My name is Randy Thompson, and I am a business owner of a media company in Virginia Beach. I currently serve on the Oceanfront Enhancement Committee and served for the past 12 years on the Resort Advisory Commission until my term expired in December. This Commission and Committee initiated this effort to curtail the Right of Way infringements in our resort. The genesis of this bill was to keep the sidewalks and our public right-of-way clear and safe in our pedestrian-heavy resort area – specifically the Atlantic Avenue corridor. The primary infringements come from resort retailers using the public sidewalks to merchandise their products. Current law prohibits this practice but, as a criminal offense, the enforcement is practically non-existent. With the issuance summons and the subsequent continuances until the busy summer season is over, the result has generally been a slap on the wrist, later in the fall, long after the busy foot traffic is gone from Atlantic Ave. HB235 IS NOT “additional” law that will harm or hinder small businesses in the resort. In fact, the Atlantic Avenue Association, who represents the small businesses there, have voiced support for this proposed legislation. They play by the rules and simply want others to do the same. HB235 IS a very practical means to ensure that our sidewalks and other public right-of-ways are kept clear and safe during our busiest months and throughout the year. I encourage you to support this bill and allow us this common-sense approach to addressing this problem.

Comments Document

Dear Chairperson Shin and Subcommittee Members: Thank you for hearing testimony on House Bill 581 relating to the plight of child sex trafficking victims within the state. Shared Hope International is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing, restoring, and bringing justice to survivors of child and youth sex trafficking. Shared Hope has been working in Virginia, across the country, and throughout the globe for over 20 years to guide and support appropriate responses to protect survivors, hold offenders to account, and ultimately prevent the crime entirely. Thirteen years ago, we launched the State Report Card project to assess the status of state’s laws and drive legislative progress. Despite its progress on addressing this issue, Virginia received an ‘F’ in 2023, scoring a 48 out of 100. House Bill 581 (“HB 581”), if passed, would require attorneys for the Commonwealth to establish multidisciplinary human trafficking response teams that would (i) discuss implementation of protocols and policies; (ii) establish and review guidelines for the community's response to various forms of human trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking; and (iii) review protocols for the trauma-informed, victim-centered collection, preservation, and secure storage of evidence from physical evidence recovery kit examinations, among other things. Collaborative, multidisciplinary groups (“MDTs”) addressing human trafficking have become essential in the national fight against human trafficking and the provision of necessary services and resources to survivors. This response model, which includes various disciplines working collaboratively, is encouraged by the U.S. Department of Justice and is recognized worldwide as a best practice in the anti-trafficking field. Through MDTs, law enforcement, child welfare, service providers, advocates, other professionals, as well as the child and their family can work collaboratively to prioritize the wellbeing of the survivor and provide trauma-informed support and services. Survivors of child sex trafficking often have complex needs that cannot be addressed by a single agency or service provider; instead, survivors need support from a number of service providers addressing various needs, including physical health, mental health, reproductive health, malnutrition, substance use, and self-destructive behaviors. While some of their needs are shared by other children who have experienced abuse or trauma, it is important that child sex trafficking victims not only receive a broad array of treatment but that treatment is specialized to the unique trauma associated with commercial sexual exploitation. An MDT response provides a comprehensive, coordinated effort that creates increased capacity to meet a myriad of needs through a specialized service response. Additionally, this increased capacity to meet survivor’s needs will support law enforcement and prosecutors’ ability to hold offenders accountable by increasing a survivor’s capacity and ability to participate in the criminal legal process. Therefore, state law should mandate a survivor-centered MDT response be utilized for child sex trafficking cases. We are grateful for the Committee’s dedication to this issue and respectfully ask for your support.

I SUPPORT HB208, 281, 634, and 644. Gas-powered leaf blowers are an environmental scourge and I'm thankful that a bill has been written to allow localities to restrict them. I wish the Commonwealth of Virginia could just ban them outright. I wholeheartedly support repurposing office buildings to serve as childcare centers.

HB405 Please leave the decision on Solar Farms to the locality it’s proposed to be placed. The loss of agriculture and trees is a danger to the environment and fiscal health of the location and therefore the residents should have the final say. Studies of long term land pollution should be made available to all citizens in a manner that reaches a large portion of the state

On behalf of the Clarke County Board of Supervisors, please accept our comments in opposition to HB 636. The Clarke County BOS does not oppose solar, we were one of the first in our region to approve a utility solar plant. If solar projects currently in the review process in our County are approved and built, we estimate solar power generated in Clarke County would equal the power we use in our County. We aren't the reason Virginia isn't meeting its solar goals. The influx of data centers is driving the Commonwealth's energy needs. > > Agriculture is the number one industry in Virginia and the driving force for our zoning and comprehensive planning in Clarke County. We oppose any legislation which takes away our ability to protect our agricultural lands. We aren't creating the demand for solar energy and our farmland is too valuable to sacrifice for this purpose.

Please vote No to HB 636. The power to decide what we want in our counties should be left in the hands of our local governments. We the people have expressed our opposition to the siting of solar farms and we deserve the respect of having our decisions respected. We in the rural areas are being negatively impacted by the siting of these solar farms. Politicians in Richmond should not be allowed to dictate how our farmlands are used. NO TO SOLAR FARMS!

I'm asking that HB636 be denied. The tax paying citizens of each county should have the right to have input on what happens in there county. We do not need a bunch of bureaucrats telling local government how to govern their county. This would be the first of many steps of state government taking away the rights of the citizens of the local counties. Local officials know the wants and needs of their county, with input of the citizens, the state does not. How would Mr. Sullivan feel in Joe Biden made excutive orders for the state???

I ask that these bills be thrown out. They are a state government overreach because they remove the ability of local government to govern their communities through existing planning and zoning in the siting of energy facilities. They also overrule local moratoriums which have been put in place to control the real impacts of these facilities on concerned communities.

These decisions need to remain on the local level with each locality deciding for itself.

Please consider the implications of HB 636. It should not be the SCC who decides location of utility solar farms. This should be left to the individual counties and citizens in Virginia and their own locally drafted and approved ordinances. Farmland and forests are precious resources and we could loose more acreage if this bill passes the House. Please vote no and consider research to install solar panels on urban structures.

This bill should not be allowed to pass. In Page County, our main sources of income are in agriculture and tourism. We are losing farmland at an alarming rate. Farmland must be protected at all cost. These large scale, industrial solar facilities can only be built on large farms. in our county, we fought for three years to come up with a comprehensive solar ordinance. It was very effective. Richmond has no rights to come into our county and tell us what we can and can’t do when we as the citizens of the county ,who pay taxes, made a decision what works best for us .

Please vote no on HB 636. This bill would cause local people to not have a say on what happens to their land because these solar farms often destroy neighboring land, which has negative effects on wildlife, farms, agriculture, etc. Many of these projects have already been voted down, so the voices of local communities that have already made decisions on what they would/wouldn't like in their area should not be taken away.

Please vote no on HB 636. Some of these solar projects are being rejected by the Local Board of Supervisors who are truly representing the people the people they represent. Local residents, especially of rural communities, recognize that many of the solar projects are actually harmful to agriculture and will destroy land which is necessary for farming, timber, and local wildlife. If you destroy farmland in these local communities, you are also taking away jobs, which further harms local communities. People in the communities for which solar "farms" are being proposed, have the right to determine if they want surrounding land impacted by the detrimental effects of these projects.

As a farm owners, we strongly oppose Bill 636, We strongly support local government deciding what is best for the land in their area. It is important to be good stewards of our land and continue many long standing traditions of our past. We need land that grows crops, not solar panels that will ruin the land forever.

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand that Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As a Virginia citizen for 63 years, I strongly favor local governments deciding what is best for their land use decisions because local governments are elected by their citizens. Local administration must not be infringed by those who think they know better than local county and city citizens. Thank you.

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand that Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As a Virginia citizen for 36 years, I strongly favor local governments deciding what is best for their land use decisions because local governments are elected by their citizens. Thank you. Joseph F Moore Henrico, VA

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand that Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As a Virginia citizen for 36 years, I strongly favor local governments deciding what is best for their land use decisions because local governments are elected by their citizens. Thank you. Joseph F Moore Henrico, VA

Comments Document

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand Dominion Energy and Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) also oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As local government are elected by citizens, I strongly favor local government's decide what is best for their land use.

I write to alsk that HB636 be denied. The State should not mandate specific land use projects on counties. Counties are responsible for its development planning, not the state. Solar farms in particular are not a proven viable energy solution and pose secondary and unintended consequences which the county would be responsible for. Thank you for your support. Please deny HB636.

This is communism at its best. The Civil War was fought over big government telling little government what to do.

Please do not take the right for our communities to control our own land. I ask you to oppose the bill proposed that takes away our local rights. I have attended many meeting for and against solar power. I am convinced in an effort to be green, you are actually destroying our land. Even though solar farms promise to restore after 20-30 years, the land will be destroyed, along with plants , animals and our creeks and rivers. The farms will never dig up the 16 foot pylons that support the panels. Therefore, the remaining carcass will be un-farmable. ETC

I Warren Whitworth of Buckingham county want to go on board to express my opposition to HB 636. While I am not against solar power, I am strongly against the bringing solar power into a predominantly poor and relatively black area of Buckingham county. The Bear Garden Creek power plant is less than 3 miles from the proposed solar plant near me, which wraps around 2/3 of my property. Furthermore, the runoff from into Bear Garden Creek from either the solar power panels or erosion, will adversely affect the health of the predominantly poor Black people who live along Bear Garden Creek. This is not an area that needs 1000 acres of solar power especially when a gas powered plant is less than 2.5 miles from the proposed site. This is Environmental Injustice at its core! Additionally much of the land on this proposed site has a steep grade of about 40%. The EPA recommends a sloping grade no more than 5 to 10%. Before anyone supports this bill and approves this bill they should come out to Buckingham county to the to the proposed site and see for themselves. I ask you to be sensible, be practical and be respectful of the citizen in rural Buckingham county. This bill should not remove power from the citizens of Virginia. Our citizens of this Commonwealth deserve better than that. Most citizens in rural Virginia know what they want for their counties, their homes and their livelihood. Their choice to remain GREEN should not be taken away because someone from Northern Virginia decides he needs more green($) in their pockets. Thank you! Warren Whitworth

I am oppose to bill HB636. As a resident I believe representatives closest to an area should make recommendation on what is in their county ‘s best interest. They are cognizant of populations, social justice/burdens, etc.

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand that Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As a Virginia citizen for 36 years, I strongly favor local governments deciding what is best for their land use decisions because local governments are elected by the residents. Thank you.

Sirs: Upon reading several recent articles concerning HR and HS Bills that would permit the State Corporate Commission to mandate solar farms, I feel compelled to request you to vote NO for the following bills: House Bill 106 House Bill HB-636 As residents of a rural county in which a large population of the homes uses well water, it is imperative that you protect those major resources that solar farms will detrimentally impact. Solar farm environmental studies that I've read show innumerable instances of failure of these facilities to cause contamination of water sheds, groundwater, and major aquifers. The facilities have been fined, but with little impact on containing such failure to protect the resources. Many of the solar developers target economically challenged, low income residents with the dream of instant wealth and is equal to that of a snake oil salesman. The dream is often sold with offers of contracts to rent hundreds of acres of land at phenomenal rates, offering County governments low-ball surety bonds, and very thinly veiled information of mitigation of land after decommissions. When the facility is decommissioned, the landowner will be left with footing the bill to mitigate the damage to the land, a state requirement. The end result is decimation of agricultural and forestry lands that can never be restored. Your time is valuable, as is the very nature and essence of our rural communities. We respectfully ask that you vote NO to the bills under your authority. Jerry K. and Sandra L. Radford 121 Mulberry Drive Palmyra, VA 22963

As a Virginia resident, I am opposed to HB636. Land use and zoning decisions should remain at the local county level, not approved by the SCC, especially for large-scale industrial solar power plants. It is well-documented that areas in Virginia, like Essex and Louisa counties, have suffered negative effects from uncontrolled runoff of water and topsoil due to industrial solar facilities. Work needs to be done to protect agricultural and forestry-zoned land and advocate for responsible solar policies such as siting these on brownfields, industrial-zoned land, and on commercial and residential rooftops. The destruction of tens of thousands of acres of farmland and timberland is not green nor good for the environment. Please vote no to HB636.

In regards to House Bill 636, We elect local officials to represent our voices. Our elected local officials have our best interests in mind when making decisions based on the localities. Turning power over to SCC to make decisions based on my behalf or my business’s regarding solar and wind is not in our best interests. This bill removes all power from the local governments deciding traditional land use decisions and hands it over to Richmond. The SCC should not have the authority to make decisions for counties and local governments regarding issues that could potentially affect a persons health or property values. Please leave the power with the local governments to decide their own land use in regards to solar and wind farms.

I oppose House Bill 636. I understand that Dominion Energy and the Virginia Association of Counties (VAC) oppose House Bill 636 (as well as Senate Bill 567). As a Virginia citizen, I strongly favor local governments to decide what is best for their land use decisions. Thank you. Mario Kuhar Scottsville, VA

I wish to express my opposition to the passage of HB636. This bill takes away the authority of the local governing bodies to make decisions based on what is best for their locality and its residents. Land use should be determined by those directly affected, not by the SCC or any person or agency at the state level. Thank you!

Ladies and Gentlemen: We that live in rural Virginia are fighting against utility scale solar developers for our way of life, the preservation of Virginia's farms and forrest, the preservation of watersheds and wildlife corridors, and the preservation of what makes rural Virginia such a beautiful and wonderful place to live and raise a family. Utility scale solar developments continue to invade the Commonwealth at alarming rates. Fluvanna County, and many other rural Counties, are ground-zero for this debate. Our local politicians, both Planning Commissioners and Members of Board of Supervisors, are expressly running for re-election on the issue of supporting or opposing utility scale solar projects. People vote in large numbers based on support or opposition to the Solar Land Grab. It would be unjust to the local citizens of the Commonwealth to remove their ability to debate this issue locally at the ballot box. If decisions re solar development are removed to Richmond, the solar developers will simply concentrate lobbying efforts on a small number of decision makers far removed from the many problems caused by large-scale solar utility projects. Don't take power away from the local politicians most knowledgeable about local needs to preserve the rural character of Virginia. Prior generations of Virginians have protected our farms and forests and country lifestyle. Please don't be the generation that drops the ball. -- Jason Sweeney, Esq. Board Member, Citizen Defenders of Fluvanna County, Inc.

Denial of HB 636 is a must. Mandating to counties what they must do, especially if the residents oppose the activities or item, is an over reach of authority that should not be instituted. County officials working with their constituents can best determine the needs and desires of the residents. Additionally, solar farms and other related activities should be denied as well. It is unclear, vague actually, what the long term consequences are of solar farms on the environment. Disposal of failed, broken, depleted solar cells, batteries, etc have yet to successfully been solved. Jumping on a green bandwagon without environmental safeguard is as unhealthy as the perceived problems. Deny HB 636 now. Deny, deny Deny HB 636. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Please vote to DENY Please DO NOT supersede local government rights Solar farms destroy and devastate the land, soil and potentially ground water. These solar farms CREATE BROWNFIELDS Protect our farmland, pastures and green space DENY THIS BILL

As a Virginia resident and landowner, I ask that you stop HB636 Localities should NOT lose control of siting for utility-scale solar facilities. Land use decisions should remain at the local level. We must prioritize the protection of our forests and farms. Solar development should be on already-developed lands. Virginia needs to protect our natural and working lands. We should work towards a balanced solar build-out that not only benefits our environment but also supports our communities, wildlife and waters. We need stronger policies that redirect industrial solar facilities towards already-developed lands and the built environment.

As a Virginia landowner whose land is at risk for habitat disruption and flooding from an adjacent industrial solar facility, I ask that you oppose HB636. This bill will remove local zoning authority for the siting of utility-scale solar facilities and prohibit moratoriums on these projects. HB636 contradicts Virginia’s longstanding respect for local government authority. The majority of utility-scale solar installations in Virginia continue to be sited on our farms and forestlands. The solar facility directly adjacent to my property in Buckingham County is in the process of removing approximately 2,000 acres of trees. The runoff from the massive project will flow into the James River. The habitat destruction that inevitably takes place when denuding forests can never be restored. Solar projects must be sited on rooftops, marginal land, brownfields, and other sub-prime lands as decided by a locality to ensure consistency with their comprehensive plan. Vote NO on HB636 for your landowners and for the environment in Virginia.

On February 5, 2024 the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express their opposition to all bills that remove or overrule local county decisions related to utility scale solar. All localities are different and what might be appropriate for one, might not be for another. Our county has expressed in our Comprehensive Plan that "... we the people of Rappahannock County declare it to be a "scenic county" and all goals, principles, and policies will reflect and devolve from this fundamental recognition." This is particularly important with the Shenandoah National Park occupying more than 20% or our land area with towering views that eliminate the effectiveness of most typical roadside buffers. We do allow utility scale solar projects that meet certain size and density requirements that FIT our locality. We strongly oppose granting the State Corporation Commission, a body that cannot understand our local goals, the authority to overrule local decisions regarding utility scale solar.

Bill HB 636 should not be passed. I am a farmer in Southampton county and the AG and Forestry both carry a big role in our county, this bill will do nothing but cause problems and issues. I think it is important to be a good steward of the land and carry on the traditions that our past generations worked so hard for. NO TO BILL HB 636

Taking the rights away from citizens to have their local elected representatives make important local decisions is more than wrong. I can say that i know no one in this county or in the citizens association I am in, Republican or Democrat, that supports this bill. Its the one thing that no matter the political party we agree on. Any representative supporting this should and probably pay a price in their next election or primary. A primary opponent can win over almost any incumbent that has supported this horrible legislation.

This bill proposes the circumvention of the local governments and the will of Virginia citizens by consolidating an extreme amount of authority in one organization; and based on the description of the Commission this bill exceeds its authorities. “The bill provides that an applicant who is issued a certificate by the Commission for an energy facility is exempt from obtaining approvals or permits, including any land use approvals or permits under the regulations and ordinances of the locality.” From the SCC’s website – “The SCC’s powers, which range from issuing rules and regulations to setting rates charged by large investor-owned utilities, are delineated by the state constitution and state law.” No description of authorities enabling the SCC to override local governments exists in the commission’s description. This bill replicates all the actions of eminent domain without calling it that. It appears the landowners/property owners are not going to be compensated for their losses if the commission approves issuing a certificate. Per the Code of Virginia 1-219.1 Limitations on Eminent Domain, A. The right to private property being a fundamental right, the General Assembly shall not pass any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses without just compensation. Electric utilities or independent power providers should not be allowed to simply overrule a municipality’s decision based on the fact the decision did not go in their favor or simply meeting a threshold established by the Commission, “The bill applies to any solar energy facility with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more, any wind energy facility with a capacity of 100 megawatts or more, and any energy storage facility with a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts or more and an energy discharge capability of 200 megawatt hours or more”. Nor is there any discussion within the bill to allow municipalities or citizens to present information, issues, concerns regarding their case for denial prior to a decision by the SCC. Municipalities have put forth great efforts in developing policies concerning land usage which adhere to the many environmental rules and regulations, zoning rules and regulations for future development, the vision of the municipality, and the will of the citizens of said municipality. Circumventing these efforts through the authorization of the Commission to override the local authorities does not bold well. Another reason to veto this bill is the building of wealth by citizenry. For most citizens, the building of wealth begins with the American dream, owning property. The siting of electric utilities or independent power provider facilities within or adjacent to established communities seriously impacts the abilities of citizens to create and hold wealth through property ownership. Studies show the detrimental affects these solar and wind facilities have on personal property values. Again, this bill does not demonstrate any concern for individual property rights.

Mecklenburg County stands in firm opposition to this proposed legislation. We object to legislation that erodes and abrogates local government land use decision making. We also are concerned that the structure of this bill, as designed, places undue pressure solely upon local governments. Essentially, the framework of this bill provides local governments with a choice: take a deal quickly and get paid or if any push back occurs, decision making is removed and the financial terms weaken. This structure does not promote sound land use determinations in this Commonwealth nor does it lend itself to fostering relationships between the private and public sector. Currently, the market rate in siting agreements per megawatt payments, negotiated in good faith between parties, significantly dwarfs the “community agreement” terms set out in the proposed §56-632. Therefore, if counties wish to continue to achieve the better benefits hitherto provided to local governments by the General Assembly over the last few sessions in exchange for solar development, they must act – and act quickly, within only 120 days. This assumes that investigation of necessary conditions in areas such as buffers, screening, environmental protection, and the like; exchange of paper; scheduling appearances before Planning Commissions and Boards of Supervisors; advertising; holding public hearing; and a vote, among other actions, can all occur in those 120 days. This is unreasonable and not in conjunction with process realities; indeed, this is shown by granting the SCC one year to do what local governments are given only four months, with many of the same documents required to be submitted. Forcing a decision in this sector will not lead to better outcomes nor yield more positive benefits for Virginia’s residents. Additionally, this process provides an applicant with perverse incentives, whereby one could deliberately slow their negotiations in order to get before the SCC and potentially pay for less for a project. Yet, at no point does the bill provide an avenue to deny the agreement due to applicant inaction. If this bill were to proceed, Mecklenburg County suggests the following revisions: 1. Increase the megawatts for solar energy and energy storage facilities for when this bill applies to 100 megawatts, to mirror the amount listed for wind; 2. Increase the length of time for siting negotiations to occur and to be no less than that provided to the SCC; 3. Divorce the limited time frame for negotiations from the time frame necessary for advertising, public hearings, and public Board votes; 4. Create a penalty for applicants who do not negotiate in good faith, such as removal of their ability to appeal; 5. Eliminate the set out dollar amount in the proposed §56-632; or increase the amount significantly; or set out a no less than dollar amount.

Siting of energy facilities should remain under local control. Battery storage facilities in particular present fire risks that should be managed through local zoning.

I and the residents in PG County are actively organizing and speaking out at our local Board of Supervisors meetings against excessive desire to turn all farmland and forests into solar farm sites. Some applications are for the sites that are located in a declared RURAL CONSERVATION area, or at least residential and agricultural zoned land. The property owners DO NOT live in the Pr. George county – they are only looking to make money on the land in the area they don’t have any personal connection to. We can express our views and be heard on the local level and be effective. This bill by Del. Sullivan is telling the rural residents that they have no say about their neighborhood and land conservation preferences. If this bill passes, the decision will be made at the top by the SCC and not by the residents who actually have to live in the area and risk their health and safety by being in proximity to the solar farm site. Del. Sullivan does not represent the rural communities like Pr. George and Sussex.

HB 636 is is NOT about solar utility installations alone. It is about who gets to decide. Counties have done well deciding how to use their land and they do not need the Commonwealth legislators who are lobbied by solar companies, or any other large corporations, to do that job for them. This is a bill that takes the responsibility and the right of counties to decide land use away from the county and puts into the hands of legislators, many of whom have no stake in the county affected or in question, and in many cases, these same legislators have not even visited the county where they intend to decide land use. So, they wouldn't or even couldn't know the impact of their decision on that county or its land owners and residents. Counties need to decide for themselves the best use of their land in accordance with their comprehensive planning and zoning efforts - and this is not the job of the legislators who work at the Capital in Richmond.

This bill takes away our right to have our local officials , essentially us, to control what we live near. It is totally wrong. I can say this for it, it is the one piece of legislation I have seen that everyone here, no matter their political party agree on, that it is a horrible bill and should not pass. I implore you to vote against this piece of legislation that takes away citizens direct representation on an important issue. It has been proven in Europe that solar does not work. Why we want to use something already proven unsuccessful on a large scale can only be described as stupid.

As a resident of Southampton County and landowner, the locality should have the authority to make decisions on solar farms. If the delegate is passionate regarding having solar farms, then they should promote it in their locality. I strongly oppose this bill!

Power to make decisions on solar farms needs to be left to the localities in which they would be built. In addition solar farms do not need to be built on productive farm or forest lands.

I oppose bill HB636 and ask Governor Youngkin to veto this bill if it makes it to his desk! The people that live in northern Virginia should not determine the way of life for those of us who live in rural areas. … our communities have for the most part rejected Solar, for many reasons but mainly because it affects our way of life - farming, hunting and timber crops, etc. . And because we all have rejected it, now you are trying to force us to live with this eyesore for your benefit!! Mr. Sullivan should propose a bill to stick all this solar nonsense on top of the roofs of the buildings in his own community of Alexandra, Arlington, Fairfax & surrounding areas, not on farmland that will be destroyed by solar once being placed on it, it will ruin the land and long after their solar lease agreement is over, the farmland will never be able to be used to grow anything again…. I will remind those in the big city, food is not grown in the grocery stores but on farms!! Governor Youngkin, do not let NOVA tell us how to live, our own communities should decide our own way of life, and those that like the big city & the way of life it offers, please stay there because we don’t want you!

I am opposed to HB636. I do not agree with taking the decision away from the people that live near the soil panels much less the damage it will do to the soil.

I oppose HB636 and all that it wishes to accomplish. The Virginia Clean Economy Act is the vehicle being used to push this “sustainable” form of energy on Virginians and proposing a bill to circumvent the wishes of the localities and its citizens is quite appalling. Even more appalling is the fact that we are completely upending our energy sector in this state and country for a ~0.02% increase in atmospheric CO2 over a 175 year span. Working forests, native grasslands and agricultural crops naturally capture and sequester the appropriate amounts of CO2 and are actually sustainable, and aesthetically pleasing. I respectfully ask, that you not push this bill through.

I do not agree with the proposed subject. I fully believe it should be left the elected officials of our locality that have to live with the decisions rather then politicians in Richmond that don’t know personally what is at stake.

The buzz word that everyone has been shouting for many years is “sustainability”. The influx of solar farms throughout Virginia is destroying much of the “sustainable”, productive agricultural and forest lands that would continue to furnish food and fiber for our growing population for many years into the future, and replacing it with fields of panels that will destroy the productive nature of the soil. Destroying this land for a short life span of solar panels is not “sustainable”. Please let the local jurisdictions decide the fate of their own communities and vote “NO” to HB636. Thank you.

NO to solar farms. We don't want them.

NO to all industrial solar in Sussex County.

I VOTE NO to HB636!!!!! You are trying to take away the rights and voices of the citizens. PLEASE STOP!

Stop solar farms from being built where residents are opposed to them. They don’t make good neighbors. Heavy metals, increased, radiation, higher temperatures and farmland that will be useless in the future because the soil has been stripped off of it and is laden with heavy metals will be of no good for our children in the future. if the citizens who have to live within the areas of the solar firms, make the decisions not the solar companies . Stop HB636.

NO TO SOLAR IN VIRGINIA!

The federal government should not interfere with the decisions of the localities. This allows for our own local governments to make our communities great.

Vote NO

It is critically important for local residents and local government officials to maintain responsibility for decisions regarding local land use. Such decisions, made within the parameters of state policy, need to be made at the local level, with local residents’ input and involvement.

I as a Resident of Sussex County find that taking away the voice of her citizens to decide what is right for the County. It is not in the spirit of what the Founders intended

The issue of land use and development holds great significance in every community and to me personally. When it comes to making decisions about how land should be utilized, it is crucial to consider the input and opinions of the residents and landowners who will be directly affected. House Bill 636, a proposed bill that seeks to bypass the involvement of the county government and residents in land use decisions, undermines the democratic process and disregards the voices of those who live in the community. By voting against HB 636 we are advocating for a transparent and inclusive approach to land use planning, one that places power back into the hands of the people. It fosters a sense of ownership and pride as residents are empowered to shape the future of their own neighborhoods. Let us stand together and vote against HB636. We need to encourage Governor Youngkin to prioritize the wellbeing and rights of all individuals by vetoing this harmful legislation.

Please vote NO to HB 636, the SCC should not dictate the ok or presence of solar farms. This is a power that needs to remain in the hands of cities, towns and county leaders.

I am writing to express my OPPOSITION for HB636 which would take away the authority of localities in Virginia to have control over the placement, development and regulation of solar energy facilities. Local governing agencies need to have the power to regulate solar farms as well as their destruction of heavily forested land in VA. It is an abuse of eminent domain and will further create burden and hardship on Virginia localities.

I wish to express my opposition to the passage of HB636. This bill takes away the authority of the local governing bodies to make decisions based on what is best for their locality and its residents. Land use should be determined by those directly affected, not by the SCC or any person or agency at the state level. Thank you

I urge you to vote against HB 636. If necessary, I urge Gov. Youngkin to veto it!! Our farmland is one of our most precious resources. A nation that can’t feed itself (control its food supply) is a nation that cannot defend itself. Every local county has a right to govern itself. I hope we never see the day that the signs on the highway say: Welcome to Virginia, owned and operated by Dominion Energy.

Vote NO to this bill. My family and I are vehemently opposed to Solar development in our area.

Vote NO to this bill. The localities should be making these decisions, as should the people who live in and around this area. Stop trying to turn our area into your wasteland.

I am certain that Delegate “Rip” Sullivan will not be placing any of these solar facilities in part of his congressional district of Great Falls, Virginia. If these solar atrocities are so beneficial to Virginians, start with your own backyard. These “farms” are detrimental to the land, to the property values, and to the quality of life for residents. Leave local governments to decide what is best for their communities. The only people who promote solar power are the people who do not have to live near or around panels.

This bill is in direct opposition to the democratic process. This essentially says that solar companies can circumvent any local governments’ plans for their communities at the expense of those localities. Why should a company be allowed to erect these monstrosities anywhere they wish without any input from the citizens who will be affected most? Doesn’t it seem strange that the only people who promote solar power are the people who do not have to live with panels in their backyards? If you want solar energy so badly, begin by eliciting voters in your own district and put them where you live.

Vote NO to this Bill. STOP taking the voices from residents! Allow the localities to make the decision! They know what is best, they live there!

Approval and siting of solar facilities should remain with each locality. The SCC should have no authority to dictate what type of industry a county should approve. Please vote no to HB636.

I vehemently oppose this bill. The local government should remain the entity to decide what the needs are for the county. I feel it is easier for the local government to monitor the needs, wants, desires, etc of its residents. Making it a state government position would be a rubber stamp approval, and would take away the voices of those most affected by granting approval for future solar projects. No no no to this bill.

HB 636: Please vote down HB 636. Taking the control of land use and rural planning away from local governments is a recipe for disaster. This is a bill that will negatively impact rural communities throughout Virginia. Each county should have the authority to shape its community based on the interests of the local residents rather than a statewide quota to reach an energy goal set by the state, without regard to the unique qualities of each county. Again, I ask you to vote down HB 636.

SOLAR SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO LOCALITIES. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH EVERYTHING AFTER THE FACT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNKNOWN HAZARDS THAT MAY COME WITH THE SOLAR PANELS BOTH SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM.

Whom do all these "improvements" benefit?

I am opposing HB636. Our community has already been inundated with industrial scale solar facilities. Our valuable agricultural and timber land has greatly decreased negatively impacting the rural character of Hicksford District, Greensville County, Va. Solar development has divided families and friends. It is expensive to generate. Southside Virginia communities will not allow the SCC to dictate to our elected officials what we can and cannot do. This bill is ridiculous.

Please rethink this bill on letting State decide over the local authority on whether solar farms should be built or not. Think of the people it will affect the most. The bill originator would NEVER LET THIS BE HAPPENING in his backyard nor any of his affluent neighbors, but yet he thinks it is ok to throw this bill out there to us “little people” and we should just put up with it. We live and love our land. How many in the epa would scream cutting down special trees but yet they have no problem tearing down trees for the benefit of solar.yet it is known that solar farms will destroy the environment and make toxic the land. You cant bring back what has been destroyed. It will take many decades to return the soil to usable conditions and that will be the bare minimum amount of time. Solar is heating the atmosphere more than coal or nuclear. Passing bills without truly assessing the pros and cons/ side effects of what will be happening is both a negative for our country never alone negative for our state. Solar is being passed on by other countries becau it is ineffective. Electricity cannot be provided to those that need it.. using solar.. Ask an electrician!

This bill is a perfect example of government overreach, placing the government’s priorities ahead of the wants and needs of hard-working, informed Virginians who the bill would directly affect. Removing the voice of Virginians is a slippery slope, particularly when the reason for the overreach is tied to money (federal incentives, lobbyist buy-offs). Solar is a bad investment and the only ones who are arguing otherwise are those who stand to gain financially. This bill allows the government to select the places it deems most attractive for solar investment, so let’s just recognize that means the poor, racial minority as a majority, and rural counties will be victim. Great look, Sullivan; STOP THIS BILL HERE AND LET VIRGINIANS KEEP OUR VOICES. MONEY SHOULDN’T BE THE REASON WE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS TAKEN! Why even have locally elected officials if this is the path Virginia’s government is taking?

Solar farms cause behavioral problems in children, also a small number of people can have electromagnetic sensitive when living close to solar farms. All solar farms must be 1.3 miles from any home or children.solar has a high up front cost and are not very efficient with an 18% energy conversion rate and on top of that solar panels can be harmful to both humans and and wildlife due to toxin materials in them. Use of the land after solar farm is done may take as long as an additional 30 years before you can plant or live on the land. All of these facts that have been presented to all of you has to have you scratching your head ,wondering why are we allowing solar panels take up 100rds of acres of land and do so much harm! But the man in the Whitehouse is pushing something very toxic and even experts and scientists and researchers say we have jump the gun on solar and wind. Someone is making a big kickback at the TAX PAYERS EXPENSE., WE do not want to be guinea pigs for politicians

I am opposed to this bill. I believe County residents should decide on what is good or bad for their county. Ultimately we the residents will have to live with the consequences of what happens in our county. So therefore we the residents should decide what Ultimately is right for us. Thank you for your time.

Please table and reject HB 636 which takes land use decision making away from localities and the people ( voters) living there.

This bill must be defeated. Residents of rural localities must be able to decide what happens in their communities and what their land conservation preferences are. Del. Sullivan does not represent rural communities like Prince George and Sussex. Vote NO on H B 636.

This bill must be defeated. Residents of rural localities must be able to decide what happens in their communities and what their land conservation preferences are. Del. Sullivan does not represent rural communities like Prince George and Sussex. Vote NO on H B 636.

HB636 needs to be defeated and local governments need to maintain their sovereign rights to approve or disapprove the projects. The state has no right or reason to interfere with local approval of these projects. This bill is just trying to justify and support the Virginia Clean Economy Act now that opposition is building to these projects. Please vote no on HB636.

Please vote No and kill SB 636. SB 636 seeks to strip local Boards of Supervisors of their authority to reject or approve solar farms. If this bill is passed, the State Corporation Commission will have the authority to override County Boards of Supervisors who reject these projects. Some projects are being rejected because many of these local governing boards are listening to and representing their constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to these projects. Local citizens in rural areas need to be represented by their local governing bodies who understand the local economy, culture and the will of the local citizens. These decisions should not be taken away from the local boards because some state leaders are not getting the results they want. This is usurping the will of the local citizens. Rural citizens need and deserve a voice. Please do not take this voice away from us. Rural citizens have stood together to defeat many of these destructive projects which really are not “green”. Many of the proposed projects will destroy farmland, timberland and natural recreational opportunities. These projects are destroying wildlife and causing devasting erosion ruining wetland, ponds, and other bodies of water. Agriculture and Forestry are the engines that run our rural economies and create jobs. The proliferation of these large solar farms may have devastating effects on our economies. These solar projects create very few permanent jobs. Destroying farmland and timberland will certainly increase already out of control inflationary pressure by raising the cost of food and paper products while eliminating jobs in these industries. I have seen a map that indicates that Dominion Virginia Power wants 5 million solar panels in Greensville County alone. These solar "farms" are not farms. They are industrial power plants and rural residents do not want to live in an industrial area considering the proven risks associated with these projects. If urban areas want to subsidize solar (which I am against) they should at least subsidize the installation of solar panels on buildings and parking lots. I understand that Walmart and JP Morgan Chase are considering covering their parking lots with flat roofs and then they plan to install solar panels on these roofs. This strategy utilizes solar while protecting valuable natural resources including the safety our water supply. I understand that New Jersey is providing subsidies for residents to install solar on residential roofs. Rural Virginians should have the ability to determine what is and isn’t constructed in their communities. Rural Virginians are going to have to live with the negative consequences of these projects, therefore our local leaders should hold the authority to make informed decisions that are based on the input of the citizens they represent. Thank you for your consideration of my position in this matter.

Leave lower level issues on the table for lower level agencies. Town and counties should oversee if a commercial use of our precious wetlands and farmable areas is agreeable with the community standards or not.

Please vote NO on HB636. Make no mistake that these out of town energy companies riding the not so clean wave of Solar Farms do not have the County interests at heart. Prince George County is full of wet swamp lands and abundant wildlife. The energy companies do not want what we have set aside for them. They want our residential areas and planning zones. Solar Farms are Industrial Commercial sites. Please, do not take away the rights of Counties to plan their communities. I encourage you to visit some of these Solar Farms and talk to the people living next to them. The issues with these sites are all over the news. Please vote NO.

Vote NO to Bill HB636. Leave land use and long term facilities in the hands of the folks that put you in office at the local level with the towns and counties it directly affects, Rural Virginia deserves better!

I and the residents in PG County are actively organizing and speaking out at our local Board of Supervisors meetings against excessive desire to turn all farmland and forests into solar farm sites. Some applications are for the sites that are located in a declared RURAL CONSERVATION area, or at least residential and agricultural zoned land. The property owners DO NOT live in the Pr. George county – they are only looking to make money on the land in the area they don’t have any personal connection to. We can express our views and be heard on the local level and be effective. This bill by Del. Sullivan is telling the rural residents that they have no say about their neighborhood and land conservation preferences. If this bill passes, the decision will be made at the top by the SCC and not by the residents who actually have to live in the area and risk their health and safety by being in proximity to the solar farm site. Del. Sullivan does not represent the rural communities like Pr. George and Sussex. Vote NO on HB 636. (Copy/pasted because it said everything perfectly. )

Please table and reject HB 636 which takes land use decision making away from localities and the people ( voters) living there.

I urge our legislators to kill this bill. Local communities know better how to protect the resources in their jurisdictions over state legislators who have little to no knowledge of those resources because in many cases the circumstances are different throughout the state. To give the State Corporation Commission the right to override a local Government’s decision in these matters is tantamount to a Government Taking! If so called Green Energy was as good for communities as preached, localities would be jumping on the bandwagon to have them built rather than legislators in populated areas pushing this on the back of rural areas. Put those panels on your houses, government buildings, parking garages, shopping centers, schools etc. Not on our pristine forest and productive farm land.

I and the residents in PG County are actively organizing and speaking out at our local Board of Supervisors meetings against excessive desire to turn all farmland and forests into solar farm sites. Some applications are for the sites that are located in a declared RURAL CONSERVATION area, or at least residential and agricultural zoned land. The property owners DO NOT live in the Pr. George county – they are only looking to make money on the land in the area they don’t have any personal connection to. We can express our views and be heard on the local level and be effective. This bill by Del. Sullivan is telling the rural residents that they have no say about their neighborhood and land conservation preferences. If this bill passes, the decision will be made at the top by the SCC and not by the residents who actually have to live in the area and risk their health and safety by being in proximity to the solar farm site. Del. Sullivan does not represent the rural communities like Pr. George and Sussex. Vote NO on HB 636.

Please vote NO on HB636. Local issues should be dealt with by local residents and property owners - not by legislators that don't fully understand the impact of their decisions.

Lay this bill on the table. Leave planning and land use at the local level. Thanks

HB636 is nothing more than an attempt at eminent domain regarding placement of solar facilities. Land-use decisions should be the responsibility of the locality's governing body--not politicians and bureaucrats in Richmond, northern Virginia or Washington DC. This is a bad bill that does not represent the will of the people. Vote NO.

HB636 is a vailed attempt by wealthy companies to obtain and exercise a version of eminent domain over the taxpaying citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia. Currently, local governments are the only entity that can slow down these fly by night solar companies and their quest of destroying millions of acres of agricultural land and wildlife habitat. The elected officials of a local government disagrees and votes no to a solar project site, this bill will allow the solar company to completely disregard the elected governing body of municipality. That is dangerous precedent that should not be set. You would remove the ability to govern from the hands of the people voted to represent the citizens of their communities. Vote no to HB636!

HB636 is a vailed attempt by wealthy companies to obtain and exercise a version of eminent domain over the taxpaying citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia. Currently, local governments are the only entity that can slow down these fly by night solar companies and their quest of destroying millions of acres of agricultural land and wildlife habitat. The elected officials of a local government disagrees and votes no to a solar project site, this bill will allow the solar company to completely disregard the elected governing body of municipality. That is dangerous precedent that should not be set. You would remove the ability to govern from the hands of the people voted to represent the citizens of their communities. Vote no to HB636!

The residents of Prince George county should have a say in what is done in our county not some person who sits in an office somewhere who doesn’t have to live with the decisions that he makes. Some of these people who want solar sites don’t even live here. We are going to use our vote against people that go against the wishes of the people of this county.

We need to let the citizens of the locality choose where they want solar farms

I and the residents in PG County are actively organizing and speaking out at our local Board of Supervisors meetings against excessive desire to turn all farmland and forests into solar farm sites. Some applications are for the sites that are located in a declared RURAL CONSERVATION area, or at least residential and agricultural zoned land. The property owners DO NOT live in the Pr. George county – they are only looking to make money on the land in the area they don’t have any personal connection to. We can express our views and be heard on the local level and be effective. This bill by Del. Sullivan is telling the rural residents that they have no say about their neighborhood and land conservation preferences. If this bill passes, the decision will be made at the top by the SCC and not by the residents who actually have to live in the area and risk their health and safety by being in proximity to the solar farm site. Del. Sullivan does not represent the rural communities like Pr. George and Sussex. Vote NO on HB 636.

I'm have been a resident of Prince George County for 19 years. We as residents have been fighting to keep the solar farms from being built in our county. We thought as residents got through to our counties BOS to NOT build anymore of these farms in our county. They voted against it and then we see THIS HB636 bill surface it's ugly head. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE AGINST THIS BILL! PLEASE help those who do NOT want to ruin our environment with stuff that will not help our children. Please work on BILLS that'll HELP our current farmers and future farmers. Just in the past couple of weeks Farm land all around us is going up for sell. Then i see our county has raised taxes 36% for our farmers. WHY? So that Solar can buy it out?! We want to see fields growing crops and pastures with livestock because that is our future. We can live with limited Energy but we can not live without trees and farmers. I want to stay here in PG in Virginia because this is where i have now called home. Not the robotic mountainsides of AZ/ CA with their wind farm forests and black solar farm seas. We NEED to help our farmers! We need to protect our lands from these mechanical devices that hurt us more to make/create and hurts our environment in the long run. We need bills that help people. PLEASE help us. PLEASE VOTE NO on HB636!

I am writing to express my opposition to proposed bill HB636: Siting of Energy Facilities. The bill is coming on the heels of a year-long city-wide review of the Kitty Hawk Offshore Wind Project and we are very concerned that Avangrid Renewables is using the state legislature to circumvent the results of this local review. This bill in its current form would set a terrible precedent, allowing an offshore wind developer to override local municipality decisions on transmission line infrastructure siting and landfall. This legislation, if implemented, will result in the diminishment of the right of municipalities to determine what is best for their community. It flies in the face of a more through, reasoned approach to easements and permitting. Avangrid Renewable’s proposal to land six 60-centimeter cables on Sandbridge Beach, and run them only 48 inches below the ground through neighborhoods and under busy streets was determined to not be in the best interests of the City of Virginia Beach. Since they would not listen to or amend their plans to emphasize the health and safety of Virginians (your constituents), they turned to a ploy to have the Virginia State Legislature force the issue. Under this legislation, a bad / faulty design (like the one proposed by Avangrid Renewables) will haunt the citizens and visitors to the City of Virginia Beach for decades.

Please vote no on bill hb636. As a farmer in mecklenburg county I am strongly against anymore solar farms to be installed in our county. They have taken to much farmland in our county as it is. Enough is enough! Thank you

Greetings: Please reject this House Bill 636. The placement of a solar site is a “local” issue that the local taxpaying property owners in the “local” community must deal with “locally”. Placement of a solar sites has a direct impact on the local tax paying property owners/families, neighbors and community and those “local residents” directly affected must have the easiest access possible to voice their concerns. That “easiest access” to be heard is at the LOCAL level. This HB 636 undermines and removes from the local community, and the authority elected by local residents, their voices. This bill would put persons NOT from the locale being affected and who have no clue about the local families/ property that would be affected, to make decisions that would affect the local residents. THEREFORE, since issues that directly affect local tax paying residents and families MUST remain at the local level and not usurped by the state body that will have no knowledge of the locale affected, this HB 636 must not pass out of this committee. Thank you. W. Bill Steele Disputanta, VA., 23842

Solar farms are industrial. I think elected officials should not take away our rights as citizens to say no to solar.1) not to live 1 3 miles from a industrial solar farm. ( these are facts)2) cause behavioral problems in children! Those 2 facts should scare the heck out of you.3) solar has higher potential to have negative impact by decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 4) bad effects of solar impacts on areas flora and fauna 5) some governments deem solar as toxic.6)you only get 20% energy . If no sun no energy.,snow hail,winds can effect solar. 7) solar produces 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear. 8)the protection of wetlands and conservation land should be protected at all cost which the solar companies have not cared. You put one near wetlands then you cut off the wetlands by having solar nearby THAT IS NOT PROTECTING WETLANDS. 9)Soil compaction and erosion as well as blockage of drainage channels resulting in land degradation!10) solar farms are fire hazards. IF the catch fire there will be a person in Texas that takes care of it. When asked salesman what happens then. They said let it burn!! 69% of these solar companies have gone belly up. These salesman can make up to 100,000$ in just commission, so you better believe they are going to sell you. Goverment works for us not we work for government. After the allotted time frame of 30 years that solar farm will be there it it just guesstimate by experts that you can not use the land for farming or homes for ANOTHER 30 years. I bet none of you have done your proper research on the I'll effects of solar. Right now thousands of people can sue just over the fact that you are not to live 1.3 miles from a solar farm. They only have less than 2 % of panel can be recycled. So what are you going to do then?? They can't go to the local dump.And the biggest of them all our home values plummet drastically. Drastically! On Rives Road they tired to sell. No one even looked at their home. Noone! As well as removing trees that are way better for the environment than solar. Big one too, a solar farm can raise the temperature in a 3 miles radius up to 10 to 12 degrees hotter. Which kills animals, has negative impact on soil, and humans. At least a tree can shade you ,clean the air,etc. So I am Totally against your power grab. So please stop the displacement of animals, some who are protected,like eagles,hawks,certain almost extinct birds/ animals. Solar is not green and we will pay the price of next generation, which I hope you care about. So these facts are facts and someone needs to do their research! Research! Research before you damage our lands for good!

This bill would take away the right of citizens to determine what happens in their locality as well as take away the duty of our elected representatives to do the job they were elected to do. It would put the decisions for energy projects in the hands of unelected, unaccountable members of a committee decisions that effect the daily lives and fortunes of citizens they do not know. Please do not pass this bill.

Stop killing our trees and polluting our water. The panels already installed are not properly maintained. This whole scheme amounts to the Government spending our money on infrastructure that destroys agriculture with no benefit. Let’s attempt to maintain what’s already installed in order to determine how beneficial the technology may be. Stop spending our money on infrastructure that only benefits the wealthy and results in little to no benefit for the majority of tax payers.

Mecklenburg county doesn't need more Solar, its nothing buy a eye sore for the community an really has no benefit for Mecklenburg

To whom it may concern, Please vote NO to HB636. We all know that this bill is padding the pocket of the one who patroned this bill. The state should not be micro managing the counties. We are losing more and more farm and timberland to these solar farms that do not benefit anyone except for the wealthy people that own the land. The farms are not efficient and are a complete government hack and tax break. If they were so efficient the companies around my way would fix theirs more frequently when they are not working. Once again , I am in opposition of HB636 and ask that you all vote NO to this bill. James

We want to express our frustration and strong opposition to this unnecessary move by the legislature. We were informed that this action is being influenced by Avangrid Renewables to bypass the local review process. This is misguided for many reasons: -Virginia Beach is working cooperatively in support of the VCEA & has committed to the Dominion CVOW Project. This project will be very disruptive for communities along the cable route. It is proceeding at pace and will cover 50% of the VCEA requirement. -Avangrid's Kitty Hawk Wind (KHW) proposal was fairly and publicly debated for over a year, and it was concluded that the project had too many open issues to move forward. Avangrid was able to have their say. Communities were able to share their research and concerns. The process worked the way it should. As proposed, the project was simply not workable. -BOEM has approved a new lease area east of Dominion CVOW schedule for bids later this year. The new lease area will cover the remaining VCEA requirements while minimizing impact to Virginia Beach residents by potentially routing cables with current CVOW route. -Where the KHW project makes landfall has no impact on the economic opportunity for Hampton Roads. A 2019 study performed by the Virginia Dept of Energy indicates the target market for the Hampton Roads Offshore Wind Hub covers projects from New York to SC. The long term job creation is tied to construction, operation and maintenance of the offshore windfarm itself . KHW could connect to the grid at any location and it would still be served by Hampton Roads Offshore Wind hub. -Avangrid corp earnings presentations note intent to sell a portion of the KHW lease area IAW their asset rotation strategy. The value reported to analysts is $0.24-0.28/share or approximately $100M yielding a favorable return on their $9M lease purchase. The planned sale is included in their 2023 earnings outlook 2Q & 3Q reports. They have indicated their willingness to sell the lease area to the North Carolina Utilities Comm in support of the NC Carbon plan (NCUC docket E-100, Sub 179). Therefore, Virginia does not know who will ultimately own and develop the KHW lease area. The city of Virginia Beach has acted IAW authority granted by the VA Constitution and the City Charter approved by the Gen Assy. There is no compelling reason for the state to override the actions of City Council and the will of the Virginia Beach citizenry. As a community we are supporting req’s of VCEA. Local officials&citizens are best positioned to understand the issues in our community. Avangrid has not been honest or transparent with stakeholders and decision makers. The CityCouncil was right to say NO. All stakeholders understand the importance of the VCEA, working to find solutions that work for the Commonwealth and the local community. Virginia Beach & its residents have acted with clear understanding of civic responsibility. We are asking that you trust the process and trust citizens to do what is in the best interest of the Commonwealth and our local communities. The SCC is not positioned to lead this level of comprehensive review nor can it fully investigate land use issues at the local level. Local government is best positioned to fulfill this vital role. Political leaders call on citizens to get involved. Please don't reward civic engagement by overriding our work. For all these reasons and more, we respectfully ask that you withdraw consideration of HB636

This bill proposes the circumvention the local governments and the will of Virginia citizens by consolidating an extreme amount of authority in one organization; and based on the description of the Commission this bill exceeds its authorities. “The bill provides that an applicant who is issued a certificate by the Commission for an energy facility is exempt from obtaining approvals or permits, including any land use approvals or permits under the regulations and ordinances of the locality.” From the SCC’s website – “The SCC’s powers, which range from issuing rules and regulations to setting rates charged by large investor-owned utilities, are delineated by the state constitution and state law.” No description of authorities enabling the SCC to override local governments exists in the commission’s description. This bill replicates all the actions of eminent domain without calling it that. It appears the landowners/property owners are not going to be compensated for their losses if the commission approves issuing a certificate. Per the Code of Virginia 1-219.1 Limitations on Eminent Domain, A. The right to private property being a fundamental right, the General Assembly shall not pass any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for public uses without just compensation. Electric utilities or independent power providers should not be allowed to simply overrule a municipality’s decision based on the fact the decision did not go in their favor or simply meeting a threshold established by the Commission, “The bill applies to any solar energy facility with a capacity of 50 megawatts or more, any wind energy facility with a capacity of 100 megawatts or more, and any energy storage facility with a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts or more and an energy discharge capability of 200 megawatt hours or more”. Nor is there any discussion within the bill to allow municipalities or citizens to present information, issues, concerns regarding their case for denial prior to a decision by the SCC. Municipalities have put forth great efforts in developing policies concerning land usage which adhere to the many environmental rules and regulations, zoning rules and regulations for future development, the vision of the municipality, and the will of the citizens of said municipality. Circumventing these efforts through the authorization of the Commission to override the local authorities does not bold well. Another reason to veto this bill is the building of wealth by citizenry. For most citizens, the building of wealth begins with the American dream, owning property. The siting of electric utilities or independent power provider facilities within or adjacent to established communities seriously impacts the abilities of citizens to create and hold wealth through property ownership. Studies show the detrimental affects these solar and wind facilities have on personal property values. Again, this bill does not demonstrate any concern for individual property rights. It clearly takes away the power of the citizenry and places it in a Commission with no ties to the community. This bill represents the excessive consolidation of authority into a centralized government commission, clearly not what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

To Whom It May Concern, The Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors strongly objects to the passage of HB636. This undermines and takes away the local authority and, in turn, the voice of the citizens to make land use decisions. We strongly request that this be laid on the table, passed over, or any other terms you may apply to this bill. Thank you! Sincerely, Pastor William M. McCarty Sr. District 2 Supervisor Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors Chairman - HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) VACo - 1st Vice President

Here y'all go again. Just as you did with plastic bag taxes, and “local gun control", some of you aim to forsake the Dillon Rule and authorize localities to outlaw gasoline-powered leaf blowers (and more). There is so much wrong with HB644 (and) SB305: 1. Many in the G.A. lack the courage to enact such a law for the entire state, knowing that it’s too unpopular to ever pass. So you “pass the buck” to counties and cities such that at least some of your radical Leftist agenda can be achieved in the few places throughout Va. where ignorant voters elect local officials who’ll enact such an insidious ordinance. 2. This measure demonstrates your blatant racism, particularly toward our “brown” community. Leaf blowers are used largely by small business owners of Hispanic descent as they strive to make an honest living in the lawncare/landscaping industry. These “workers” (as you Marxists call them) don’t have the money to buy all new equipment. Note: Salim’s Bill says, “Civil penalties assessed under this section shall be paid into the treasury of the locality where the violation occurred and may be used by the locality to assist with the purchase of nonprohibited leaf blowers by residents and local businesses.” I want to see the cost analysis that establishes there’ll be enough “civil penalties” money collected to replace all gas leaf blowers with "nonprohibited" ones in any given locality. Even if there were (as I’ve explained previously regarding bag-taxes) we know that that money will never make it out of the “treasury” and back to individuals who you suggest deserve it. In other words, there’s simply too much corruption, graft and incompetence within the bureaucracies that collect, account for, and (supposedly) disseminate that money for Salim’s scheme to work scrupulously. By the way, Mr. Salim, what do you mean the money “may be used......”? Why don’t you say that, “it “must” be used to assist with the purchase of nonprohibited blowers? This slight but sinister discrepancy further reveals your insincerity. Finally, please define "nonprohibited" (And in doing so, describe in great detail the specifications of such a blower: how many cfm does it produce, what will be its power source, what brands are acceptable, where are repair shops that are capable of maintaining them, etc. ?) 3. Banning leaf blowers is but a “Trojan horse”. You intend to eventually outlaw all gas- and propane-powered devices: lawnmowers, string trimmers, chainsaws, hedge trimmers, snow blowers, automobiles and countless other tools that facilitate Virginians’ pursuit of happiness (that is, to maintain their privately owned property). (We know that those of you like Salim subscribe to the United Nations’ “Agenda 21/30” where there would be absolutely no private ownership of any property whatsoever, thus making us all dependent on the government and subject to the whims of Marxists like you.) Those who claim that leaf blowers (and similar tools) are too noisy and emit pollution are too ignorant to realize that alternatives (batteries, for example) are even worse for our environment, but I don’t have the time now to detail the hideous affect batteries have on our environment throughout their lifespan; from the mining of their components, to their disposal, and to the fossil-fueled power required to keep batteries charged.

OPPOSE BILLS= LACK OF LIBERTY! President Biden, Progressive Democrats, and Democratic Socialists of America sure have limited citizens' choices. Your Party has done a great job putting America last. "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." ~ John F. Kennedy

PLEASE pass HB 644!! The huge amount of noise pollution gas powered leaf blowers produce is overwhelming. EVERY DAY during the Spring and Fall each year they overtake communities with their constant noise, producing very little and/or no gain for it. There are alternatives - Electric, rakes, etc that can take their place. Landscape companies espouse their benefit, yet only for them, as they are used as a cheap jobs program rather than actually producing results. They create havoc among our local communities with their constant noise. Please give residents of each locality the ability to govern and regulate the use of gas powered leaf blowers.

I support this bill to allow localities to prohibit or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. In my suburban neighborhood gas leaf blowers are a daily source of noise and emissions. More eco-friendly alternatives to leaf management exist, making the need for these tools obsolete. They also negatively impact the local air quality and health of landscaping workers. Passing this bill allows communities to protect their local air quality.

Please, please, please, please pass HB644 (Gas-powered leaf blowers; local prohibition or regulation, civil penalty) to allow Virginia localities to regulate these awful machines that could be easily replaced by better alternatives (rakes, tarps, brooms, electric equipment, etc.). Look how many scores of Virginians would applaud you for passing this important, life-changing legislation! Gas-powered leaf blowers and chemical sprayers put vulnerable workers at extreme risk of hearing and lung damage. They destroy the quality of life for so many Virginians for much of the year with noise that penetrates walls and earplugs hundreds of feet away. Using horribly inefficient two-stroke engines, they spew air pollution, accelerate climate change, send topsoil and animal feces airborne to be washed into our waterways, and disrupt habitats for humans, animals, and pollinators alike. Peace be with you. Virginia's localities eagerly await a more peaceful future. Thank you for your work making Virginia a cleaner, quieter place to live and work.

I strongly support HB644. Communities are becoming more aware of the considerable environmental damage created by the two-stroke engines in most commercial leaf blowers. Further, as many commenters have noted, the noise created by these devices has gone beyond just being a nuisance. I've heard from members of my City Council that a local ordinance could be put in place if given the legal authority to do so. I would be proud for the City of Falls Church to lead in this regard. I might also suggest that Virginia localities consider ending leaf collection in the fall, which could dissuade the use of these blowers. Doing so would also save our towns money, prevent piled leaves from obstructing roadways or storm drains, and avoid a fire hazard. Fallen leaves are an excellent natural fertilizer for lawns, shrubs and trees, and we should encourage our neighbors to disregard the pressure to have a "pristine" yard. There are much more sustainable ways of managing this natural, beautiful process!

Gas powered leaf blowers are horrible for anyone walking past them and breathing the air nearby (or not so nearby). Localities should have the power to ban or regulate their use.

I support HB 644. I reside in a 7th storey condominium in Arlington. Sitting on my balcony to talk or read is impossible when workers on the ground are moving leaves off of a walkway. I think that there are several viable alternatives to gas powered leaf blowers.

I support HB 644. In addition to the detrimental effects of gas blowers on both health and the environment, I believe that local jurisdictions should have the autonomy to determine their restrictions.

We are a fervent supporters of HB 644. We reside in Arlington and the homes are so close together we can hear the lawn companies all spring/summer/fall inside our home due to the volume of their equipment. It's very disturbing to all neighbors who either have children who require mid-day naps and/or work from home which is a large majority of us. Please pass this bill in support of the citizens of Virginia. Thank you.

I support HB 644. As a resident of Arlington, our houses are very close together and when a neighbor uses a gas powered leaf blower, we can hear it all throughout our house and it's very disturbing. I would love to see HB 644 get passed which would improve our quality of life and be better for the environment.

I support HB 644. In addition to the detrimental effects of gas blowers on both health and the environment, I believe that local jurisdictions should have the autonomy to determine their restrictions.

I support HB644. I strongly believe that local jurisdictions should have the autonomy to determine their restrictions around leaf blowers.

I support HB 644

As a hardworking professional I strongly support this legislation. These machines are so loud and are used so often that they interfere with doctors' ability to work in the hospital. They blast outside my call room and wake me up after I have been up all night delivering babies. All just to blow grass clippings. It's totally ridiculous and has to stop.

I support HB 644. The landscape industry shows zero concern for the health of its landscape crews who are exposed on a daily basis to staggering levels of pollution emitted by the typically 2-stroke engine of these loud filthy tools. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) says that operating a commercial lawn mower for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving a new light-duty passenger car about 300 miles, over 4 hours of driving. But operating a commercial leaf blower for one hour emits smog-forming pollution comparable to driving a new light-duty passenger car about 1100 miles – over 15 hours of driving. Emissions from gas blowers include carcenogenic VOCs such as benzene, acetaldehyde, and butadiene. And there's the noise: gas leaf blowers go to 110 dB and workers are often without adequate hearing protection, especially in summer when ear muffs get too uncomfortable to wear. The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (“OPEI”) has the blatant hypocrisy to say that passing HB 644 "will negatively impact OPEI members and hardworking professionals throughout Virginia. " Pure sanctimonious palaver. On the contrary, switching to zero-emissions electric leaf blowers would spare the crews from breathing in the very unhealthy exhaust of the gas powered tools. Electric may not be as efficient, but these men have only one pair of lungs, one vascular-cardiac system, one auditory system. Human health should always take precedence over profits. That said, electric leaf blowers, like gas blowers, still stir up particulate matter (PM) of which small PM (2.5 microns) is a serious health risk. N95 respirator masks, properly fitted, should be worn while operating all leaf blowers. (N95 masks will NOT protect from VOCs which are gases.)

Comments Document

The Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (“OPEI”) opposes VA HB 644 which will provides that any locality may regulate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. VA HB 644 will negatively impact OPEI members and hardworking professionals throughout Virginia. Please see the attached comments.

Please support HB644

HB644 is a common sense measure that would allow localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia to respond to the expressed desires of their community with regard to the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. The bill does not ban or otherwise regulate blowers. It does not impose anything on anyone anywhere in Virginia. It simply gives local governments the authority to adopt leaf blower ordinances as their constituents see fit. As you will have seen in the many comments posted in support of this bill, gas-powered leaf blowers are bad news for our physical and mental health and for our environment. The low-frequency noise penetrates walls hundreds of yards away, raising blood pressure, hindering concentration, and causing mental distress. The toxic emissions pollute our air and introduce carcinogens into our bodies. The blast of air - up to 190 mph - can wreak havoc on the homes of critical pollinators. The unbearable noise is what led me to join Quiet Clean NOVA which seeks to restrict or ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers, and promotes the electrification of all landscape equipment and the adoption of sustainable lawn-care practices. Gas-powered leaf blowers are largely unnecessary and are all too frequently not even used for leaves, but rather for blowing grass clippings around. The other day, my neighbor even tried to use one to blow the snow off of his walk! Battery-powered blowers require fewer repairs, are cheaper to operate, and last years longer than gas-powered ones which typically require major repair/replacement after three years. The return on investment in electric is typically as early as 3 years and can even be under one year. If Virginians somewhere in the state are asking to be protected from the physical assault of gas-powered leaf blowers, their elected local officials should be able to provide that protection. Please pass HB644.

I support HB644 in phasing out gasoline powered leaf blowers.

As of this writing, HB644 has 80 comments in favor, none against. Of the 13 that could be coded as mentioning lawns, 9 reject lawn aesthetics in favor of ecology. One comment states that people probably don't care about this issue, but it is important. Another speculates that other cities may not be opposed to gas powered leaf blowers, like theirs is. Without fail, when it comes to lawn norms more than 90 percent dislike or despise them, and most of those people feel like they are in the minority. The data suggests that the neighbors are using that annoying leaf blower because they are afraid you will frown upon them if they don't keep a tidy lawn, even as they despise your own lawn crew's leaf blower and secretly wish you'd let your lawn relax. See http://BuildingBetterCommunities.org for more data and examples. Let this be the first comment AGAINST. Why? Because this bill squanders massive political support by using the word "may" when it should use "shall.' And squandered it will be because few localities will exercise their option because departments of community development will pressure the city council members they work with week in, week out, to resist eroding lawn norms that might eventually mean they would have to downsize their department. Please use the power of Dillon's rule to finish the job our local elected officials will not be able to bring themselves to do.

I am writing in strong support for HB 644 Sullivan! The noise of gas-powered leaf blowers is an unnecessary blight on urban and suburban communities in Virginia, and this measure would rightly give localities the authority to decide, through democratic processes, what level of noise pollution, when, and where, is correct for their communities. Rural jurisdictions may decide the leaf blowers are fine; suburban ones may allow them in some places (golf courses) but not others. I hope mine will ban them entirely but recognize others will not. The machines are hurting property values by diminishing the sense of peace and quiet that should come with home ownership. The noise damages our health and ability to do productive work at home. For those with health conditions, the particulate pollution they kick up is highly dangerous - life threatening in some cases - forcing these neighbors to shelter in place in their homes during leaf blowing times - which in some places means increasingly all times, all year long! I am all for providing private companies that rely on gas powered leaf blowers some help (tax incentives or other measures) to transition to: sustainable lawn care practices (leaving leaves under bushes as protective cover and fertilizer), raking, or using electric or battery powered blowers. We need to change our expectations about what noise pollution is acceptable in our neighborhoods, at least those with high density. Again, the importance of the legislation is that communities can decide. I hope that delegates from rural jurisdictions will recognize that this proposal does nothing to impede their constituent's ability to blow leaves around their properties. But please give cities and suburbs the right to decide what is right for them!!!

I have grown increasingly annoyed by the endless noise made by the use of leaf blowers in our neighborhood. They can be heard for a long distance and now during Spring , Summer , and Fall their noise is almost always in the background. When they are used at a neighbors house by a lawn crew, the noise is particularly intense. It make you crazy, the noise penetrates walls and interrupts whatever you are doing. All this for creating a tidy lawn by blowing around some grass clipping. If this were some kind of foul smell, it would not be tolerated. People deserve to live in their own homes in peace. It is about time to regulate the use of leaf blowers . Our neighboring state and the District of Columbia have. Leaf blowers pollute (2cycle engines) and are harmful for our ears and environment. Our community should be able to decide how they are regulated, and I urge you to pass HB644.

I am writing in support of HB 644. In Alexandria City, gasoline-powered leaf blowers exceed the stated maximum noise limit set by Alexandria City Code, but the City is unable to enforce its own noise standards. Please approve HB 644 and allow communities to regulate the annoying Fall ritual which is the loud, annoying drone of gas-powered leaf blowers.

I support HB644

I urge the subcommittee to support HB 644. The use of gas powered leaf blowers should be a matter delegated to localities - the entities most in tune with local needs.

Date: January 25, 2024 Allow Municipalities to Regulate Gas-powered Leaf Blowers I strongly support HB 644 to allow localities to enforce regulations to regulate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Along with generating Noise and Pollution, Gas-powered leaf blowers account of 5 percent of Green House Gas emissions in the USA, using over 2 Billion gallons of Gasoline each year, affecting air quality adversely. Gas-powered leaf blowers emit noise at 100 dB, that is equivalent to a bulldozer, impact wrench, or motorcycle.  While a motorcycle may be loud for seconds as it passes by on your street, Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers are used over long lengths of time, in close proximity to your home. Most of us can agree that we are a captured audience when it comes to gasoline-powered leaf blowers. On any given day of the week there can be 3 or 4 workers using gas-powered leaf blowers at the same time in a neighbors yard. Just today I was told by a colleague that until the pandemic shut down which required him to work from home, that he had no idea how prevalent and how loud they really are. In Alexandria City, gasoline-powered leaf blowers exceed the stated maximum noise limit set by Alexandria City Code, but the City is powerless to enforce its own noise standards. We ask that you approve HB 644 and allow communities to regulate the noise and filth spread by Gas-powered leaf blowers. Sincerely, Paul DeCourt Registered Architect (Ret.) Alexandria, VA 22301

I am writing in support of HB644. Gas-powered leaf blowers are a menace in urban and suburban communities everywhere. Studies have shown that the noise they emit exceeds safe, acceptable levels and exceeds most local noise ordinances. Moreover, their low-frequency sound means the noise travels farther and penetrates walls and windows more easily than many other sounds, including those of electric blowers. When these machines are used on one person's property, the noise is heard by neighbors indoors and out for hundreds of yards in all directions. The noise is disruptive to people who might want to sleep or who are trying to concentrate on work or other projects. It's even more disruptive to anyone who wants to be outside, trying to enjoy their own yards. Since most gas-powered blowers have no pollution controls, they also produce massive amounts of pollution relative to the power that is generated. Pollution is not only caused by the burning of oil and gas in leaf blowers, but it's also caused by the typical one-third of the fuel that goes un-burned and is emitted into the air as fine particulate matter that is also easily inhaled. Excessive, unnecessary noise and pollution are forms of trespassing onto other people's property. HB644 does not ask that anything be done at the state level except for one thing: Allow local jurisdictions to decide whether to regulate or limit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Different communities and different areas of the state may have very different opinions about the use of leaf blowers. So why can't each local government have the right to determine whether or how much they want to allow the use of these machines? This issue is very similar to zoning ordinances because it affects people at the most local level--in their own homes and neighborhoods. So why should the right to regulate this local activity and protect local residents be prohibited by the state?

I strongly endorse this bill and the need to ban or strictly regulate the use of gas-powered leaf blowers in our communities, first and foremost for the health benefit of the landscape workers who really have no choice in the matter if they want to keep their jobs, as well as for the sanity and well-being of residents in our neighborhoods. There is no reason why high-in-demand landscaping companies cannot purchase and supply their workers with electric leaf blowers, along with an extra rechargeable batteries to do their work. This will make an important difference to the health and well-being of workers who are least able to advocate on their own behalf on this issue, and return some peace to our communities. Please, let's get this important bill passed! And, thanks to Rip Sullivan for bringing it forward...

This is to request that members of the Counties Cities and Towns Subcommittee #1 vote to support HB644, sponsored by Del. Sullivan. This bill would grant localities in Virginia the ability to prohibit/regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These noisy, unhealthful devices impact blood pressure, sleep and cardiovascular and metabolic health. Their low-frequency sound travels far and easily penetrates walls. They are harmful for landscape workers, who risk hearing loss, tinnitus and lung disease. Their primitive, inefficient two-stroke engines fail to combust 30% of their fuel, and emit 23 times the carbon monoxide and 300 times more hydrocarbons per hour than a Ford F-150 pickup truck. Moreover, their use is generally unnecessary, since electric devices can perform the same work. Many communities around the country have already banned their use, including Washington D.C. and Montgomery County, Maryland. Please vote to let local governments in the Commonwealth regulate these harmful devices as they see fit.

HB 644 is am important piece of legislation because it curtails using the terribly polluting gas powered leaf blower. Pound for pound comparison between it and the F150 pickup truck indicates that the blower is much more polluting. We need to have less carbon in the atmosphere and outlawing gas powered will force landscape workers and others to switch to either electric or battery powered blowers. I appreciate your help. Gary Medlin

It is common sense that local authorities should have the ability to regulate or ban gas-powered leaf blowers. These machines spew huge amounts of pollution and noise that hurt the entire community, and the community should be able to decide what to do about it.

I support HB644 introduced by Delegate Sullivan because it will give my city the option to eliminate or control a real problem. For example, my next-door neighbor has a gas-powered leaf blower that he uses almost every day. It is very loud, and I can see the exhaust from it. With the constant improvement in battery technology these tools work very well if they are battery powered. They will also eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Thank You

I am commenting in agreement with HB 644. Gas powered blowers create an immense amount of noise pollution in my area and are being used at all hours of the day. I work nights and have been woken up many times by these blowers being used, at a legal time, early in the morning. I also have hearing damage that is exacerbated when I inadvertently and unavoidably come into close contact with lawn maintenance workers.

I support bill HB644

The impact that climate change has on the health of our communities is irrefutable. We need to take action in our everyday lives for the future of our children.

I am asking the committee to pass HB 644 because the citizens of the state of Virginia deserve the right to create the environment which suits the local, Alexandrians live I close proximity to one another. Gas leaf blowers are operating from very early through dinnertime everywhere. The use of a single machine swill disturb people who are outside enjoying nature, sitting in the sun, or talking to one another. It is impossible to do this because of the sounds which are well of 65 DC, thereby breaking the noise limit every single day. Additionally. There are noxious gases flying in your air, and the disturbance of micro ecosystems which live in the leaves. You cannot avoid the sound inside either, it comes right through the walls, and those using them are most vulnerable to cancers and ear damage these can cause. We need the authority to ban gas powered leaf blowers in our cities and towns. Please pass this bill so we can make our localities healthier and more livable. Electric and rakes are the way. Thank you.

The noise pollution in a densely populated area, like Alexandria, is above all reason. And it's every day, all day, as each resident and HOA have their own landscapers and schedules. The air pollution is also over the top and deadly to those manning the machines. Alternatives have been available for many years now and there is NO good reason we are still using these outdated, dangerous choices. In a place like Old Town Alexandria, where everyone has a postage stamp sized yard anyway, nothing more is needed than a rake. I grew up with them and they still work! Thank you, Col (ret) Patricia Webb

Please let local authorities decide about banning or regulating gas-powered leaf blowers! In a dense area such as Arlington, gas-powered blowers are really disruptive. They create a high-level of noise that can be heard through closed windows. I work from a home office and have had to move to another space simply because gas-powered blowers were outside my window on a neighbor's property. As you can imagine this not only increases stress but reduces my ability to work productively. I can only imagine the challenge others face with the incessant and high noise levels if sensitive to loud noises, need sleep mid day (whether babies, elderly, or sick) or simply need quiet time to recharge or relax. This is an issue that should be dealt with in a local context! In addition, there are alternatives to gas-powered blowers - whether battery-powered options or the more manual methods. Please pass this bill so we can decide what's best for people based on the unique considerations relevant at the County level and not dictated by the State of VA.

Pertaining to House Bill 644 submitted by Delegate Rip Sullivan, I am in support of allowing local authority to restrict the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. These tools may have a place for use, but it is not universal, and local authority is in the best position to ascertain the appropriateness of use and benefit, or harm and lack of benefit. Please empower local authority to do this.

Please pass HB 644! Gas-powered leaf blowers harm human health, the environment, and community quality of life. This bill does not ban them, it merely gives localities the appropriate right to decide what is best for their people.

I strongly support HB 644, to enable local jurisdictions to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. Gas powered leaf blowers create noise pollution and air pollution that is proven to be harmful, worsening the qualify of life for anyone around them who are currently powerless to stop or limit them. The noise, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and non-methane hydrocarbons are all known to be damaging to health of all ages, especially sensitive groups. The technology doesn't even provide an appreciable benefit — often you can rake a yard faster and with less energy expended than by using a leaf blower. The workers who use these machines are at the greatest risk. Local jurisdictions need the ability to protect public safety and health by being authorized to pass restricting legislation against gas powered leaf blowers.

Please support HB644. Gas-powered leaf blowers contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutants, and noise pollutants and thus damages our climate, our environment, and the health of both neighbors and workers. Electric blowers, the old-fashioned rake, and just leaving leaves in place offer reasonable alternatives. Local jurisdictions should be able to decide how to make their communities more peaceful and sustainable.

Please support Delegate Sullivan bill (HB 644), to permit counties and cities to prohibit or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. Most blowers have two-stroke gasoline engines, an old and inefficient technology that produces a variety of pollutants and other hazardous emissions. Two-stroke engines fail to combust 30% of their fuel, and emit 23 times the carbon monoxide and 300 times more hydrocarbons per hour than a Ford F-150. In addition to adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, they pose a risk of lung disease to users, particularly to landscaping workers who must use them several hours a day. In addition to their hazardous exhaust emissions, gas-powered leaf blowers are much louder than battery powered leaf blowers, averaging 80-90 decibels versus 60-70. The decibel scale is logarithmic, meaning that ten decibels louder is ten times as loud. Using gas-powered leaf blowers puts users at risk of hearing loss and tinnitus. Their low frequency sound travels far, easily penetrating walls and disturbing those at home and work, as well as wildlife. Thanks to advancing technology, battery-powered leaf blowers are now effective for commercial and residential use. The initial cost of acquiring battery-powered equipment is soon recouped by their much lower ongoing maintenance costs. Across the country states and localities are making the transition to battery-powered leaf blowers through regulations and/or incentivization programs. In Virginia, many urban and suburban localities are ready to make the transition and are already doing so with their municipal equipment. HB 644 provides localities a tool to move their communities from use of obsolete two-stroke engine technology to clean electric technology. Note that this would not be a state-wide mandate, but only allow for local control.

I am writing to urge your support of HB644 to permit ordinances to prohibit or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. They disrupt our lives for 8 or 9 months a year with unnecessary and intense, dangerous noise. They are significantly used by low-paid workers whose health is threatened by them. They create unnecessary emissions, and use up fossil-fuel that is a waste and a contributor to climate change. Certainly, not all VA jurisdictions will choose to regulate or prohibit these. But HB644 provides the opportunity to let communities decide for themselves how to deal with this problem, and to tailor such control to each locality's distinct situation. As a retired person, I would like once again to be ably to enjoy my yard and porch. For hours on end, these things disrupt the very flow of our lives, and create stress and tension that is unnecessary. Thank you.

I am writing to request that you support Delegate Sullivan’s HB 644, to permit counties and cities to prohibit or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. The majority of such blowers have two-stroke gasoline engines, an old and inefficient technology that produces a variety of pollutants and other hazardous emissions. Two-stroke engines fail to combust 30% of their fuel, and emit 23 times the carbon monoxide and 300 times more hydrocarbons per hour than a Ford F-150. In addition to adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, they pose a risk of lung disease to users, particularly to landscaping workers who must use them several hours a day. In addition to their hazardous exhaust emissions, gas-powered leaf blowers are much louder than battery powered leaf blowers, averaging 80-90 decibels versus 60-70. That may not seem like much, but the decibel scale is logarithmic, meaning that ten decibels louder is ten times as loud. Using gas-powered leaf blowers puts users at risk of hearing loss and tinnitus. Their low frequency sound travels far, easily penetrating walls and disturbing those at home and work, as well as wildlife. Thanks to advancing technology, battery-powered leaf blowers are now effective for commercial and residential use. The initial cost of acquiring battery-powered equipment is soon recouped by their much lower ongoing maintenance costs. Across the country states and localities are making the transition to battery-powered leaf blowers through regulations and/or incentivization programs. In Virginia, many urban and suburban localities are ready to make the transition and are already doing so with their municipal equipment. HB 644 provides localities a tool to move their communities from use of obsolete two-stroke engine technology to clean electric technology.

I support HB 644.

Please support HB 644 for local control of gas leaf blowers. Gas leaf blowers are a public nuisance -- EXTREMELY ANTISOCIAL, NOISY, VERY POLLUTING and ALWAYS OBNOXIOUS. These poered leaf bloeers have ruined the peace of my Town, as commercial lawn and landscaping companies operate every day all day. WE NEED TO BAN THEM ASAP, or at least limit hours of operation.

I'll never forget the day that all five of my surrounding neighbors had lawn services using gas-powered leaf blowers. The air became acrid with fumes; after all, these engines are among the dirtiest around. The noise was unbearable, even inside the house, windows closed, and earplugs in. These machines are truly an unnecessary evil. They are especially unnecessary given the advancement in battery-powered equipment. But in fact, equipment is often not the best choice anyway, simply an convenient one. I have watched these "services" spend hours blowing leaves that could have been raked faster. Cities must be allowed the right to regulate whether, how, and/or when these monsters may be used. What is not a problem in a large rural area is a massive problem in a city neighborhood. Please let us live in peace. I support the passage of HB644.

I support HB 644 wholeheartedly.

Please limit the use of gas powered leaf blowers. They are a menace as they often go on for hours and hours when used by lawn companies. Thank you .

I support HB 644. There are significant health benefits if a community or local jurisdiction wishes to ban/ restrict gas powered leaf blowers.

Gas powered leaf blowers create extreme noise pollution — the most powerful can produce sounds of up to 100 decibels of low-frequency noise, around the same as a Boeing 737 taking off — they are also an environmental menace and a threat to human health. It’s been shown that because this type of equipment doesn’t have catalytic converters, only two-thirds of the gas and oil mix is burned as fuel. The rest is emitted as toxic fumes of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), two of the main ingredients in ground-level ozone, which both trigger asthma attacks and contribute to premature death. The California Air Resources Board says a single gas leaf blower operating for one hour generates the same smog-forming emissions as one car driving 1,100 miles. These small devices leak formaldehyde and benzene, both of which are known carcinogens. The people most impacted by these toxic fumes are the lawn care workers. After that, children, the elderly are the most impacted. Finally, these relatively small devices also emit tons of carbon dioxide. According to the latest data from the EPA, fossil fuel-powered lawn equipment (including not just leaf blowers but trimmers, mowers, weedwackers, etc.) emits 30 million tons of carbon dioxide in the US each year — more than the amount of greenhouse gases that Los Angeles produced in 2021.

I support HB 644. Gas powered leaf blowers are bad for the environment and a major noise disruption to our quality of life. There are alternatives. Please give local communities the opportunity to discuss, debate, educate and act to address this issue. Thank you. Jay Fisette

I support HB 644

I support HB 644.

I support HB 644

I support HB 644

I support this legislation

I support HB 644. While I believe gas blowers are harmful to humans and the environment on which we depend, I believe localities should have the right to choose their level of restriction. Context matters.

I support restricting gas powered leaf blowers

Build Our Future is an ad hoc group of Alexandria citizens concerned about the role of greenhouse gas emissions from our buildings. We strongly support the advocacy of our colleague Samantha Adhoot for HB644. Gas powered leaf blowers are terrible for the climate, for the health of our citizens, and for the already out of control noise pollution of our city. Numbers talk. Edmunds, the car people, compared emissions of a two-stroke leaf blower (the leaf blower of choice for lawn care companies) with emissions of a Ford 150 Raptor. 2x the nitric oxides (the basic stuff of air pollution); 23x the carbon monoxide; and THREE HUNDRED x the non-methane hydrocarbons (the stuff the destroys the ozone layer)! Just like the cars before catalytic converters, these machines should no longer have a place in our community.

Please pass this bill and forbid leaf blowers. There are ordinance for loud cars, flight patterns so they don't disturb neighborhoods with their noise, but nothing on leaf blowers, which are just as loud or even louder. Where I am (Hollin Hills) is unbearable during some times of the year. During Fall, for the entire season, it is hard to spend 20 min without the sound of the machines. It is such a disturbance that I made a point to count the time of silence, which is minimal. I work from home and want to work from the deck when the weather is nice, but the crews with leaf blowers, even far away, cause so much noise that it is impossible to enjoy the nature that surrounds me, hear the birds or my own thoughts. What happened to raking? Or even better, leaving the leaves for wildlife and nutrients for the soil? There should be rules so those who want their yards free of leaves don't get that at the cost of others' peace. Or the cost of the crew members health, since the fumes released by those machines are extremely poisonous for people and the environment. My garden is as natural as possible, I leave the leaves, and I don't make others hear loud leaf blowers. I wish I didn't have to put up with noises that are totally unnecessary since there is raking or even better and more silent leaf blowers, such as the electric ones.

I write in support of allowing local governments to limit or prohibit gas-powered leaf blowers. This has become a true quality of life issue. A single blower within half a mile is enough to destroy the neighborhood peace, let alone the squads of two or three routinely deployed by landscaping teams. It seems that the ear-piercing machines (which certainly violate noise ordinances) are the “hammers” to which all things are the “nails.” The result is people confined to the indoors and unable to enjoy a nice day until the infernal noise is gone. Surely other options exist for getting the job done without making the surrounding neighborhood suffer. Thanks.

I'm note sure we even need leaf blowers, research has shown that mulching leaves or just leaving them where they fall is better for ecosystems and habitat creation. Mowing leaves or simply raking are much better solutions. But I understand that people like clean yards so if leaf blowers are needed let's please acknowledge our need to divest from fossil fuels and switch to electric leaf blowers. Electric blowers are far better from a pollutant standpoint and release no gas or oil fumes into the air, are generally quieter and less obnoxious. As someone who lives in a condo complex with a contracted landscaping crew that invades our space, sometimes weekly, I have to pause what I'm doing until they pass because the noise is so great. I cannot be on work calls or engage in anything productive until the whole crew passes by. And if my windows are open I will run around the house closing them to try to mitigate the horrible fumes. The crew uses leaf blowers in every season except winter and even blows tiny grass clippings and dirt around. Gas-powered leaf blowers are just no necessary anymore and we should not encourage the sale or manufacture of them anymore. Thank you.

This bill and its companion Senate bill are absolutely necessary for localities to be able to regain control of their environment. The noise and air pollution from gas-powered leaf blowers is horrendous. I appreciate lawn care companies find them convenient, but that convenience comes at the expense of the noise and air pollution foisted on neighbors and neighborhoods. They should not have to bear such costs particularly when alternatives to gas-powered leaf blowers are available. This bill is needed so localities can properly regulate this harmful equipment. Thanks,

Gas powered leaf blowers are an assault on one's hearing and mental health. Several residents of my neighborhood (Quaker Hill) have contracts with landscapers that have as many as five blowers going at once on their small lawns. They also go over pavement and street to get to the next house with farm size lawnmowers and dangling leaf blowers. Workmen have ear protection; residents do not

Please pass HB644! Prohibit gas powered leaf blowing in Alexandria. Gas powered leaf blowers around Alexandria unnecessarily make way too much noise and are bothersome to me and my family and neighbors. Please prohibit, don’t just conditionally regulate.

Pass HB644 without delay! I strongly support passing this bill. I am a homeowner in the Del Ray neighborhood and the noise pollution of gas powered leaf blowers is unacceptable and unnecessary. That’s not to mention the unnecessary emissions. The noise is heard for blocks and is disturbing enough to where I can’t sit in my living room without having the drone of leaf blowers from two blocks away compete with my own tv. There’s just no need for it and can easily be addressed and bring some peace to everyone - including those who are using them for work!

Please pass this legislation to prohibit gas-powered leaf blowers and/or enable regulation. My community of Alexandria City is besieged by the loud sounds of gas-powered leaf blowers year round. The noise is a frequent disrupter of work-related projects and calls for me during the work week (I work primarily from home) and peace and quiet during the weekends. We have an electric blower that makes much less noise and activates less particulate matter. Gas-powered blowers are dangerous to the health of those who use them and disruptive of peace in our neighborhoods.

I strongly support HB644, Gas-powered leaf blowers; local prohibition or regulation. This bill should become law asap to eliminate noisy, polluting gas powered landscaping equipment. This law would give jurisdiction the opportunity to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions in our neighborhoods, and reduce noise pollution as well. The noise is unnecessarily intrusive and harmful to residents, animals both wildlife and domestic pets, as well as to employees of yard service providers who are forced to use them. There are other, safer and better alternatives available that do not have to be expensive to lawn service and landscape providers at all. For example: 1) Tow-behind lawn sweepers - Removing leaves and other debris from a lawn big enough to require a riding mower is a massive project. A tow-behind lawn sweeper attaches to the mower with a hitch and picks up whatever is driven over. The collection vessel needs to be emptied as you go, but it's a great improvement vs dealing with clouds of oily smoke. 2) Push-powered leaf collectors, also sometimes called lawn sweepers. Unlike the ones that attach to a tractor or mower, they are operated almost exactly like a push mower. They’re basically a big basket on wheels; as they are pushed over the lawn, the sweeper collects leaves and other debris in the basket. Landscape and lawn service vendors should be allowed time to make equipment changeovers. But today, gas-powered leaf and grass clipping blowers are the equivalent of using a manual switchboard for ancient telephone technology. They have got to go!

These machines are horrible for human beings and for our environment. For starters, the noise is unbearable and extremely unhealthy. I work from home and these machines drive me absolutely insane. Landscapers show up with at least two of these things to blow little grass clippings off a lawn, which is just stupid. They could sweep this little bit of so called "dirt" way faster than blowing it all over the road. The pollution they emit is worse than many of our cars. We are living in the middle of climate change and biodiversity loss, yet we allow landscapers to do whatever they want in the name of freedom. What about my freedom from unhealthy pollution, both from noise pollution and carbon emissions? And I don't want to hear that this is some woke liberal. This is my health, our health, all of us are affected by these things. Why can't the landscaping industry move to electric, just like the automobile industry is doing with hybrid and electric cars. And use a broom from time to time. The lawns in Del Ray are tiny. You don't need this polluting machine to blow around dirt and grass clippings and remove every leaf from a yard. The majority of folks in my area want these things gone. Do the right thing. Thank you for listening.

I support HB 644. Localities should be able to pass common sense regulations on gas powered leaf blowers. Gas powered leaf blowers have a negative impact on the air we breathe and quality of life for suburban and urban communities around the Commonwealth.

These should have been banned long ago. Not only do they make an outrageous amount of noise and pollution from their engines, but in fact most of the year their main function is simply kicking up clouds of grass clippings and dust. That dust from yards and streets inevitably includes pesticides, fertilizers, dried animal urine and feces, petroleum products and who-knows-what else that got dropped on the ground and pulverized over time. This cloud is then blown over into neighboring properties and onto anyone downwind. I have read that opponents are trying to turn this into a left-vs-right political issue. It is not. It is common sense. Take it from a hard political centrist.

HB 644 Gas-powered leaf blowers; local prohibition or regulation - This bill should become law. Gas powered landscaping equipment is the low-hanging fruit of reducing fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Nuisance noise reduction and lowered health risk for landscaping workers are bonuses.

Please allow localities to place restrictions on gas powered leaf blowers! They are noisy and contribute to climate change. With electric ones readily available now, there is no reason any government jurisdiction should not be using electric. Thank you.

Please, please support this bill. The outrageous noise from these machines is causing misery for residents in suburban and urban areas across the state. I work from home 2 days a week. My home has five neighbors within 50 feet that use landscaping companies that come every two weeks. Between March and December, these machines are blowing at 100dB, far above permitted noise limits from other sources, just feet from my home, making it impossible for me to read or write or speak on calls. It goes on for 1-2 hours most days per week, 9-10 months per year, costing me innumerable hours of productivity. The machines are not blowing large quantities of leaves except for 1-2 months in the fall. The rest of the year they are just sweeping away grass clippings and debris off sidewalks and patios. Jobs which require very little force. The level of noise from these machines, and the frequency with which they are used by landscaping companies, is simply not tenable in urban settings. Please give localities the authority to protect their citizens from this scourge.

Please support HB 644 for the environment, the public's health and our children's future. Thank you!

I SUPPORT HB208, 281, 634, and 644. Gas-powered leaf blowers are an environmental scourge and I'm thankful that a bill has been written to allow localities to restrict them. I wish the Commonwealth of Virginia could just ban them outright. I wholeheartedly support repurposing office buildings to serve as childcare centers.

Please, please pass this bill!! HB644 is a bill that is way, way overdue! Gas powered leaf blowers are relics of the past that should have been banned years ago. They are two stroke engines that produce immense amounts of pollutants into our atmosphere, contaminating our air and contributing to global warming but which are completely unregulated. We cannot drive cars that emit excess pollution yet these gas powered leaf blowers are everywhere and totally unregulated. This makes no sense at all especially when battery operated, quieter leaf blowers are readily available. More generally, the use of leaf blowers everywhere should be discouraged as they disturb the insect and bug populations that use leaves for winter habitat and that are food for birds. Insect, bug and bird populations are all decreasing: we need to take much more care of our natural environment which leaf blowers are decimating.

Please support Bill HB644 to protect our citizens from the dangers of using Gas Leaf Blowers. The hydrocarbons and CO2 found in the particulates released by these blowers are polluting the air and pose health risks for many. Along with this threat , the noise pollution and soil erosion add to the lessening of the quality of life and the risk of the ever increasing climate change we are facing. By switching to battery powered blowers , we will all benefit from the peace of mind and health benefits that will follow.

FACC supports bill HB 644 for a number of reasons ranging from their effects on producing high particulate air pollution, noise disruption, to the consequences of scouring surfaces driving soil erosion and the high carbon footprint of gas leaf blowers of which 30 minutes of use is equivalent to driving 2,200 miles at 30 mph. Personal gas motors are a major area of carbon emitting devices that lack sufficient regulation and oversight in addressing the climate crisis.

Please support HB 644. The air and noise pollution from gasoline leaf blowers are inexcusable, when quieter, safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper technologies already exist. Passage of this bill into law will benefit the public good, residential and commercial area quality of life, and the ecosystem; and would be an important health protection, including for equipment users.

Please support HB 644. Gas-powered leaf blowers are painfully noisy. They rattle the nerves. Furthermore, they pollute. The particles expelled through the exhaust linger in the air and can affect human health.

Lease pass a bill to control leaf blowers.

Honorable Delegates, I am writing to request that you support Delegate Sullivan's HB 644, to permit counties and cities to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. The majority of such blowers have two-stroke gasoline engines, an old and inefficient technology that produces a variety of pollutants and other hazardous emissions. Two-stroke engines fail to combust 30% of their fuel, and emit 23 times the carbon monoxide and 300 times more hydrocarbons per hour than a Ford F-150. In addition to adding massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, they are pose a risk of lung disease to users, particularly to landscaping workers who must use them several hours a day. In addition to their hazardous exhaust emissions, gas-powered leaf blowers are much louder than battery powered leaf blowers, averaging 80-90 decibels versus 60-70. That may not seem like much, but the decibel scale is logarithmic, meaning that ten decibels louder is ten times as loud. Using gas-powered leaf blowers puts users at risk of hearing loss and tinnitus. Their low frequency sound travels far, easily penetrating walls and disturbing those at home and work, as well as wildlife. Thanks to advancing technology, battery-powered leaf blowers are now effective for commercial and residential use. The initial cost of acquiring battery-powered equipment is soon recouped by their much lower ongoing maintenance costs. Across the country states and localities are making the transition to battery-powered leaf blowers through bans, regulations and/or incentivization programs. In Virginia, many urban and suburban localities are ready to make the transition, and are already doing so with their municipal equipment. HB 644 provides localities a tool to move their communities from use of obsolete two-stroke engine technology to clean electric technology. Sincerely, Jim Gillespie Fairfax

I urge you to support HB644. Local jurisdictions need the ability to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers because they are a serious detriment to public health and to the environment. Our community is already out of compliance on air quality standards. Good alternatives are already on the market. This bill will allow jurisdictions to incentivize that transition. Sincerely, Natasha Atkins

I STRONGLY SUPPORT this legislation as a long-overdue measure to give local communities the power to protect the health and safety of their constituents. Each community is different, with different levels of housing density, environment, demographics, business enterprises, and each should be afforded the power to decide what level of noise and pollution abatement is appropriate. I find the gas-powered leaf blowers (GPLBs) to be highly disruptive of work and my enjoyment of the neighborhood, and given the opportunity I will ask the city of Richmond to ban or highly restrict their use. Other more rural communities with larger lot sizes or different types of economic activities may see fit to allow their use. One size does not fit all, which is why communities across the commonwealth have extant powers such as zoning regulations, rules about housing upkeep, and noise ordinances. In the case of gas-powered leaf blowers, however, communities have found that it is too difficult for police to enforce noise ordinances - the only solution to restoring peace and relative quiet in our neighborhoods is a ban on GPLBs. While I appreciate that lawn care companies and the homeowners that use them will be affected such rules, I am convinced that the changes can be absorbed. Lawn care companies can switch to battery-powered blowers, mulching with lawn mowers, raking, or leaving some leaves to improve habitats for critical pollinators. I would support economic incentives to help lawn care companies re-equip with batter powered blowers. Homeowners may find that they would rather pay for a few more costly cleanups per year than the terrible, noisy, unnecessary model of attacking each lawn weekly with an army of polluting leaf blowers. As has happened in communities that have banned GPLBs, workers will still find plenty of work on lawns but without the fumes that damage their lungs and the noise that damages their ears. I reject any argument that homeowners have the right to do whatever they want on their properties. That has never been a principle in U.S. law. Most urban communities have restrictions on animal husbandry (chicken coops, pig sties!), on what type of business can be conducted from homes (so to spare neighbors from noise or pollution or commercial traffic on their street), on noise, etc. We are a country that defends individual liberty but that also recognizes those liberties don't extend to imposing pollution, noise, or other harms on neighbors. Gas powered leaf blowers impose real harms - studies show physiological and psychological harm from the penetrating noise, and localized fumes and pollutants can be quite dangerous for children, the elderly, or persons with underlying physical conditions. It is absurd that Virginia's communities cannot act to protect vulnerable citizens from these harms. It needs to change, and this legislation is a start.

Please support HB 644. The deleterious health & environmental impacts of gas powered leaf blowers, not to mention the noise pollution, should be unacceptable to our society & community, especially when we have alternatives like rakes. Even in neighborhoods with ½ acre properties, the sound of a gas powered leaf blower can be heard a block away, forcing people into their homes to wear noise-cancelling headphones that never truly block the deafening noise. Furthermore, it’s unconscionable that lawn crew spend full days exposed to this noxious gas & ear-splitting sound. We can do better. We must do better.

Please support HB 644. Multiple lawn-service companies use gas-powered leaf blowers in their yard maintenance in this area, with the result that the noise is practically unremitting beginning around 8 am from March through November, Monday through Friday. Some companies work on Saturdays as well. Sometimes I have to leave my house to get away from the noise because it just gets too stressful. In the fall, particularly, the leaf mold thrown up by these leaf blowers penetrates into my house, causing respiratory problems. I realize it would create an initial burden for lawn-care companies to use an alternative to these gas-powered leaf blowers, but I am sure a solution can be found if the will is there. These leaf-blowers are nerve-wrackingly noisy; they spew pollutants; they are unhealthy for the workers operating them and for the residents who have to breathe what they emit and kick up. Please support this bill. Thank you.

Gas-powered leaf blowers emit noise at 100 dB, that is equivalent to a bulldozer, impact wrench, or motorcycle.  While a motorcycle may be loud for seconds as it passes by on your street, Gasoline-powered Leaf Blowers are used for long lengths of time, in close proximity to your home. Most of us can agree that we are a captive audience when it comes to gasoline-powered leaf blowers. On any given day of the week there can be 3 or 4 workers using gas-powered leaf blowers at the same time in a neighbor's yard. Gasoline-powered Leaf Blowers exceed the stated maximum noise limit by Alexandria City Code, but the City is powerless to regulate such machines. When asked, neighbors agree Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers are horrible and should be phased out. We ask that you help eliminate the noise and filth spread by Gas-powered leaf blowers.

Please support HB644. This proposed legislation would permit localities in Virginia to ban or regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. These devices are extremely noisy, adversely affecting both those who use these devices and the quality of life in the neighborhoods where they are used. They also emit toxic gases, creating health and environmental hazards. Please support this bill, which would enable counties and cities in Virginia to join the many jurisdictions across the country that have already taken the step to encourage the transition to electric blowers.

Please support HB 644. Gas-powered leaf blowers (GLB) endanger the health of people and our ever-more fragile planet. Transitioning away from GLB reduces dangerously high levels of air and noise pollution. Among the advantages, this switch will reduce use of fossil fuels and add to quality of life. Core needs. Thank you for leadership on an issue that directly impacts people and the environment!

Please support HB644 (and urge your Senate colleagues to support SB305): “Local prohibition or regulation of gas-powered leaf blowers.” The excessive noise from gas-powered leaf blowers (GLBs) used nearly year-round by neighbors all around me — often not even to blow leaves but rather to chase grass clippings to the curb and to blow dirt off of sidewalks — has been driving me to distraction. The terrible fumes have been choking me on days that are ‘code orange/red.’ And there is no escaping them as the low frequency sound waves (as opposed to the high frequency ones of electric leaf blowers) penetrate the walls of houses even hundreds of feet away. Having investigated these terrible machines, I have learned that they are indeed injurious to my health and welfare, to our environment, and even to the climate. Leaf blower noise has been shown to: damage hearing (they run at some 100 decibels which is 15 times louder than the 85 decibels at which the World Health Organization says hearing can be permanently damaged), raise blood pressure, disrupt concentration, interfere with children’s learning, and even impact mental health. And that is not all! Emissions from two-stroke GLBs include known carcinogens, including benzene, butadiene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. Operating the best-selling commercial GLB for one hour emits as much smog-forming pollution as driving a light-duty passenger car about 1,100 miles, or about the distance from Los Angeles to Denver, according to the California Air Resources Board. [https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engine-fact-sheet]. Their blast of air (up to 190 mph) stirs up all manner of stuff that is bad for us to breathe (think animal feces, pesticide residue) and destroys pollinator habitat. Battery-powered lawn & garden equipment requires fewer repairs, is cheaper to operate (no purchases of gas, oil, filters), and lasts years longer than gas-powered equipment which typically requires major repair/replacement after three years. The return on investment is 3-5 years according to landscaping experts at American Green Zone Alliance. Customers are increasingly looking for landscapers who use electric-powered equipment. Sadly, my locality cannot regulate GLBs because of the Dillon Rule and I am completely at the mercy of my neighbors’ landscapers. HB 644 would give freedom to those localities that choose to use it. PLEASE give me back my life and liberty and allow me to pursue my happiness!

I urge you to consider supporting HB 644 Gas leaf blowers are a constant strain in the quality of life for residents in Fairfax City. From neighbors to lawn care companies who use them relentlessly; no matter what time of day or for as long a duration as they feel necessary; there’s a solution. Electric blowers- which are less harmful to the environment, not as loud, and they get the job done. (I have one myself I use.). Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.

Please support HB 644. My Town is besieged by the public NUISANCE of filthy, polluting, unhealthy, very loud leaf blowers ALL DAY.

Please pass legislation banning gas- powered leaf blowers. They are a constant assault on our quality of life; harmful to the environment with the gas emissions and other negative impacts ;and challenge the noise ordinance. There is also an electric-powered alternative available; so why not ban the harmful gas version, where everyone wins? The environment wins- and people who live in Fairfax City win. Thank you for your careful consideration.

Please pass this important bill. Allow the local counties to regulate these gas powered leaf blowers. We need to do everything we can to assure clean air for our grandchildren. Also the noise they generate is disturbing our peace of mind. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen the gross overuse of these; blowing nothing but dust and pollen around, for what purpose? So our driveway is clean of pollen? Leave the pollen, dust and leaves where they are. That does no harm. I'd much rather have clean air to breathe and quiet surroundings.

Gas leaf blowers are so loud and polluting. I'd love for my community to be able to be allowed to consider banning or restricting them.

I support giving localities the power to ban gas fired lawn equipment, particularly leaf blowers which emit harmful levels of air pollutants as well as harmful levels of noise that can cause deafness in the operator as well as those nearby. For those of us in urban Northern Virginia and many more of us working at home or stuck at home during the pandemic are tormented daily and throughout the year with leaf blowers most operated by commercial landscapers. There are many cost effective electric blowers and mowers on the market today. The cost of operating and maintaining an electric blower/mower is less than the gas model both because electricity is cheaper than gasoline, but because electric motors will last for many decades without any maintenance. Gas models last often fewer than 3 years and need maintenance. 173 people signed my Moveon.org petition to the Arlington County Board in December 2020 asking for a ban on gas blowers and mowers. https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/ban-gas-blowers-and-mowers-in-arlington-va-for-a-quiet-healthier-community

Please support this bill to help improve our quality of life and environment. In a city with adjacent properties each using vendors with gas powered leaf blowers it’s extremely noisy multiple times a week. Vendors blow leaves back and forth to adjacent properties. It’s like volley ball with leaves. Using battery operated blowers would reduce the noise.

When I want to open my windows , go for a walk, sit on my patio or even talk on my phone, many days the horrid grating sound of gas leaf blowers will change my decision. Did you ever try to talk to your neighbor when there is an active leaf blower anywhere near you! You can’t. This tool has affected all urban communities negatively in one way or the other.. There is the pollution, noxious gas, same as a 1950 8 cylinder car that is no longer legal because of the pollution. And then there are the birds who have to sing louder to connect to their partners, otherwise no contact can be made, which affects mating season. And then there is the micro organism that gets blown into your face or house or yard, killing all that was within, such as bees, moths, worms, and more. Please pass this bill to give the city of Alexandria the right to make laws to control the machine and make our lives better.

When I want to open my windows , go for a walk, sit on my patio or even talk on my phone, many days the horrid grating sound of gas leaf blowers will change my decision. Did you ever try to talk to your neighbor when there is an active leaf blower anywhere near you! You can’t. This tool has affected all urban communities negatively in one way or the other.. There is the pollution, noxious gas, same as a 1950 8 cylinder car that is no longer legal because of the pollution. And then there are the birds who have to sing louder to connect to their partners, otherwise no contact can be made, which affects mating season. And then there is the micro organism that gets blown into your face or house or yard, killing all that was within, such as bees, moths, worms, and more. Please pass this bill to give the city of Alexandria the right to make laws to control the machine and make our lives better.

Please support HB 644. Using gas leaf blowers is not a big ticket item like education, transport, crime, jobs, housing, climate change, health care, and gun violence. So constituents are unlikely to bring it up. However, it does raise a significant quality of life issue. You might ask what is happiness. Many will say it's just spending time with family and friends or relaxing by oneself out in one's yard or deck. Well, it is these very activities that gas leaf blowers undermine, disrupting conversations with our loved ones, driving a wall of loud noise between one person and the next, one thought and the next. Family dinners, children's parties, even small weddings - no event is spared! Also consider that the high levels of pollution from the typically 2-stroke engines of gas-powered leaf blowers are not healthy for landscape crews. Using gas leaf blowers may be a cost-effective way for homeowners to get their yards looking the way they like them to, but at what cost to landscape workers? At what cost to neighbors?

Richmond has become one of the most unaffordable states in the country to rent, only state action can keep rents down.

I support this bill because of the soaring prices for rent. Please vote YES!

Vote YES on SB366/HB721! This bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. -Lakevia Randolph Burrell

In my work at Peninsula Agency on Aging, I often hear from older adults who are struggling to pay rent on their fixed incomes, only to be faced with a massive rent hike as housing costs go up across the region. Rent gouging is leading to housing insecurity and homelessness for far too many already-vulnerable citizens across our state. SB366/HB721 puts in place reasonable limits that protect renters. As a voter, a person of faith, and a resident invested in my community, I support this bill, and I ask that you vote yes on this bill when it comes before you. Thank you.

Vote YES on SB366! This bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. -Vivian Daniels

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I know you are aware of the plight of Virginians who constantly deal with the soaring cost of housing in the Commonwealth. All one must do is listen to the local news to realize the seriousness of the problems surrounding affordable housing, especially if one is in a low economic status. SB 366/HB721 provides the necessary steps to ensure rent stabilization. It is imperative for localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions. Likewise, localities should also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance, at their discretion. For those claiming the status of Evangelical (Black or White), remember these admonishments as this is not about the separation of Church and State but is how the Christian is to demonstrate the love and loyalty to YAHWEH. Proverbs 19:17 says, “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and He will reward them for what they have done.” Deuteronomy 15:11 says “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore, I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land. Kind Regards, Reverend Carol A. Graham-Lee (CMSgt, USAF, retired)

Hello, my name is Carlos Hunter and I live in Hampton Virginia, 91st district. I thank you for allowing me to discuss Senate Bill 366/HB721 with you. I am writing to express my strong support for SB 366/HB721, which aims to tackle the issue of rent gouging in Virginia. I am deeply concerned about the rising rent prices in our state, this bill presents a crucial opportunity to protect tenants and ensure affordable housing for all. SB 366/HB721 proposes empowering localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, which would establish reasonable limits on rent increases. Specifically, the bill suggests tying rent increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a maximum of 7%, whichever is less. I believe this approach not only safeguards tenants from excessive rent hikes but also provides landlords with a fair and predictable framework for managing their properties. Furthermore, SB 366/HB721 allows localities to establish civil penalties for non-compliance, ensuring accountability and enforcement of these provisions. By providing tools for local governments to address rent gouging, this bill promotes stability in our housing market and fosters healthier communities. Housing is a fundamental human right, and it is imperative that we take proactive measures to address the affordability crisis facing many Virginians. SB 366/HB721 represents a significant step towards achieving this goal by striking a balance between the interests of tenants and landlords. I urge you to support SB 366/HB721 and to advocate for its passage in the legislature. Your commitment to addressing rent gouging will not only benefit countless individuals and families struggling to afford housing but also contribute to building a more equitable and prosperous future for our state. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Please vote yes to SB 366/HB721 and to work together to ensure that all Virginians have access to safe, stable, and affordable housing. Respectfully, Carlos Hunter USN Retired

In a time of slow growth and an uncertain political future, this bill would tackle soaring rent prices in Virginia by allowing localities to adopt anti-rent gouging provisions, stating that any rent increases would be based upon the CPI or 7% (whichever is less); exemptions can be made. The locality would also be allowed to establish civil penalties for non-compliance. Many Virginia families have yet to recover from Covid pandemic and yet are faced with higher cost of living in all areas. They can try to economize on food but living quarters are a different matter. Being unable to find or afford housing can break a family. I urge support of this bill. Eileen Engel

Hello!My name is Natela and I been struggling for so long finding affordable housing in Fairfax County,Virginia.I am 58 years old female who have a very low income.I contacted more then 500 places trying to find one bedroom apartment or private basement and all this places asking for income 3-3.5 times bigger then cost of apartment.Making any person who is trying to rent one bedroom apartment in Fairfax county need to make around 5-6000 dollars per month.How many percent of people having this high salary jobs?I DON’T. I’m making now 12.00 dollars per hour.This amount of money disqualified me from any housing I applied.My question to HUD and all other housing authorities WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING PEOPLE WITH LOW INCOME??????? WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO SURVIVE LIVING IN FAIRFAX AREA?HOUSING PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL!GROCERY PRICES IS ASTRONOMICAL! ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS ARE CLOSED.ALL WAITING LISTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CLOSED TO. I BET YOU ALL JUST DON’T CARE ABOUT US!

Comments Document

We have all heard the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” HB 721 is a perfect example of that definition! Rent control policies across the country have proven to be an absolute failure. No jurisdiction that has adopted rent control policies has succeeded in keeping housing affordable. Further, not a single city which implemented rent control has seen an increase in housing availability or an increase in the quality of housing. It has not worked in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York or St. Paul, MN. One only needs to do a quick google search of "rent control and St. Paul" to see how devastating rent control has been to the construction of more rental housing in that city. According to HUD’s count (https://socds.huduser.gov/permits/), St. Paul’s apartment construction permits fell 48% after rent control passed in 2021, and that 48% is only after the city went back and revised their ordinance to exempt new construction for 20 years. We can also look at suburban Maryland to see exactly what will happen to VA if rent control is allowed to pass. Rental housing investment in Prince George’s County has ground to a halt in the past year in response to the County’s temporary rent control law and uncertainty over the County Council’s consideration of a permanent ordinance. In Montgomery County, longtime investors have sounded the alarm about the dangers of the recently passed rent control ordinance, arguing it will hamstring the County’s ability to expand its tax base and attract new businesses. Lastly, Takoma Park has had rent control in place since 1981. According to a city-commissioned report published in 2017, no new multifamily rental properties have been constructed since rent control passed. In summary: • Has rent control in any city made housing more affordable? NO! • Has rent control in any city made housing more available? NO! • Has rent control in any city lead to better quality housing? NO! Let’s avoid repeating the mistakes of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, St. Paul and suburban Maryland. Vote NO on HB 721! (Attachment is a graph from HUD data of building permits in St. Paul illustrating what happened after Rent Control passed in St. Paul.)

Comments Document

The attached PDF is being submitted by African Communities Together in support of the passage of H.B. 721. All across the nation, renters have made it clear: the rent is too high and Virginia is unfortunately no exception. Twenty-two percent of Virginia renters fall within income ranges below 30% AMI and can therefore only afford to pay $855/month in rent without becoming housing cost burdened. Fair market rate one bedroom apartments in Virginia cost on average $1,203/month, putting our most vulnerable renters at a deficit of $348 each month. That’s $348 that could be spent on food, clothing, medical expenses, and other necessities. To put this into further context, the hourly wage needed to afford the average one bedroom apartment in Virginia is $23.13. Here is a list of a few workers who make less than that: service workers, teaching assistants, nursing assistants, security guards, maintenance workers, accounting clerks, home health aides. The list goes on and we must do something now to protect all these vital members of our community who are in constant threat of displacement because they can no longer afford to live here. House Bill 721 addresses these issues by giving localities the power to implement rent control and prevent the displacement of working class families from the communities they have made home. Please note, the bill does not force localities to pass rent control ordinances, but simply gives them the option to do so when in the best interest of their residents. Some opponents to the bill argue that rent control negatively affects housing supply. However, studies show that in jurisdictions where rent control has been implemented, there has been no statistically relevant effect on supply. Conversely, lack of rent control has also not been shown to increase housing supply. Additionally, economists have pointed to the economic benefits of rent control, as it prevents evictions and homelessness thereby reducing government spending on related systems. We must also acknowledge that rent control is not a new concept, nor is it one we should shy away from. Homeowners have their own version of rent control through fixed 30-year mortgages, and we encourage and applaud homeownership yet ignore the needs of renters who wish to have a similar level of financial security. Housing is a human right, and it is time that our laws reflect that, which is why I sincerely hope you will join us in supporting the passage of HB721. Thank you for your consideration.

HB721 is a strong step in the right direction to address the housing crisis in Virginia. To be clear, the affordability of housing in Virginia is a major facet of this complicated crisis, and protecting Virginia tenants from the practice of rent-gouging is critical to maintaining the state's affordable housing stock. In the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commissions 2020 review of Affordable Housing in Virginia it was found that in 2019 (Pre-COVID-19) 29% of Virginia households were housing cost-burdened (meaning they spent at least 30% of their income on housing expenses) with half of cost-burdened Virginians spending 50% of their income on housing. According to the JLARC review, "approximately 44 percent of renting households are cost burdened compared with 21 percent of owning households." These JLARC findings should emphasize how there is an urgent need to address how almost ONE THIRD of Virginians have financial stress imposed upon themselves in order to keep a roof over their heads. Individuals and families are regularly forced to make painful prioritizations of one basic need over the other (such as food over medication) because their rent costs 50% of their income. Despite this growing crisis, there are Property Management Companies and Private Landlords - a growing number of which are LLCs, private equity firms, and aggregators from out-of-state - that seek to exploit the times by extracting larger and larger quantities of rent from Virginians who are already struggling to survive in the midst of this housing crisis. Hopefully the testimony from today will have highlighted some of the ways in which people's lives can be derailed by exploitative corporate tactics, like rent-gouging. Virginia tenants who come into conflict with these entities over issues like rent-gouging are frequently bullied into either submission or eviction purely because of the amount of legal resources, time, and bodies that are available to these corporations, and typically unavailable to tenants especially those who are low-income. HB721 is vital for the preservation of Virginia's affordable housing stock in that it will preserve existing affordable rental rates and critically prevent and punish corporations that try to exploit the most vulnerable Virginians via rent-gouging. In the midst of this state-wide housing crisis I implore you, our elected leaders, to vote for and advocate strongly in favor of HB721 which will protect Virginia tenants right to affordable housing. If you are not convinced, I highly recommend you to revisit the testimony of your constituents and other documented cases of rent-gouging. Truly it is a vile business tactic that only services the greed of out-of-state corporations, and devastates the lives of your neighbors.

ChamberRVA opposes HB 721. Limiting rent increases to escalation in the Consumer Price Increase is far too tight a limitation. and does not account for the many, varied, individual circumstances of a landlord and tenant. At this low rate of inflation, this really is not an anti-gouging provision that deals with very large rent increases; it's rent control. In other areas of the country, such rent control has had the adverse impact of decreasing the availability of housing. Given the shortage of affordable housing, this is not a result Virginia should use.

The Goldwater Institute engages on housing and property rights issues nationwide. HB721 and similar rent control measures fail to solve the underlying supply issues facing our housing market and can even raise market prices in some scenarios. Many economists and policy analysts have studied rent control policies, and the verdict is clear: these policies disincentivize development of new housing supply and incentivize the conversion of rental units into owner occupied units, which exacerbates the true pricing problem this legislation purportedly hopes to solve. For more information on how rent control policies negatively impact housing markets, please consult the Goldwater Institute paper examining this issue at the following link: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/rentcontrol/ Instead of misguided rent-control policies, the legislature should turn its focus to market-oriented solutions that expand housing supply. These solutions include: removing (or reforming) minimum lot size and density requirements; restoring the right of property owners to build duplexes and triplexes on single-family zoned lots; streamlining the permitting process and prohibiting the use of vague or ambiguous design requirements; legalizing ADU's on single-family residential lots; and allowing by-right multi-family development on commercially zoned land. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of policy tools at your disposal, but each of these policies would represent progress toward truly alleviating the housing crisis in Virginia. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Allow the free market to function as designed! Oppose bill HB 721. If there is evidence of rent gouging from a housing provider, then focus on that party, not the whole industry.

My name is Sue Frankel Streit and I teach English as a Second Language in Louisa. Over the last few years I have seen rent prices in both apartments and trailers climb steeply in the county, just as they have in much of the rest of the county. But on top of inflation, some landlords, especially trailer park absentee landlords, are engaging in price gouging. This is bad for the community, as hard-working people whose children attend our schools are being forced out to leave even the cheapest housing available. Please help us maintain affordable housing!

Complex owners excessively increase the rent from 2022, from $200 and more each year when renewing the contract, this figure is excessive, if this continues, housing in Virginia will no longer be insurable for our working class communities of color, we urgently need a rent stabilization in Virginia. Because the problems do not even ensure that we have optimally maintained homes, they only seek to increase their bank accounts regardless of the crisis that their tenants are going through. Please Vote YES HB721.

This bill, HB 721, imposes rent control, which economists say is bad. It punishes landlords for inflation, since the ordinances it would allow local governments to enact would limit rent increases to the LESSER of inflation, or 7 percent. So if the inflation rate is over 10 percent, the ordinance would not allow any increase over 7 percent, even if the landlord's costs are going up over 10 percent, and the tenants' wages are going up over 10 percent. That's unfair. Raising rent by the same amount as inflation to keep up with costs is not "gouging." Almost all economists think rent control is a bad idea: In a 1992 poll, 93% of them agreed that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of housing available. The Wall Street Journal said, "If there’s any consensus in economics, it’s that rent control achieves the opposite of its intended goal. It leads to housing shortages by discouraging new development and maintenance of existing properties." Reason Magazine says "rent control has a history of constricting the supply of rental housing and reducing housing quality.” Rent control reduces rental housing's value, shrinking the property tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. "Researchers at the University of Southern California said rent control hurt property values in St. Paul, Minn. by $1.6 billion," reported Market Watch. Similar past legislation to allow local rent control ordinances failed to advance not just in this House, but also in a committee of the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2023. A ranking progressive member of the committee, who is now its chair, worried “that the proposal could keep landlords from paying for maintenance needs or changes. ‘I’m sympathetic, I have a lot of constituents, including some who spoke about the high cost of housing, and I’ve got a lot rental housing in my district,’ Sen. Ebbin said…'But I’m wondering if we’re going to limit them to consumer price index, if you have a apartment complex, particularly a large one that needs some kind of major renovations or wants to upgrade, that you’re really kind of handcuffing them.'" This is a concern shared by both liberal and conservative economists. As the liberal Brookings Institution notes, “Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can’t recoup these investment by raising rents." When landlords can’t raise rents to pay for repairs and renovations, they may let buildings decay. After New York limited rent increases to pay for major capital improvements to 2 percent, landlords cut back on improvements. A survey of rent-stabilized landlords found that when rent increases were curbed, "Three out of four reported cutting back on essential building-wide repairs, such as a roof or boiler replacement, since the rent law passed. Nearly 90 percent said they had forgone kitchen or bathroom renovations. Just over half decided against revamping their buildings’ security systems to include cameras or video intercoms or adding storage lockers for deliveries to thwart porch pirates. Efficiency upgrades have also been pushed to the back burner. Over 40 percent of respondents said they would not replace lighting with LED fixtures that use 90 percent less energy — a budget saver for tenants. A quarter said they opted against installing fuel computers, which better regulate heat and hot water systems and reduce a building’s energy consumption"

On behalf of the Virginia PACE Authority, the program administrator for Virginia’s statewide C-PACE program, I write to state our opposition to HB 952, which seeks to create a statewide residential PACE (R-PACE) program in Virginia. To be very clear, we do not oppose R-PACE itself; we only oppose how an R-PACE program would be created by this bill. Currently, Virginia’s C-PACE statute prohibits financing residential condominiums or properties with 1-4 dwelling units. HB 952 would remove this prohibition, indirectly creating a R-PACE program by this one change. The most important defect of this approach is that HB 952 does not include the consumer protections for R-PACE which most states with R-PACE programs have instituted. Secondly, attempting to launch an R-PACE program within the same statute as C-PACE will create a drafting nightmare that will confuse the public and stakeholders alike as to which provisions apply to which program. C-PACE and R-PACE each need to have their own, dedicated section of the Virginia Code. VPA recommends R-PACE proponents spend the coming year drafting a separate code section that stands alone and is not intertwined with C-PACE, and includes appropriate consumer protections that other states have put into place for R-PACE. Such a stakeholder group is what the General Assembly required of C-PACE stakeholders in conjunction with its adoption of the 2015 amendments that substantially revised the C-PACE statute, so there is precedent for such an approach, and it lays the groundwork for a much stronger - and safer - proposal in 2025. But as it stands today, HB 952 will unintentionally lead to confusion, inefficiency, and potential financial harm to homeowners. HB 952 is not a prudent or proper way to develop a R-PACE program. We strongly recommend that the bill be stricken or PBI’d, and instead that 2024 be spent in preparation and consultation with the R-PACE stakeholders to craft an appropriate and balanced statutory framework, in anticipation of returning to the 2025 General Assembly with a well-thought out, complete proposal.

When discussing a transition from extremely harmful gas-powered lawn care equipment such as leaf blowers to much less harmful electric-powered equipment, people frequently raise concerns that such a transition is financially challenging for homeowners and small businesses. HB 953 is a great step toward easing any such concerns and taking urgent action to protect our health, well-being, environment, and climate.

While Arlington County is currently mostly progressive, its form of government has a dark history of evolving to limit the influence of its Black citizens. Today, the at-large County Board members largely defer to the un-elected County staff who may be very professional but who, like the Board members are not really answerable to the citizenry in a direct way. Of course, our system has its advantages of not being held hostage by a radical minority. The citizens of Arlington should be able to decide on what kind of government they would like to have in the future.

Town citizens rights to be able to make decisions on town improvements/ decisions. Town should not be state controlled, for equal opportunity rights and honest representation of all citizens living in jurisdiction of town.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

I oppose SB 304 as amended because it pre-empts local authority on both ADUs AND STRs, and is unreasonably vague in doing so. 1) This bill pre-empts localities from managing density and safety zones such as those around Oceana Naval Air Station, and limits the requirements that localities can impose on ADUs and potentially also on STRs. 2) Paragraph H exempts local ordinances that were enacted prior to 7/1/2025, but ONLY for “an ADU ordinance that substantially complies with this section”. This could invalidate ANY prior ordinance that does not "substantially comply" with this new code section, retroactively pre-empting such ordinances. 3) The new reference to Short-Term Rentals at the end of paragraph H, which is the ONLY reference to STRs in this entire new code section, is exceedingly vague in whether or how it should apply to STRs. This bill needs further study, such as by continuing it to 2025 and asking the Housing Commission to study it, just like the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns did with the (originally) very similar HB900. Please do not advance this bill.

HB1304 Elections; required voting districts in certain cities. The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB1304. Local officials in cities with more than a quarter of a million residents are more likely to proportionally reflect the population when they are elected from individual districts or wards. Campaigning in wards is less costly than campaigning for an at-large seat, which enables a greater variety of candidates to run. The ideal population of a House of Delegates District is 86,314. That means that an at-large council member in a city of over 250,000 must represent three times as many people as a Delegate. Sheer size makes it difficult for the official to know the needs and concerns of the many neighborhoods within the city. HB1304 will assure better representation for residents of large cities.

I support HB1304. Local officials in cities with more than a quarter of a million residents are more likely to proportionally reflect the population when they are elected from individual districts or wards. Campaigning in wards is less costly than campaigning for an at-large seat, which enables a greater variety of candidates to run. The ideal population of a House of Delegates District is 86,314. That means that an at-large council member in a city of over 250,000 must represent three times as many people as a Delegate. Sheer size makes it difficult for the official to know needs and concerns of the many neighborhoods within the city. HB1304 will assure better representation for residents of large cities.

Comments Document

On behalf of the City of Chesapeake please see the opposition letter from Dr. Rick West, Mayor of the City of Chesapeake.

Chair Mundon King, I'm writing you in support of HB1304 Elections; required voting districts in certain cities. As a resident, a minority, and living in the majority minority section of the second largest city in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I don't feel represented on the Chesapeake city council. Our sister cities that are comparable to our size Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Richmond all have some form of district or ward system allowing for truly representative government in their localities. Madame Chair I believe the legislation brought before you today is fair, identifies a need, and allows those cities that fit within the well-defined parameters ample time to make arrangements to implement a district system. I humbly ask this Committee to vote in the affirmative HB 1304. Thank You, David Washington Chairman Chesapeake Democratic Committee

Virginia rightly prides itself on its historic role in the development of the United States and maintains many historic structures for the enjoyment and education of current and future generations. Yet the burgeoning population of urban areas of the state has led to the erasure of older structures in the race among developers to make more money along with high-minded, if largely unsuccessful, efforts to squeeze in affordable housing. Not everything merits historic preservation, of course, but without the kind of process contemplated in HB 1395, those structures and locations that do merit preservation will not gain protection. At some point, private property rights should not automatically trump preservation of our common heritage. Please vote yes on HB 1395.

I strongly urge the House of Delegates to approve HB1395, sponsored by Delegate Patrick Hope. These two modest amendments to State Historic Preservation Law will have major impact on future efforts state-wide to protect and preserve historic properties. Element 1 will ensure that demolition of any property under consideration for local historic district designation CAN NOT take place unless and until the local historic district designation application process has been fully completed and voted on by the local governing entity. Element 2 will give standing to, and allow any citizen in the local district, to appeal any adverse decision regarding local historic district designation through the courts system. While simple, straightforward and modest, approval and enactment will ensure that future actions regarding local historic district designation are fair, honest, open, and rational. Approval will open the appeal process through the courts system to any local citizen, a right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Any local citizen will have "standing" for an appeal to any adverse decision by the local government regarding an application for local historic district designation. If approved, this Bill will prevent the type of disaster that occurred in Arlington in 2020. At that time, the historic 1855 Febrey-Lothrop-Rouse mansion in Arlington and 9.5 acres of land around it, were totally demolished and destroyed. This was directly due to the fact that the application for local historic district designation for this historically significant site was still in process through the Arlington County government, and had not been completed or voted on as required, prior to a demolition permit being issued, and the entire site being destroyed, demolished, permanently lost. Forever lost were the main house built largely by the labor of enslaved people (true craftsmen, carpenters, stonemasons, etc.) in 1855, a large guest house, several large barns and outbuildings, tennis court, in-ground swimming pool, cabana, and numerous 150+ year old magnolia and oak trees. This site was considered historically significant because during the Civil War, over 35,000 Union soldiers camped, trained and drilled here from 1862-1865 on this actual site. The site was known to be a major source for finding Civil War artifacts, such as buttons, bullets, canteens, belt buckles, bayonets, etc. etc. All of this buried treasure is now lost forever. Approval of HB1395 will help significantly to prevent such disasters from occurring again, anywhere in the State of Virginia, and will give every citizen in the local jurisdiction the right of appeal to any adverse decision by the applicable local governing body. I urge all Delegates to vote in favor of HB1395. Thank you very much. Tom Dickinson Past President, 16 year member of the Board of Directors, Arlington Historical Society Founding Director, Preservation Arlington Board of Directors, Arlington Heritage Alliance Founder, Save Historic Arlington

I support this 100%. Vacant building can result in neighborhood blight and owners need to register these buildings and account for them.

Virginia First Cities Coalition is supportive of HB 1486, as it would permit any county, city, or town to require, by ordinance, the owner of any building that has been vacant for at least 12 months and (i) that meets the definition of "derelict building" in relevant law, (ii) that meets the definition of "criminal blight" in relevant law, or (iii) in which a locality has determined a person is living without the authority of the owner to register such building annually. Under current law, any city and certain towns are permitted to require the owner of any building that has been vacant for at least 12 months and meets the definition of "derelict building" in relevant law to register such building annually. This bill is a recommendation of the Virginia Housing Commission. It is supported by the Virginia First Cities Housing Access group as it is viewed as being a helpful tool as we seek to eliminate blight from our communities.

• HB1511 | Phillips | Martinsville, City of; amending charter, granting of town status. I do not think this bill is necessary. Particularly because there is already an active law on the books which gives the citizens of Martinsville, VA (and any city in the state of VA) the right to petition to change from city to town status...if our citizens want to direct reversion, they can already do so. We do not have to wait until it's on a ballot. Otherwise, I believe the city council members our citizens have already voted for, should be in charge of deciding the future of the City of Martinsville, now or in the future. This is why we vote. PS: previous city council members over the years have offered a multitude of opportunities to discuss reversion. Very few citizens showed up to voice their opinions. Chapter 41 - Transition of City to Town Status - of Title 15.2 - Counties, Cities, and Towns, of the Code of Virginia https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter41/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter41/section15.2-4101/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter41/section15.2-4102/ § 15.2-4102. Citizen petition for town status. Voters equal in number to fifteen percent or more of the registered voters of the city as of January 1 of the year in which the petition is filed may petition the circuit court for the city, stating that it is desirable that such city make the transition to town status. All of the signatures on the petition shall have been made and filed within a twelve-month period. A copy of the petition shall be served on the city attorney and the county attorney, or if there is none, on the attorney for the Commonwealth for the county and on the mayor of the city and the chairman of the board of supervisors of the adjoining counties. A copy of the petition shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the city and the adjoining county. The case shall proceed in all respects as though instituted in the manner prescribed in § 15.2-4101, and the court shall forthwith refer the petition to the Commission on Local Government for review pursuant to Chapter 29 (§ 15.2-2900 et seq.). 1988, c. 881, § 15.1-965.10; 1997, cc. 178, 587. From the DLAS Help Desk: Chapter 41 - Transition of City to Town Status - of Title 15.2 - Counties, Cities, and Towns, of the Code of Virginia, is currently effective and does not indicate that it has a "sunset" or expiration date.

HB1028 - More affordable assisted living needs to be available for those who can’t afford $6000 a year. My mother was fortunate to have the money for 10 years but it’s all been spent.