Comments Document

See attached file.

On behalf of the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition promoting technology’s progressive future, I write to oppose SB 388 based on its current drafting. While we support efforts to eliminate deceptive fees and manipulative pricing in certain industries, SB 388 could unfortunately have the effect of eliminating many consumer-friendly pricing options in other industries. We agree that deceptive fees in other industries like hotels, ticketing, and airlines, should be addressed. Inconsistent prices and a lack of transparency make it more difficult for consumers to do “apples to apples” comparisons between competing services and hinder fair competition. Unfortunately, the bill as drafted doesn’t reflect the complexity of some three-sided online marketplaces, like many app-based services, that have a fundamentally different structure.

Consumers are fed up with facing marketplace transactions with unexpected fees. They continue to pop up after one has gone through most of the shopping process and often make purchased items more expensive than expected. It has become virtually impossible to accurately comparison shop since mandatory fees are not included in the price quoted by many businesses. This bill will help level the playing field and help consumers get accurate, dependable information. This will help consumers pay bills and manage money to meet family goals. It will not limit what businesses can charge, it will simply ensure that consumers can readily discern accurate prices. Thank you for supporting this legislation.

I urge the Delegates to table S.B. 454 for this Session and come back to your Districts to be heard by the people. We know the utility companies are saying electric bills would raise to slightly under $2 a month for the research and development of SMRs. That is today! What about tomorrow and the "ever present cost over-runs associated with R&D.". The legislators cannot make a "blank" promise to the people of only $2/month for the life cycle of R&D. Del O'Quinn in on records as saying "SMR designs are founded on decades of research and development which improves their safety and lessens the costs associated with their production." Given that we have no SMR in the United States (because others States have abandoned their R&D), is Del O'Quinn citing Russia and China for his comment of "decades of research?

Please vote no on this bill. Our communities have been damaged enough. There has been absolutely no actual community stakeholder engagement for nuclear development. Many people in our communities don’t even know; grassroots organizations can only get so much information out when larger entities, like Virginia Energy, App Co, and Dominion are working to push through bills like this as quickly and quietly as possible. Once again, Appalachia is a sacrificial zone. This is not about economic diversification for these hills and hollers; this is about Appalachia as a guinea pig (as usual) for energy projects, and in particular one of this experiemental type. SMnRs no where else in the country, and I find it funny that they will be placed here. What’s more, I find it funny that we are being asked to pay for them. This is about asking our rate payers to support this development out of our own pockets, in one of the most economically depressed places in the country, where the energy will not stay. Where jobs will be created for people who are not here, are not struggling here. As always, this moonshot plan will benefit everyone in the country, in the world, but the people who carry it on their backs, and at the risk to the land and water they live on. This is coal all over again, and this bill is yet another push in that direction. As the most one of the most verdant and ecologically diverse places in the country to be stripped from, again, trust me when I say that we’ve seen it once. And I know in my heart we’re about to see it again. Ask yourselves why that is. And ask yourselves who you represent. The rich, and wealthy, who seek to gain from this? Or the folks who are just trying to get by? We are more than sacrificial lambs.

On behalf of the department of mechanical and nuclear engineering at Virginia Commonwealth University, I would just like to say that in order to get the clean energy feature that we all want we must have a diverse energy portfolio and that should include Nuclear. We support this bill.

There are four (4) main reasons to oppose both SB454 and HB1491 -- Money, Money, Money, and Money. "Small Modular Reactors" are in two bills before the Virginia General Assembly in 2024. Each has passed one body, and has crossed to the other one. SB454 is now before the House, and HB1491 is now being considered by the Senate. These would obtain money through rate increases decided on only by the power companies, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power, in order to develop small nuclear reactors. There has been little success with these projects in other states and nationally. The State Corporation Commission which normally decides on questions of rates or consumer problems would be bypassed if either of these bills passes both houses and is signed into law by the governor. There are four (4) main reasons to oppose both SB454 and HB1491 -- Money, Money, Money, and Money. 1. It's unfair, expensive for the ratepayers, and poor economic planning for the state to sanction the charging of ratepayers for development of small nuclear reactors. Many people can't afford that, I certainly can't afford that. And there is zero accountability for the power companies -- no State Corporation Commission oversight -- a blank check forever. 2. It distracts and takes away the money that could be going to solar and wind and other products already here and usable now, and helping all of us now. Why not plan ahead and see about providing solar panels for free or at very reduced rates for homeowners and small businesses, especially those of us who can never afford one, as we are on limited fixed incomes???? Some other states are doing this. Dominion has tons of money -- more than hundreds of thousands of dollars -- to hand out to lobby legislators in Virginia and elsewhere, and they don't give it out from the goodness of their hearts, they expect a return on their "investments". In the 2024 listing alone they have spent $775,000 in Virginia lobbying. So why not let them pay for research and development? These two bills are their way of destroying the growing competition from solar power and wind power and anything else. Appalachian Power has little use of green energy at this time according to their required mailings. 3. Dominion power has already stopped solar companies who wanted help from them in developing solar equipment that could be used by all of us. Dominion power said to the solar companies, if you want it, you pay for it. OK, Dominion power and Appalachian Power -- if you want small nuclear reactors -- YOU, your executives, and your shareholders pay for it. NOT us, the ratepayers!!!!!! We can't afford blank checks and no oversight for your rate increases made whenever you need extra cash to lobby more legislators. We don't trust you two companies. Experience is much louder than Promises. 4. And if they succeed and they someday years from now actually have a product where will the waste go? The backyards of rural people in southwestern Virginia? Or dump it in the rising ocean near public beaches? Please VOTE NO to SB454, and HB1491, and all imitations. We the people do NOT need this additional EXPENSE and high RISK.

My name is Lauren Albrecht, from Big Stone Gap, Virginia. I work with environmental watch groups: Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, The Clinch Coalition, and Virginia Organizing. PLEASE – vote against SB 454! Don’t force ratepayers to be stuck paying for the risky, and costly experiments of Utility companies!! Remember the costly collapse of the premier NuScale SMR plan in Idaho, just this past November. We, who are watching these plans for the coalfields of Virginia – DO NOT want the risky, untested nuclear power plants here. They are proposed for geologically unstable, abandoned mine lands!! We do not want to be forced to pay for our own demise!! It is not economical, and it is NOT safe or clean energy!! SB 454 would draw support away from the renewables and energy storage that are working and FAR less expensive; and do not produce highly radioactive waste. So, please vote NO on SB 454. Thank you. Sincerely, Lauren Albrecht

VOTE NO ON SB454. It is unfair to ask Virginia families to finance these speculative SMR projects. The failure of NuScale is evident after 2 BILLION dollars of taxpayers' monies. Please don't make Virginia families finance "likely failures" with no assurance of affordable electricity.

Please drop the support for SB454. This is an insult to voters - to require them to assume the risks of developing SMnRs. This has already proven to be a huge, costly boondoggle for other states (e.g. Idaho). There is simply too much risk for something that may fail to produce any electricity. Furthermore, it is a form of "anti-capitalism" where you're are removing all risk from the capitalists and placing it squarely on the consumers. It seems clear that this bill reflects a special interest capturing a political representiave. Shareholders should assume the risk - - not citizens/customers, and VOTERS. Why not support some proven clean technologies that already exist (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal)?

Again I am asking you to please OPPOSE SB454 (Marsden) APCO and Dominion ratepayers should not have to pay for development of risky small modular nuclear reactors. SW Virginians are already suffering from a 10% electric rate increase, starting this month! Please VOTE "NO" on SB454. Thank you!

The lack of public involvement in these plans, coupled with the absence of clear answers regarding nuclear waste storage, health and safety concerns, raises serious apprehensions about the potential consequences of SB454. Virginia deserves transparency and assurance before committing billions to a venture that may never come to fruition. Moreover, the current legislation overlooks the immense potential for renewable energy and energy storage, which could not only address our energy needs but also create tangible, local job opportunities. It is crucial to consider alternative, proven technologies that align with the trajectory of sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. SB454, as it stands, would open the door for utilities to recoup development costs for SMRs, even if these reactors are never constructed or fail to generate any power. Virginians should not be compelled to assume the role of nuclear project financiers. If SMRs truly represent an advanced and viable technology, utility executives and stockholders should be the ones assuming the associated risks. The recent cancellation of the NuScale project, despite substantial government investment, raises valid concerns about the feasibility of current efforts in advanced nuclear energy. We must be cautious before subjecting Virginia ratepayers to the same risks, especially considering the failure of past projects that left consumers burdened with substantial financial repercussions. These bills are a taxation to fund unproven and risky projects. The proposed SMRs under SB454 are anything but "small," allowing for multiple reactors, each up to 500 MW. This contradicts the notion of small modular reactors and aligns more with standard-sized reactors. It is essential to reevaluate the parameters of the bill to ensure accurate representation and understanding of the projects it encompasses. I urge you to vote "NO" on SB454 to safeguard Virginians from shouldering an extraordinary financial risk associated with unproven and uncertain nuclear ventures. Let us prioritize transparency, renewable energy alternatives, and the well-being of our residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers over hasty commitments to untested technologies.

I urge the Labor and Commerce to think about the "PEOPLE" when discussing SB 454 in Committee. Why should the people take on the burden of cost for the research and development of Small Nuclear Reactors (SMNR) when there are none in the U.S. and other states have foregone the idea of SMNR Development. Dominions has provided our elected officials over $3,000,000 in campaign contributions in 2023 alone. Also in SW VA, Del O'Quinn & Kilgore have not held a single Town Hall or other public meeting to get their constituents input. Is the Committee going to say campaign contributions are more important than the people? I urge you to table SB 454, go back to your Districts and discuss the merits of the legislation with your constituents, then go back in 2025 and vote with your constituents in mind.

Please vote no on SB 454. Virginia ratepayers, especially low-income households in far Southwest Virginia, are already experiencing difficult financial burdens from skyrocketing electric bills. Asking those vulnerable households to bear the costs of an as-of-yet speculative form of commercial energy generation that has not yet been deployed in the U.S. is poor public policy that will place hardworking Virginians under even greater financial stress. This bill should be rejected.

I urge you to vote no on SB 454. Virginia ratepayers do not need to pay for APCO and Dominion to develop unproven nuclear facilities.

SMRs are a high risk investment Protect all Virginians from being forced to assume the certain financial and environmental risks inherent in SMRs. Please vote NO on SB 454.

Please vote NO on SB 454. This bill would leave ratepayers holding the bag/paying for all of the financial risk of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, while communities in Southwest Virginia take all the risk to their health and safety. Thank you.

I strongly oppose SB454. As a ratepayer I do not want to be charged for development costs for a speculative energy source that is not operational anywhere in the US. Let some other state be the beta tester! Moreover, what I hear from friends in the Navy about nuclear reactors is not encouraging. They are, without exception, opposed to developing this as a civilian power source. We need to invest in sustainable, clean energy sources that are proven technology, not speculative hype that, if it works, will leave us dealing with lethal waste.

I oppose SB454, and you should too if you care about the citizens of SW Virginia. It would throw the door wide for utilities to recoup development costs for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which may never be constructed or deliver even one Watt. This bill would force Virginia ratepayers to become nuclear project financiers. If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing this so-called “advanced” nuclear technology. NuScale, the only SMR to receive preliminary design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was canceled ONE WEEK after Governor Youngkin’s heralded announcement of the “Data Ridge project” in Wise County, Virginia, which he has proposed to power with SMRs. The NuScale failure came, according to Reuters, despite $600 million in grants the U.S. Department of Energy spent on development of the NuScale SMR, and an additional $1.35 billion more pre-approved for NuScale over the next 10 years! According to the nuclear-friendly Breakthrough Institute, “These developments suggest that current efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on the promise of advanced nuclear energy.” Utilities want this bill so they can win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers, as they have in the past (like the $600 million Dominion “recovered” from Virginians for the failed North Anna #3 project - shelved in 2017), to take the risks and pay even if a nuclear plant is never completed. Sen. Marsden is carrying a bill which could force Virginia citizens to carry the risk for any SMR project the two utilities might decide to investigate. We should never expose the Commonwealth’s residential, commercial and industrial ratepayers to such extraordinary financial risk. The proposed SMRs are far from small. SB454 permits multiple SMRs, each up to 500 MW, at a single location. 500 MW is a standard-sized reactor, according to the Department of Energy. Please vote ”NO” on SB-454 before it saddles Virginians upon an extravagant quarter horse that runs up the bills, but fails to make the distance and cross the finish line.

I am opposed to the passage of SB454 bcecause it will unfairly place the cost on household rate payers. These Small Nuclear Reactors are known to be risky & costly & even potentially unable to generate & deliver the new electricity expected. It is also believed that they are more expensive in generating energy than larger reactors. The whole issue of the radioactive waste created by them & where to store it brings more totally unnecessary risks & health hazards. PLEASE vote no on SB454. The communities you represent deserve more consideration from this project of Dominion. Cheaper green energy alternatives are on the horizon and must be supported. It is very distressing that people responsible for voting on this bill have received campaign contributions from Dominion. How can this not be conflictual and a betrayal of your constituents. Putting the bank rolling of this project on ratepayers is simply not morally justifiable. VOTE "NO" on SB454

Please vote no on SB 454. Do not force us to pay upfront for dangerous speculative nuclear projects. This bill would allow utility companies like Dominion and Appalachian Power to charge ratepayers for development and construction of small modular nuclear reactors. This would allow them to invest in dangerous, outrageously costly nuclear projects without taking any risk to shareholders or management. Instead, Virginia residents who are already paying too much for electricity will foot the bill. Small modular nuclear reactors are not reliable- they can't be built and brought online in a predictable, timely manner to affect climate change. They aren't affordable. Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate commercial power and customers pay for this higher cost. The only approved SMR design in the country was cancelled after costs ballooned far above original estimates. and small modular nuclear reactors are not clean by any means. Consider the entire supply chain. From mining and processing uranium to transporting it, to the nuclear reactor producing radioactive waste that cannot be safely stored and never goes away. I've been researching and learning about SMnRs over the last year, since Gov. Youngkin made an announcement about nuclear development in SWVA (even though it fails to meet his own criteria). I live in rural Franklin County and while the SMnR projects aren't being proposed here yet, I'm concerned and outraged. Just to the north of me is Lynchburg, where the reactors would be designed and built likely by BWX. I'm just west of where a uranium field is at Cole's Hill, where a Canadian Company is buying the rights to mine and simultaneously trying to lift the uranium mining ban in the state. Our water is all connected. We travel the same roads and our families and friends span these areas as well. SB 454 is a bad deal for Virginians in an effort to prop up a completely unproven technology that fails to address energy costs or climate change. Senator Marsden received $350,000 just in his 2023 election cycle from Dominion Energy so it's no wonder he's peddling their bad bills. SB 454 is a blatant disregard for the economic wellbeing of Virginians and would put us in even riskier situations in regard to our health should the projects be built. Please vote no.

abuslm@centurylink.net zip code 24348 Name: Anne Morrow Donley So some legislators like Congressman Bob Good revolt when told we must all wear a mask to protect the health of themselves and others. Don't tell us what to do, he told a graduating class, urging them to also revolt against the mask requirement. So why isn't that sentiment present when Appalachian Power and Dominion Energy are demanding total control over customer rate increases to subsidize their development of iffy schemes? Why should we ditch the State Corporation Commission's regulation of these utilities, which is supposed to be a more democratic way of insuring safeguards and necessity for rate increases, and dealing with customer input, etc.? If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing a costly, unproven, and failing nuclear technology. SW Virginians are already suffering from a recent 10% electric rate increase. Georgia Power did this, and after many rate increases over many years are just now trying to bring the new reactors into service. The NuScale SMR failure in November is another prime example of the risk for us the consumers. Please OPPOSE SB454 (Va Senator Marsden) DO NOT FORCE US TO PAY UPFRONT FOR SPECULATIVE SMR NUCLEAR PROJECTS. Demand consumer protection, and consumer input, and please VOTE "NO" on SB454. ===========

I urge you to vote NO on SB454 (Marsden). If enacted, electric customers would be saddled with ever-increasing bills to pay upfront for the planning of SMRs. Not a single one has been successfully built in this country, which is fortunate, given the risks involved. Please consider the economic challenges, health, and safety of your constituents.

I am writing to oppose SB 454 and I ask you to do the same. I live in southwest Virginia where people already struggle to pay their electric bills after recent rate increases. If passed, this bill would force the financial risks for energy projects to ratepayers and not the wealthiest corporations. Please vote for the people of the Commonwealth and not with big money interests. We can't afford more rate increases. Please oppose SB 454. Jane Branham P.O. Box 14 Norton, VA 24273

Please vote "NO" and DEFEAT SB454, for the reasons I shared just below.

This dog just won't hunt. The exorbitant flagship SMR project, NuScale, failed in November despite an infusion of over $2 billion in paid and promised federal subsidies. If you change SCC regulation to permit Dominion Energy and APCo to start putting their fingers in our pockets and pulling out incremental costs for SMR development, they will pull out $$$$ by the handful each month. Take from customers already struggling under the 10% APCo increase, levied just this month. You will regret forcing constituents to underwrite this costly boondoggle. You may feel comforted by the words in the bill which direct the SCC to permit reimbursement of "reasonable and prudent" utility expenditures on SMR development. But in practice it will work quite differently. Utility lawyers and experts are very persuasive. Does the SCC have the staff or outside resources to fully evaluate the information the utilities provide about “advanced” reactor design and engineering? Implementing SB454, sunk costs from front-end government subsidized capital and relatively low, early ratepayer costs will help Dominion and APCo convince the SCC to require ratepayers to continue reimbursing ongoing SMR expenses incrementally. Continuing to require ratepayer credit for SMRs becomes the default choice. Throwing good money after bad. At utility scale, the electricity energy standard, “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy-2023” (LCOE), rates NUCLEAR as THE MOST EXPENSIVE means to generate commercial electric power. According to Lazard, nuclear power is the ONLY utility-scale generation source that has INCREASED significantly in price/mWh between 2009 and 2023. In fact, the cost of nuclear per mWh soared +53% between 2016 and 2023 alone (unsubsidized LCOE analysis - p.9 of Lazard’s LCOE, April, 2023). There are alternatives > require data centers, which are driving up electric demand and costs for everyone to implement the latest efficiency technology and supply their demand with 100% renewable energy and energy storage. Amazon and Google are already powered with 100% renewable in states where this is required. Do not place this economic burden on the residential ratepayer. Residential, commercial and most industrial customers did not cause this growth in demand. We should not be on the hook to pay for it, especially if you send us down an SMR rabbit hole. Former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chai Allison McFarlane, wrote in July, “If, as a recent study showed, that SMRs will be significantly more expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind, and even geothermal, what will the marketplace look like in 20 or 30 years, when renewables will presumably be even cheaper?” If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing this costly, unproven, and failing nuclear technology.

Please vote against SB454 I do not wish to pay for the development costs of Small Nuclear Reactors in southwest Virginia and Southside Virginia.

Please OPPOSE SB454 (Marsden) DO NOT FORCE US TO PAY UPFRONT FOR SPECULATIVE SMR NUCLEAR PROJECTS. NuScale's failure in November of 2023 is a prime example of the risk-- a huge loss in cost overruns making the potential product unaffordable, and may never come online. Please VOTE "NO" on SB454.

I strongly oppose SB454 - SMRs are risky and costly and may ultimately deliver no electricity. Let the utility stockholders take that risk, not families. Many of the families in SWVA already struggle to pay their electric bills--they should not have to pay upfront for new industrial ventures that may not even deliver on their promise and if they do may ultimately pollute their area.