. This bill leaves the impression that Virginia can give a great monetary gift to West Virginia by building a SMR in West Virginia and simply mandating by law that Virginia’s ratepayers will foot the bill for it. Whose brilliant idea is this? It’s a new wrinkle in the monopoly of power. It also demands that ratepayers pay for ill judgement while their stockholders reap all the profits; well, not all, some bonuses go to executives; then there’s political contributions going to those who will carry their water. I hope you contemplate whose interests you represent – corporations, interstate power, or people -- for once. Utilities already have an overabundance of federal and state subsidies currently and yet they seek from their ratepayer's investment money for their follies and overbuilds. Note that this bill is asking the Virginia ratepayers and taxpayers to cover the continued expense of their inability to secure customers; in other words, VA’s ratepayers will pay for unused power. We know NuScale’s collapse was precipitated by their inability to t secure customers when the cost overruns made the price of the product unaffordable, after an astronomical investment of public monies. Here again, no product has to be achieved; they have no incentive to do so but instead rewarded for bad business practices in another state while making the citizens you represent pay for them. Please vote NO on HB 1491

HB 1491 Phase I Utility; recovery of development costs associated with small modular nuclear facility. Introduced by: Israel D. O'Quinn | all patrons : Del. O’Quinn’s exceptional offer to our Mountain State friends would place all capacity costs for the SMR in the Virginia utility’s rate base. What a deal, “Almost heaven!” Except the bill does not absolve West Virginia citizens of the risks that come with a, thus far, unsuccessfully deployed “advanced” SMR nuclear facility. Why would any delegate vote to force Virginians to pay the costs of planning, building, and operating a generating facility that is serving customers in another state? Since Virginia customers are liable for all the costs, and the larger the capital addition to the rate base, the larger the profit for stockholders, the larger the bonus for utility executives, and the larger the utility campaign donations to Virginia legislators, but watch out, your constituents may catch on and ask why you didn’t support cheaper, faster, and far less risky solar and energy storage capacity. Utilities win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers, as they have in the past (like the $600 million “recovered” from Virginians for the shelved North Anna #3), to take the risks and pay even if a nuclear SMR plant is never completed. While an SMR is defined by the U.S. Department of Energy as having a capacity of tens to hundreds of megaWatts. At the 500 mW limit this bill sets, a “small” modular nuclear reactor would be more than half as big as the largest nuclear reactors currently operating in Virginia. In a number of ways, this is no small thing. History shows that there is a strong correlation between new designs and cost increases and project delays. Nuclear subsidies send utilities and their customers down a costly, 10-year rabbit hole, away from cheaper, market-driven, solar, wind, and battery storage - all available now. Competition with cheaper green power alternatives will likely result in project cancellation. “If SMRs are not ready to deploy in the next ten years, what are the implications?” says former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Allison McFarlane. “…If, as a recent study showed, that SMRs will be significantly more expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind, and even geothermal, what will the marketplace look like in 20 or 30 years, when renewables will presumably be even cheaper Please spare Virginians this burden. Vote ”NO” on HB-1491. West Virginians will take care of themselves.

HB1491 would force rate payers to foot the bill for development of nuclear energy in another state. How does this even make sense? I strongly oppose HB1491. We should not have to finance these risky projects so that corporations suffer no loss, especially in another state.

I am writing to oppose HB 1491. Are you serious? Those who are pushing this smNUCLEAR on us, when it fails, want someone else to bail them out? Delegate O'Quinn's onslaught of bills related to nuclear development is outrageous. How many different ways can we tell you - we do NOT WANT NUCLEAR here!! It shouldn't be anywhere! The waste lasts hundreds of thousands of years - and is extremely dangerous. Nuclear power is not a climate solution: it is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive and too slow. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. The fuel for nuclear power relies on a long chain of extraction, processing, enrichment, and generation of vast amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. It contaminates air, land, and water, expanding the danger to ecosystems and essential sources of life and well-being. Vote NO on HB 1491

HB1491 Are you serious?! Who's pocket are you in? You want US, the ratepayers, to foot the bill for your absurd fantasy that "Small modular NUCLEAR reactors" will be just fine? I am writing to oppose HB 1491. Delegate O'Quinn's onslaught of bills related to nuclear development is outrageous. How many different ways can we tell you - we do NOT WANT NUCLEAR here!! It shouldn't be anywhere! The waste lasts hundreds of thousands of years - and is extremely dangerous. Nuclear power is not a climate solution: it is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive and too slow. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. The fuel for nuclear power relies on a long chain of extraction, processing, enrichment, and generation of vast amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. It contaminates air, land, and water, expanding the danger to ecosystems and essential sources of life and well-being. Vote NO on HB 1491

Can I possibly be reading this bill correctly? My electric power provider, Appalachian Power Company, can recover “the costs of evaluation, design, engineering, environmental analysis and permitting, land option, and early site permitting” by a rate adjustment (RATE INCREASE-we rarely see a rate decrease) if they decide to build an SMR in the Commonwealth or in WEST VIRGINIA! Virginia’s rate payers would be financing SMR development both inside and OUTSIDE the state. I am sure that West Virginia’s rate payers would be quite willing to absorb these costs but another provision of the bill states, “all associated energy and capacity from the small modular nuclear facility, once in service, shall be assigned to the Commonwealth to the extent that such costs are requested but not recovered from any system customers outside of the Commonwealth.” But........maybe not. Please vote NO on HB 1491.

If nuclear energy is such a good idea, let investors accept the risk! And let that risk include the cost of radioactive waste disposal, insurance for Chernobyl like accidents, and cost overruns. Please do not vote for this bill!

I am commenting to oppose HB 1323 which would permit American Electric Power and Dominion Energy to recover costs from small modular nuclear reactor development. This bill would force us ratepayers to finance SMRs. We never wanted these projects in the first place because we know how dangerous, how dirty and how expensive they are! NuScale, the only SMR to receive preliminary design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was canceled one week after Governor Youngkin’s heralded announcement of the “Data Ridge project” in Wise County, Virginia, which he has proposed to power with SMRs. The NuScale failure came, according to Reuters, despite $600 million in grants the U.S. Department of Energy spent on development of the NuScale SMR, and $1.35 billion more pre-approved for NuScale over the next 10 years! According to the nuclear-friendly Breakthrough Institute, “These developments suggest that current efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on the promise of advanced nuclear energy.” Delegate Marshall's bill would force Virginia residents to carry the risk of a nuclear project that's risky in every way- from the environment to the economy. We should never expose the Commonwealth’s residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers to such extraordinary financial risk. Please vote No on HB 1323.

I am writing to oppose HB 1491. Delegate O'Quinn's suite of bills related to nuclear development is atrocious. HB 1491 pushes the cost of dangerous industry projects onto consumers who never wanted it in the first place! Delegate O'Quinn, through HB 1491 seeks to increase consumer energy costs- that's our energy bills!- to pay for the evaluation, design, engineering, environmental analysis and permitting, land option, and site permitting for small modular nuclear reactors. Virginia customers could be required to pay for projects in West Virginia too! Why would any delegate vote to force Virginians to pay the costs of planning, building, and operating a generating facility that is serving customers in another state? The risks of nuclear development are evident throughout the entire fuel chain. History shows that there is a strong correlation between new designs and cost increases and project delays. Indeed, costs of the latest nuclear project to come online (seven years late and among the first since the Three Mile Island meltdown), Georgia Power’s Vogtle Units 3 & 4, exceeded projections by 120% (https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtle-rates-costs-75c7a413cda3935dd551be9115e88a64). It’s unclear how much of the cost overruns customers will be forced to shell out. This bill put profits over people. Utilities win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers, as they have in the past, to take the risks and pay even if a nuclear SMR plant is never completed. What's more, nuclear power is not a climate solution: it is too dirty, too dangerous, too expensive and too slow. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. The fuel for nuclear power relies on a long chain of extraction, processing, enrichment, and generation of vast amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. It contaminates air, land, and water, expanding the danger to ecosystems and essential sources of life and well-being. The likelihood of reactor meltdowns is increasing, due to rising sea levels, the increase in severe storms and extreme weather events, and warming water temperatures. Vote NO on HB 1491

1) The Governor is opting for new technology SMnR designs. History reveals a clear correlation between all nuclear facility cost projections and far higher actual cost of reactors brought into service, along with a project cancellation rate of nearly 50%. New project designs spawn even greater project delays and larger cost increases. 2) History shows that there is a strong correlation between new designs and cost increases and project delays. Indeed, costs of the latest nuclear project to come online (seven years late and among the first since the Three Mile Island meltdown), Georgia Power’s Vogtle Units 3 & 4, exceeded projections by 120%. It’s unclear how much of the cost overruns customers will be forced to shell out. 3) At utility scale, the electricity energy standard, Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy-2023 (LCOE), rates nuclear as the most expensive means to generate commercial electric power. According to Lazard, nuclear power is the only utility-scale generation source that has gone up significantly in price/mWhr between 2009 and 2023. In fact, the cost of nuclear per mWhr has increased 53% between 2016 and 2023 alone (unsubsidized LCOE analysis - p.9 of Lazard’s LCOE, April, 2023). 4) At baseline, the nuclear industry already costs federal taxpayers, ratepayers, and communities hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies, decommissioning, and mitigation costs. Federal subsidies alone, up to 2017, topped $100 billion in 2016 dollars, with more in the pipeline. In the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), $10 billion funds 30% tax credits for “Advanced Energy Projects, including nuclear. 5) The LCOE shows solar and on-shore wind, even inclusive of battery storage, making power available 24/7, are the lowest cost sources of new power generation. 6) Nuclear subsidies send utilities and their customers down a costly, 10-year rabbit hole, away from cheaper, market-driven, solar, wind, and battery storage - all available now. 7) Competition with cheaper green power alternatives will likely result in project cancellation. “If SMRs are not ready to deploy in the next ten years, what are the implications?” says former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Allison McFarlane. “…If, as a recent study showed, that SMRs will be significantly more expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind, and even geothermal, what will the marketplace look like in 20 or 30 years, when renewables will presumably be even cheaper?”

You might think our neighbors in West Virginia would be thanking Del. O’Quinn for HB1491 to absolve West Virginians in advance of any financial responsibility for planning, developing, permitting, constructing,, and operating expenses for a “small” modular nuclear reactor (SMR) in West Virginia. Del. O’Quinn’s exceptional offer to our Mountain State friends would place all capacity costs for the SMR in the Virginia utility’s rate base. West Virginian have run the tables - “Almost heaven!” Except the bill does not absolve West Virginia citizens of the risks that come with a, thus far, unsuccessfully deployed “advanced” SMR nuclear facility. Why would any delegate vote to force Virginians to pay the costs of planning, building, and operating a generating facility that is serving customers in another state? Since Virginia customers are liable for all the costs, and the larger the capital addition to the rate base, the larger the profit for stockholders, the larger the bonus for utility executives, and the larger the utility campaign donations to Virginia legislators, but watch out, your constituents may catch on and ask why you didn’t support cheaper, faster, and far less risky solar and energy storage capacity. Utilities win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers, as they have in the past (like the $600 million “recovered” from Virginians for the shelved North Anna #3), to take the risks and pay even if a nuclear SMR plant is never completed. While an SMR is defined by the U.S. Department of Energy as having a capacity of tens to hundreds of megaWatts. At the 500 mW limit this bill sets, a “small” modular nuclear reactor would be more than half as big as the largest nuclear reactors currently operating in Virginia. In a number of ways, this is no small thing. Please spare Virginians this burden. Vote ”NO” on HB-1491. West Virginians will take care of themselves.