I'm not sure which bill I'm commenting on entirely. All I know for sure is I'm a type 1 diabetic of 30 years. And our government seems to care very little about my health or the insane costs of the medication that I absolutely have to have to live. Or getting the care I need. Which has been expensive, and has kept me struggling to survive pay rent or see the many doctors I need to see. I am ready to share my story. About my lows where I wake up in the hospital then wind up with an $8000 hospital bill as well as a $4000 bill for a 10 minute ambulance ride. Or about my highs, or just about the struggle of being a Diabetic who was uninsured who struggles to survive in a government that seems to care more about pharmaceutical companies profits than it's citizens health. I have quite a bit to say on the subject and my struggles as a diabetic.

I'm not sure which bill I'm commenting on entirely. All I know for sure is I'm a type 1 diabetic of 30 years. And our government seems to care very little about my health or the insane costs of the medication that I absolutely have to have to live. Or getting the care I need. Which has been expensive, and has kept me struggling to survive pay rent or see the many doctors I need to see. I am ready to share my story. About my lows where I wake up in the hospital then wind up with an $8000 hospital bill as well as a $4000 bill for a 10 minute ambulance ride. Or about my highs, or just about the struggle of being a Diabetic who was uninsured who struggles to survive in a government that seems to care more about pharmaceutical companies profits than it's citizens health. I have quite a bit to say on the subject and my struggles as a diabetic.

The Town of Ashland enthusiastically supports HB385. Ashland has seven vehicular rail crossings and at least eight pedestrian only rail crossings in the center of our community. For years we have shared our concerns with State and Federal legislators regarding the blocking of these vehicular crossings when a train needs to stop. On numerous occasions one train has stopped and blocked all the crossings in Town; effectively cutting off one side of our community from the other and most importantly preventing police, fire and rescue emergency services from accessing community members in need. This is not hyperbole, it happens, more frequently than anyone on this committee would be comfortable to occur in their community. Our most recent legislative agenda continues this trend of advocating for someone at the State or Federal level to take responsibility for regulating the freight providers by limiting the occurrence of trains stopping in a community and/or limiting the length of trains. The language reads as follows: The Town of Ashland supports the delegation of Federal oversight to the Virginia State Corporation Commission for the enforcement of the maximum period a highway-railroad crossing may be closed to enhance safety and accountability for obstructions that may potentially impede first responders' emergency response. We also encourage the General Assembly to take a proactive stance on this area of interest. Please do not let arguments made against similar bills in years past outweigh the safety and quality of life for Virginia communities. You have the chance to do something now - do not wait for Federal legislation. Trains have been shorter in years past and business did great, limiting length will not affect the the economic success of Virginia businesses. And finally, as a community that has over 60 trains a day pass right through our town in residential, commercial, and higher education areas do not let the rail planners tell you that fewer longer trains are better for these intersections. We've lived it, and the longer trains have made the blockage of vehicular crossings far more time consuming. On behalf of the Town of Ashland thank you for your consideration.

It is completely unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would want just one man on a train. A conductor or a two man crew is valuable in many ways. My conductor most importantly keeps me awake, and attentive. They keep track many things that are critical to the safety of train handling such as speed changes and direct orders from dispatchers and supervision. This is well needed. As an engineer I am responsible for handling trains that are in excess of 2 and sometimes 3 miles long. Trains with hazardous materials that most wouldn't even want to know are rolling thru their towns. All the while trying to be certain that a poorly maintained PTC system functions correctly, and to be sure the A.I. (trip optimiser/energy management) responds to train handling correctly. A.I. is already running our trains, and as a railroad engineer I have to take my train back from A.I. at least 10 times each day, because it is unable to control the train correctly. None of this is safe... Now law makers have the decision. Would you like one or two men keeping your family and town safe at night?

Every train in Virginia should have two people on there it’s a must…..

As the wife of an engineer, I can’t help but express my opinion of the importance of a two-man crew for our railroad system. The engineer and conductor are a team and work together for all of the issues of getting the train from Point A to Point B safely. The safety of the employees, commodities being transported and communities the trains pass thru all need peace of mind that the two-man crew brings.

With safety at the highest priority, having a two-man crew is the only way to achieve. Cutting cost does not supersede safety for staff and the public.

Good evening, Please provide support to HB 385, it is of up most importance for safety that train crews be properly staffed with two. This provides a safer environment for the staff in the train along with the community they are traveling through. Working in unison two operators ensure that the train is safely maneuvered. Errors can occur at any time and having two employees, well trained can mitigate these issues prior to them causing harm. We have seen the harm and environmental impact an emergency on a train can cause in East Palestine. We need to do everything in our power to prevent another emergency of that nature and I believe reducing staff is doing the complete opposite. Thank you for your considerations,

A two-person crew on every train is vital to the safety standard that Norfolk Southern claims they want to uphold.  This same standard also applies to the other Class 1 railroads that preach how much safety means to their operations as well.  With the amount of technology that is used today via computer screens, a locomotive engineer can easily miss an unsafe condition or trespasser on the tracks.  In this case, the conductor would be the one observing the tracks ahead and alert the engineer of the unsafe condition or trespasser.  Having a second person in the cab of each locomotive not only keeps the assets of the company safe, but the public as well in the towns that the railroads pass through.  In closing, I know a locomotive engineer that had a medical emergency during his trip while operating the locomotive.  The conductor quickly noticed that the engineer was having an issue and contacted the train dispatcher of the situation.  After doing so, the conductor was able to assist in stopping the train at a location where first responders could quickly access the locomotive.  In the end, the engineer was flown to a nearby hospital for emergency heart surgery.  During the recovery period, the doctor told the engineer that if his conductor wouldn't have reacted in the manner they did, he would have not survived.  A second person in the cab of every locomotive is an absolute must when it comes to everyone's safety and should never be questioned!

As a private citizen, who is knowledgeable of railroad operations, I feel very strongly that reducing train crews to 1 will jeopardize the safety of all Virginians. It is a difficult job maintaining control of thousands of tons of machine and tonnage even without the job of watching out for the safety of other employees and the general public. Any delay to train movements will be exacerbated by the allowance of one-man crews, which will undoubtedly affect the public. I strongly urge legislators to require a minimum of 2 crewmen per train. Respectfully, -Edward Burnett, Lynchburg

Hello as an csx conductor we need to keep a two man crew for the safety of my fellow constituents as they operate these engines carrying all type of materials almost 2 miles long the engineer and conductor are a team that keeps moving tomorrow freight. One man crew is not acceptable anything can happen while on a train health such as heart attack, seizures, passing out etc the alerta is not safety !!!! It’ll take a numerous of hours to get help as a conductor we have the know how. A conductor is not just someone that keeps the engineers company. When we are in these nomanlands where vehicles can’t get to and something goes wrong with the train and it’s only one in cab who’s to walk 2/2.5 mile long train to fix the issue.

Hello, I’m an employee for the railroad for the past ten years. 2 person crews shouldn’t be voted for, but they are an absolute must. I can attest to the excruciating long hours, the physical wear and tear on the person working, not to mention the emotional toll the job can put on you. It would be extremely negligent to turn 2 person trains into 1 person trains. Reason 1.) With only 1 person ( the engineer) being on the train, what would happen if the train were to go into emergency. Some of these trains nowadays are 13,000 ft long, and if the only person has to shut down, lock up, and walk the train…that would take forever. It would be much easier to keep a 2nd person on a crew to walk and if need be communicate to an engineer to make cuts to clear up crossing, it just makes sense. Reason 2.) with the trains running longer and heavier nowadays, we now have to start thinking about the stress of the knuckles in the middle of trains. If the train is too long and the knuckles give out, train goes into emergency. Now the person who’s running the train has to go inspect the train for the reason the train went into emergency. No person is going to know what happens a mile behind them when running a train. MAKE TRAINS SHORTER!!!!!!! Reason 3.) I can not begin to tell you how many hours I probably spend in a rail yard, let alone on a railroad. I work in a switching yard, not line of road, and there are plenty of times where duties go by much faster with the use of a 3rd person getting involved. Imagine how much that would slow down with just 1 person. Railroads would love to go to Remote Controlled Locomotives, to cut down on cost, improve profit margins, and that’s all fine and dandy but what do you when that one person who spends so many hours in the rail yard starts to fade while working on the job? WE CAN NOT let it get to that point. We must protect the 2 person crew, and while we’re at it…push for a 3rd person. More people means less hours, less hours means more time at home with loved ones. Reason 4.) TERMINATIONS/LAYOFFS!!!!!! If we choose not to vote for 2 person crews, the railroads will get their wish and won’t have use for the people they use to cover vacancies for jobs. If people think it’s bad now just wait until the jobs get cut in half. America does not need more people on the street, they need more people involved in the infrastructure now more than ever. Protect the job force, vote for 2 person crews. We, the state of Virginia, have to protect 2 person crews. I know that this has been debated for a long time and I understand the reasons why, so I look toward the legislative lawmakers in the state, and nationally for another matter. It is up to us to do the right thing for the American people, not what’s right for the companies. The matter is quite simple, are you for more jobs or less jobs? I’m for more jobs, and I hope the lawmakers in Richmond and DC are for those too. If they are not, then I truly know where the loyalties lay and their stance is flawed, corrupted. Be bold and stand for your railroad brothers and sisters. Virginia is for lovers and we should love and protect everyone, if we can. Thank you

It’s hard enough to do your job and try to keep watch of all your surroundings as an engineer, reducing the crew would only make it more dangerous to safely operate a locomotive because you can’t monitor everything with having only half of the vision of site on one side of the locomotive. Another set of eyes is crucial to safety.

As a Locomotive Engineer with 25 years of railroad experience I am convinced of the need to have a two person crew on all trains. In the event of problems arising on the line of road, having a conductor present and ready to attend to the problem quickly helps to prevent railroad crossings from being blocked for longer than is absolutely necessary, allowing free flow of traffic and emergency services. As an Engineer I have seen the industry substantially decline its safety practices in the last 12 years. They have really put profits first before the safety of its employees, customers and most importantly the public. Human factor incidents will continue to rise if we allow single-man Crews, especially when, not if, Positive Train Control fails, as it commonly does today. Failures which are an almost daily occurrence. NO TO POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL AND NO TO PRECISION SCHEDULED RAILROADING!!!

I am writing to express my support for the proposed rule that would require a minimum of two crew members for most train operations. As a father-in-law's who's son who works for CSX Railroad as a conductor, I am deeply concerned about his safety and the safety of all railroad workers and the public. Having two crew members on a train is essential for ensuring safe and efficient operations, especially in cases of emergency, such as derailments, collisions, fires, or hazardous material spills. A second crew member can help the conductor spot potential dangers, communicate with dispatchers and first responders, apply hand brakes, perform inspections, and assist injured passengers or crew members. A second crew member can also provide backup and support for the engineer, who may face fatigue, stress, or distraction while operating the train. Reducing the crew size to one person would not only endanger the lives of railroad workers and the public, but also compromise the quality and reliability of rail service. One-person crews would face increased workload, responsibility, and pressure, which could lead to human error, delays, or accidents. One-person crews would also limit the ability of railroads to respond to changing operational needs, such as switching, doubling, or splitting trains. I urge you to adopt the proposed rule and protect the safety and welfare of railroad workers and the public. Thank you for your consideration.

As a locomotive engineer with 17 years of railroad experience I am convinced of the need to have a two person crew on all trains. In the event of problems arising on the line of road, having a conductor present and ready to attend to the problem quickly helps to prevent railroad crossings from being blocked for longer than is absolutely necessary, allowing free flow of traffic and emergency services. The railroads’ proposal of having motor vehicle based conductors to attend to line of road issues and emergencies would add significantly to the amount of time road crossing are blocked, thereby threatening lives by blocking access to emergency services. I have also seen numerous examples of motorists behaving recklessly in order to clear a road crossing before it is occupied by a train, no doubt because they have been caught in a blocked crossing scenario before. Two pairs of eyes in the locomotive cab is another safety based reason to mandate two person crews. In the age of Positive Train Control (PTC), distributed power (remote locomotive/s in the train) and auto-pilot I am constantly monitoring a number of control screens and as such unable to keep my eyes “on the road” at all times. I therefore rely on my conductor in these situations to be on the lookout for any safety critical issues. The railroads maintain that PTC is enough of a solution to safety related issues in the industry and often cite its presence in the cab as a reason to do away with the conductor craft, but in reality it only prevents trains from passing unfavorable signals and potentially colliding with another train or exceeding mandatory speed limits. Whilst these are definitely good safety upgrades PTC does not prevent collisions that are not signal related, such as road crossing incidents which can only be prevented by two vigilant crew members. I have been fortunate enough never to have hit (or heaven forbid kill) a motorist in my career thus far but I am aware that statistically I am unlikely to end my career without an incident of this kind. Being assisted by the that second pair of eyes in the cab may just allow me to reach the end of my career without someone’s death on my conscience.

To Whom it may concern: I have worked in the rail industry for 19 years now as both a conductor and an engineer. Two man crews are a necessity for public safety as a whole. We cannot rely on technological safety features to stop a train in the event of an emergency, we must have two people in the cab of locomotive while the train is moving incase the engineer becomes incapacitated due to a medical emergency and the technological safety features do not activate to stop the train. With thousands of tons of highly dangerous chemicals being ship every day in the commonwealth it would be criminally negligent of the government to allow railroads to operate trains with one man crew. Anyone who is for one man crews will have blood in their hand when (not if) an accident occurs that could have been prevented by having a two man crew in the train. For the safety of the citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia we must have two man train crews. Sincerely, Mr. Jones

As a locomotive Engineer I work all times of the day and night. I depend heavily on my conductor for safety having another set of eyes and ears are invaluable. If there was ever a medical emergency to myself or the conductor medical personnel could be contacted ASAP and directed to the exact location.

I am a retired Conductor for Norfolk Southern, retired in 2014.A few years before retiring, I was instructed to stop my train at CSX Collier Yard in Petersburg, to pick up cars bound for Crewe. We left the rear of our train on the main line and went into the CSX yard to make our pickup and then returned to our train. After getting our train together, we proceeded west, running prepared to stop at the next signal approximately two miles ahead. My Engineer was operating the train watching the speedometer, and other gauges to safely move the train to the next signal. I was watching the track ahead as we started moving and picking up speed. I observed what was determined to be a bad kink in the siding adjacent to our main line and told my Engineer to stop the train. We stopped about 75 feet before crossing a bridge where the kink was located. Upon inspection of the track, I saw that an over height truck must have hit the bridge and knocked the siding and main line out of gauge. This bridge over Squirrel Level Road had to be replaced, costing approximately 5 million dollars. Two crew members present on the train made the difference in what could have been a potential disaster from a derailment or possibly a collapse of this bridge.

I dont understand why this is up for debate every year im a locomotive engineer and i have so much going on in the cab its better with 4 eyes than 2 if i miss something the conductor is there to catch it.If something goes wrong with the train im not able to do it the conductor is that's another reason to have a 2nd person the conductor is so valuable to our daily tasks at hand please take in to consideration also public safety with 2 person crews i ask that u pass the 2 person crew bill for the safety of everybody.

I will be retiring within the next 3-5 years from a major Class I railroad… over my career as a freight conductor I have experienced countless examples of the need for at least 2 man crews on freight trains… the never ending quest for another dollar by increasing size and weight of coal and freight trains already puts the public at greater risk and now they want to scale back to single man crew so that one tired railroad man is careening down the rails at 50 mph with 30,000 tons of coal through your town… you better hope his eyelids aren’t heavy as your kid nears the tracks.

Back 2 person crews.

2 man rail crew safety is a no brainer, you need that extra set of eyes on board. With three separate screens for the engineer to look at while operating a locomotive you need that other person helping with objects outside the cab. In a few seconds I’m looking at ptc, or my distributive power screen a lot can happen on the outside from people walking the tracks, cars running grade crossing, maintenance of the way out working, etc. Railroads has put safety on the back burner for its employees and communities, and it seems to be getting worse daily with doing WAY more with less and less .

We need to ensure that at least a 2 person crew is on board the head end of all trains! As a first responder of 25 years, & a Conductor/Engineer for 20 years, I fully understand the importance of the "2 Man Crew"! PSR and Positive Train Control are not working well & should not be used to replace a human inside the cab of leading locomotives! Help protect My Safety as well as the Safety of All Citizens in Virginia!!

As a rail employee and a member of this community, I believe smaller trains and two person crews are vital to safe train movement. Longer trains add extra exposure to crews and to the community. Long train block public and private crossing causing emergency response to be delayed or impossible. Two men crews are vital to create a safe cab and options for crew members protect the public and lookout for each other.

I have been employed at my company for over 23 years, most of which has been as a Locomotive Engineer. A one-man crew on a freight train would be the worst thing that could happen here in the United States, Since the implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR) trains have got longer and heavier. It is not uncommon to have a 2.5-mile-long, 28,000-ton train. Here on the East Coast many of the railroads still run on rights-of-way that were built in the 1800s, although they may have been upgraded but were still not designed for such large trains that are too big to fit into sidings, often block road crossings for hours while waiting to get into a yard. If one-man crews were implemented engineer-only crews would have no way of cutting crossings for traffic and emergency vehicles, and no one would be readily available in the event of a derailment or train separation. Conductors would be ground-based and may take some time to reach a disabled train. Positive Train Control (PTC) does not and should not eliminate another pair of eyes in the locomotive cab. Though a great safety enhancement PTC is itself just in its infancy, Like any other software-driven platform it can easily fail to function. Train crews are subject to many long hours (12 hours plus in some cases), we don't even know when we are going to go to work so we don't get proper rest, we often have to eat fast food or gas station food and therefore have a poor diet. All of which leads to fatigue. We need two people in the cab to watch each other's back. I think shorter trains and two-man crews would go a long way to enhance the safety of the public,

As a railroad employee I cannot express how much of a necessity 2 man crews are for the safety of my fellow railroaders and the community. simply for the reason of Positive Train Control (PTC) is a $15 billion safety overlay system that is incapable of performing the cognitive functions and tasks of a certified conductor. PTC does not, and cannot perform the functions of an onboard conductor, and it cannot provide the benefits of two human beings working in collaboration inside the cab of a locomotive. Railroading is a high-risk industry. And like all other high-risk industries, teamwork is the most critical component. Over the last two decades railroads have achieved their safest and richest era because of the two-person crew. With the growing train length the need for 2 man crews is at an all time high. For example say we have a vehicle collision there’s one person to go back and assess the situation while the other relays the information to the dispatcher and tries to get emergency assistance to the effect parties. I cannot express how important it is for 2 man crews in this dangerous environment for the well being of everyone. There’s so many reasons and examples of why we should keep 2 man crews and I’m just beginning to dip my toe in the water about it. Thank you for taking the time and hearing me out.

With the amount of safety measures that this job requires, having a 1 man crew would rank as the unsafest option for any class 1 railroad. From public safety to employee safety. An engineer can NOT fix the train and be made to operate it as well. Not to mention already having a manpower shortage to move trains, now we are talking about doing away with an entire position? And for what? To save a buck? Just think if an engineer were to have a medical emergency. Who would be there to call for help or get the train stopped in a safe place to get medical attention? What if the train breaks in half blocking road crossings? There are so many things to think about when it comes to how important it is to have 2 man crews. It's time we put this to bed and never revisit the idea. It is dangerous and well set the rail industry back so far.

Two man crew at a minimum is extremely important, having a conductor on the train helps in preventing collisions, derailments and blocked crossings. This is because train engineers must stay in the engine with a multitude of responsibilities. As a conductor I’m a second pair of eyes and ears, I talk with dispatchers and other trains to resolve issues along the tracks, and look for potential problems while the engineer has to tend to their owns set of obligations and rules. Having two people on the lead engine is paramount for the safe, efficient operation of the railroad and our community.

No one man crews,

I am convinced that multiple crew members on freight trains contribute to safety and efficiency during the transport of critical rail merchandise. Two-person rail crews allow for tasks associated with trains (switching, classification of cars, en route repairs etc.) to be accomplished far more efectively than with a lone crewman. Enhanced safety and security are additional by-products of the two-person system, allowing for one member to focus on watching & monitoring the train's various systems (trainline air, positive train control, optimization) while the other member can be vigilant for unexpected potential threats, such as children playing in tracks or vehicles stranded in the line of road. Numerous studies over the years have shown indisputable evidence of multiple crew members playing a critical role in ensuring the security of the railroad cargo as well as the safety of the general public at large.

Railroads are for profit, not for safety. Please ensure the safety of your constituents by requiring 2 person crews on trains

HB385 Not only should we keep a minimum 2 person train crew but if safety is a true priority, we should move towards the addition of a 3rd crew member. The reimplementation of the use of the caboose on the rear of the train with a crew member would also add a new level of safety with the added ability to monitor live train conditions in real time from the rear of the train as well.

I'm an engineer with norfolk southern out of roanoke va. I am commenting on the dangerous practice of running trains longer than our infrastructure can handle. These long trains put the public and train crews in stressful and dangerous situations. Long trains cause delays instigated by having to meet other trains on line of road in sidings nor long enough to accommodate both trains. Trains are having to hold up to 100 miles away because both Trains are too big to pass. Also most importantly, if a train has to block road crossings, possibly for hours, you put the public at risk of not having emergency services access to them. Houses can burn down, ambulances can't get to those in need. Let's be smart and reduce these train sizes. We need two people on the headend of these trains also. We are being overwhelmed with technology on the engineer side and the stress would be unbearable being on that train alone.

This bill will play a big role in keeping the communities safe that we work around each day.When there is a situation that arises there will be 2 people able to communicate with first responders as well as citizens.If this bill does not pass then you chose profits over safety and when something does happen you will be reminded.

As a spouse of an engineer for CSX and as a business owner that relies on the railroad, I am asking you to please vote for HB385. I have seen the pure exhaustion my husband faces day in and day out of the demanding schedule CSX has. There is so much that could go wrong with one-man crews I just do not understand why this would even be considered. The public safety and the safety of the crews should be number 1. Going to one-man crews greatly puts my railroader at extreme risk and also my business. Thank you for your consideration.

I have been following the Congressional hearings on CSPAN regarding railroad safety especially the Ohio hazardous cargo spill/accident. There is bipartisan support for 2 man crews and to vastly increase safety regulations and training. I also support those actions and specifically the following; 2 man crews, shortened trains and increased safety education and training for the employees. This will lead to the safer operation of trains, increased moral for employees, family members and increased company profits over the long haul.

Why even consider allowing railroads to relax safety standards, crew size and train length? Railroads are incredibly profitable. Don't let them trade safety for profit. A two-person crew ensures a safer environment for rail employees and communities. Two heads are always going to be better than one. Maintaining situational awareness, at all hours and under constantly changing conditions, is a challenge that calls for more than just one crew member navigating the complexities of railroad operations. Train lengths have gotten ridiculous! Communities are being cut off from emergency services, and pedestrians, many of them children, are cutting through trains that block public and private crossing. Imagine crossing through one train to be hit by another train traveling on the adjacent track. The danger is real! 1 truck driver can haul 1 load safely and profitably. 2 rail workers can haul more than 100 loads safely and profitably. Trains DO NOT need to be longer to be profitable. Cutting a rail-crew size in half WILL NOT make railroads safer.

I am a conductor, I feel it is necessary for at least 2 employees on every train. The engineer has many thing to observe in the handling of the train and its components, he needs someone to help him stay alert and watch the rail, talk on the radio, handle the paperwork, and not to mention if someone needs to get down to check something, you would not want the locomotive cab to be unattended while someone is on the ground….

Freight Trains need at least 2 on a CREW! Longer Trains = MEGA PROBLEM. SPSR and PTC does not guarantee SAFETY

Freight trains need at least 2 people on a crew. An extra set of actual eyes is very helpful in every situation, be it airline pilots, surgeons or railroaders.

As legislators you are charged with the safety and protection of your citizens and are elected to do so. HB 385 must pass and the Governor must sign in order that you the elected leaders fulfill your responsibility to the citizens of Virginia. Not only does this legislation protect the citizens but also the environment in limiting and reducing hazardous spills (REMEMBER LYNCHBURG VA) CSX railway's toxic spill and fire. This legislation helps protect from this type of incident. Additionally, the workers are protected this in turn makes for better and more alert employees to prevent catastrophic accidents, and injuries to the workers and public. So do not be persuaded by your campaign contributions from the powerful Railroad Lobby but vote to pass this legislation to protect VIRGINA it's people, labor, and environment.

Two man crews are vital because it applies increased situational awareness and better decision making during operations. Just by having one person onboard decreases the ability on three very important key aspects, keeping watch, monitoring the trains system, and communicating with dispatch. Two man crews improve security onboard the train because there is someone available to keep watch for potential threats such as theft or intrusions and will be able to immediately call the appropriate authorities versus a one man operation where it decreases the chances of this dramatically. We need to keep two man crews for safety purposes.

The job that our spouses have as conductors and engineers are already dangerous enough and the thought that the companies just want to “save money” at the expense of the safety of our spouses and communities is appalling. Could you be alone for 12 hours straight and continue to function at a high level to ensure that the train gets to its destination safely? All it takes is for them to make one mistake and it could cause catastrophic consequences as we already know. When the trains get longer and longer it causes more issues. If something is wrong and our spouses have to walk a 3 mile long train who knows what they would encounter on the way to fix the problem or on the way back with a long distance to the front of the train. The safety of our spouses and communities should not be revoked because of greed of these huge companies.

Freight trains need at least 2 on a crew Longer trains=MEGA PROBLEMS PSR and PTC does not guarantee safety

I have been a conductor now for almost two years. Can't believe this would even be a topic that is up for debate. We need two man crews on trains for public safety! Plain and simple debate over!

Freight trains need two person crews not only for the safety of the community but as well as the crew members. Trains crews as well as other railroad employees have taken a huge cut over the years just to increase profits. Safety has fallen to the lowest priority to maximize profits for share holders.

Freight trains need two person crews not only for the safety of the community but as well as the crew members. Trains crews as well as other railroad employees have taken a huge cut over the years just to increase profits. Safety has fallen to the lowest priority to maximize profits for share holders.

Freight Trains need at least two on a CREW! The results could be deadly otherwise.

After being a conductor/engineer for over 16 years I can’t stress enough the importance of 2 man crews. Railroading is a job with significant dangers, often not well-known by the general public. Two man crews are for safety and reducing crew size will increase danger to the public and the environment. Let’s continue to be proactive instead or reactive.

Having a one man crew is irresponsible and dangerous, It puts the lives of the crew who are on duty in danger. The thought of this should be criminal. An engineer I know had a medical emergency and had there not been another person on the train it’s possible he would have not made it. If there is an emergency while in transit only having one person in the engine would make it impossible to safely handle the situation. Having two people allows for communication of what is needed to properly and safely move the train. Also, with the hours that we work there is no set schedule which means you can be called anytime during the day or night. Having another person working with you can help to keep you alert especially during the overnight hours. These reasons show how important it is to continue to have a two man crew to maintain a safe work environment.

I worked on NS for over 36 years and saw the railroads go from 5 man crews to 2 man crews. Train has an emergency brake application the conductor has to walk the length of the train and back. If it happens on public rail crossings the crossings could be blocked for up to 2hours or longer. Rail carriers could care less about emergency vehicles or the public--they are only concerned with profits! So wonder who they got to sponsor this bill? Maybe someone should check campaign contribution record of that person!

5 year employee of Norfolk Southern, 2 man crews are necessary. Let’s keep everyone safe!

Two man crews are minimum. The work load for one man is overload, overloaded conductors make mistakes and mistakes on a train equal huge loss. Safety rules in place help but nothing is better than a second pair of eyes from you’re brother looking out for you and you looking out for him so everyone goes home safe and nothing gets damaged and the train stays on the rail. The safest work crews have two men on the ground period. These long trains congest main lines especially in heavily populated cities.

If a train doesn’t have at least two employees if something were to go wrong there would be no one to get the train moving off private and public crossings in a timely manner. This is a safety issue in the sense that someone may need medical attention or a structure fire. With one employee it could take even longer to get a relief or someone to inspect a train.

If a train doesn’t have at least two employees if something were to go wrong there would be no one to get the train moving off private and public crossings in a timely manner. This is a safety issue in the sense that someone may need medical attention or a structure fire. With one employee it could take even longer to get a relief or someone to inspect a train.

2 people is the bare minimum necessary to man the already dangerous job of working any position on the railroad. When things go South, having just one person there for backup makes all the difference. Put safety over profits.

Freight Trains need at least 2 on a CREW! Huge safety risk without two person crews so much can go on on a train there is so much to tend to it’s way to much for one crew member to handle at once so much can go wrong in just a split second.

All railroad cabs need 2 operating employees. An engineer and a conductor.

Two man crews are necessary for the safety of not only trainmen but also the communities in which they work and live. Safety should always come before the profits of the railroad - please support mandating two man crews.Also Who is going to stop the train properly if there’s a medical emergency if it’s only a one man crew. Who is going to call medical emergency services.

2 people are needed on trains. Long train result in bigger problems. For the safety of the community 2 people are needed!!!

I am part business owner of a 64 year family business that started in the New Kent county part of Providence Forge and is now in Charles City county area called Roxbury. The railroad has always been apart of our community as we rely on them to ship our product. Today I am here to tell you about the ridiculous amount of railroad crossing blockage that has cost my business time and money. These 3 mile long trains have got to stop. With our business being right beside the track we are also very concerned about a major train derailment such as East Palestine, Ohio. A derailment like this could kill anyone of my employees or myself and wipe out our family business. Safety needs to be the main priority here. I also feel that there should always be two people on the train at all times. As a business owner I would want two people, that always have eyes and ears as to save a catastrophic event from happening that could safe lives. Please please consider HB385 we need this more now than ever.

Please support HB-385 keep us safe!

Freight Trains need at least two people on a CREW! PSR and PTC does not guarantee SAFETY of the employees.

This bill is extremely important. Railroad safety is at a all time low. As a railroader I have seen the industry substantially decline its safety practices in the last 12 years. They have really put profits first before the safety of its employees and most importantly the public. East Palenstine, Ohio train derailment is one of the latest catastrophes that had a daunting affect and impact on the citizens that live there. This situation about these 2 to 3 mile long trains is not a joke anymore and how many times do we have to have a major derailment like East Palenstine happen where bills like HB385 will be taking seriously? Two man crews are a must!! There is no other option with that. As a locomotive engineer I can tell you that for the safety of the public that a human can not be replaced with any modern technology that exist today and possibly ever. Positive train control is a tool but it can never replace the human experience. Please no matter which party you are affiliated with, this is a very serious bill that needs to be passed. Thank you for your time

There should be two people on a train for not only the public’s safety but also for the train crews safety. There are many situations where time and communication are critical and can not be done with one single employee. A few examples would be a vehicle strike, while one person is down on the ground assessing the scene, the other employee can be informing first responders about the situation and where to go. Another example would be if there was a derailment, a one person crew would have to have that person walk back to find and assess what is happening and try to radio in the information on a hand held radio that has very limited range and in some areas of the territory might have no communication at all especially with trains that exceed 7000 ft. The railroads want to claim that a ground based employee will be on scene but that is not an immediate possibility, that ground based employee will need to drive towards a general area and then have to find the exact location. This could take a lengthy amount of precious time to locate and relay what is happening or has happened. This can be said about having road crossings blocked because of a problem with the train, a one person crew would have to wait until the ground based employee arrives to fix the problem while having roads blocked for all that time. Finally I would like to address the crews safety, there are safe guards to protect the train and stop it if there is an emergency. However if there is an emergency where the train operator becomes incapacitated there is no help for him, until someone notices that the train has stopped and then it must be located and someone sent out to it. That length of time that it takes could mean life or death for that employee but also means that train is not moving until it is determined why it has stopped. Two persons on a crew gives the train two sets of eyes and more reliable and rapid communication, along with being able to help and protect each other from any possible situation. Thank you for your time and attention

Living in Virginia, I want to emphasize the crucial need for a minimum of two crew members on a train. This isn't just advantageous for the community but also for the crew themselves. With a duo, there's a system of accountability and mutual reliance regarding the situation ahead. Given the frequent turnover in railroad personnel, varying skill levels are inevitable. The less experienced can learn from their more skilled counterparts in uncommon scenarios, fostering a collaborative effort to ensure the safe passage of the train. These are just a few reasons why it's imperative to mandate a two-person crew on every train in Virginia and throughout the entire country.

Two-person train crews provide enhanced safety by ensuring a second set of eyes to monitor the tracks and surroundings. This collaborative approach helps detect potential hazards, mitigates human/computer error, and contributes to overall rail safety. Viewing rail safety through the lens of airline pilots underscores the importance of two-person train crews. Similar to aviation, having a second crew member acts as a crucial layer of safety. In the event of computer glitches or failures, having two individuals onboard ensures a prompt response to adjust and correct issues, reinforcing overall safety protocols. In times of robust profitability, the decision to reduce jobs sends a concerning message about prioritizing greed over the well-being of those who rely on the services provided. This approach not only impacts the livelihoods of dedicated workers but also raises questions about the commitment to maintaining safety standards. It is essential to recognize that a thriving community depends on the responsible and ethical practices of businesses. Rather than solely focusing on maximizing profits, I urge you to consider the broader implications of such decisions on the safety, stability, and welfare of the communities you serve. I believe that a more balanced approach, taking into account both financial success and the well-being of employees and communities, would contribute to long-term sustainability and positive public perception.

It’s just another day on the railroad as a conductor to see multimillion dollar computer software fail and alarm the crew to take action against catastrophic circumstances. Ask yourself why the government doesn’t allow bulk hazardous chemicals, explosives ect, on public roadways? If you ask me I would ADD a 3rd person for good measure!

I am writing to emphasize the critical importance of maintaining a two-man work crew for train conductors. The nature of our job exposes us to hazardous conditions, and there are instances when equipment failures necessitate immediate assistance. In our line of work, safety is paramount, and having a second crew member provides an additional layer of protection. Collaborative efforts not only enhance our ability to address challenges promptly but also contribute significantly to the overall safety of operations. I strongly advocate for the continued implementation of a two-man crew policy to ensure the well-being of our team members and the effective execution of our responsibilities. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I'm approaching 3 decades in the railroad industry. I have held numerous positions within the railroad. I have had firsthand knowledge as a 29+year locomotive engineer, just how important having another professional railroader to help with decision and to help with observation, and just general railroad knowledge. We encounter haphazard conditions on a daily basis. Railroad crews on any given tour of duty make many decisions when handling an average of 2 miles plus of trains of different commodities, with some of the most very dangerous and deadly chemicals within these trains. These decisions are mostly taken for granted by the company as well as the communities because they are 99 percent the correct and right choices that are positive outcomes. When you look at removing another vital component of the physical railroad apparatus, such as a crew member, you make decision making more difficult for the one and only crew member left to make all decision. This causes the liability and also the impact of the decision making on the One crew member more negatively impactful. Also, just think the next time you may see a train blocking a crossing and the time delay involved, just remember, if you allowed the 2nd crew member to be eliminated, your wait will definitely be even more extremely longer, waiting on someone to come and provide assistance to the train. What will towns and cities of Virginia do when the train has an emergency and time is of the utmost importance for all parties and there is no one making at least an assessment of the situation and meeting the First Responder's on arrival, but instead they are awaiting someone's arrival from the railroads. We have to ask ourselves what is the "Right Decision" at this very moment, about this two (2) person railroad bill? The answer is simple let's protect our communities, cities, towns, and the Virginians by protecting our Professional Railroader's.

From my perspective as a freight conductor I can provide valuable insight into the critical importance of having a two-member crew on trains. I emphasis on the need for a second crew member to provide crucial backup in the event of a medical emergency. The ability to swiftly bring a train to a safe stop and facilitate access for emergency responders highlights the life-saving potential of having a two-member crew in such situations. Additionally, the role of the conductor in relaying important information in the event of a derailment and the potential risks associated with transporting hazardous materials further underscore the significance of having a second crew member on board. With not having a second crew member on board it can cause communication challenges and long hours associated with working on the railroads. The practical benefits of having two crew members to share the workload and ensure efficient operation throughout extended shifts. My firsthand experience and dedication to safety provide a strong basis for my stance against single-member crews on locomotives. My insights serve to underscore the multifaceted role of a train crew and the essential safety considerations that necessitate the presence of a two-member crew. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration.

The thing about the railroad is it’s not your average 9-5 job we work crazy hours most time 12 hours shifts with 10 hours rest. Although it seems ok but people do not understand the railroad we rest for 10 hours and most times you are called to go right back to work with a 2-3 hour call so about a 12 hour turnaround or sometimes you are rested and you don’t get that call maybe for another couple hours or even day or two a lot of people don’t understand we don’t just work on railroad we have a life outside of work family ect. Sometimes you might not be as rested as you thought because of the poor scheduling and that extra man helps by being the extra set of eyes or the extra brain by working together to keep the train safe traveling through your town. I don’t know when the last time you where kinda in a hurry and your about to cross the train track and the gates start to go down and here comes this 14000 foot train not moving that fast so you wait best case you are there for a bit worst case you sit even long because 1 the train can’t fit between the signals or sidings like the where designed for but also if something was to happen with at 14000 foot train and it goes in emergency or whatever no there is only 1 man that can’t get down to expedite the move and maybe there is a medical emergency at the railroad crossing that is blocked and help can’t get across the tracks due to excessive length in trains or the lack of the other man to help cut that road. So I vote to keep the 2 man crews and keep train length to a much manageable length.

These train crews are working for long periods of time and at all hours of the day and night. They operate the trains in extremely secluded rural locations as well as urban locations that pose high risks for outsiders. They operate in all climate conditions, including severe heat, cold, and storms. When a train is stopped in secluded or high risk areas, for a repair especially, a 2 man crew is essential for personal safety and in case of a health emergency or injury. A 2 man crew is beneficial even in ideal conditions in case of unforseen sudden health crises.

Two man crew at a minimum is extremely important, having a conductor on the train helps in preventing collisions, derailments and blocked crossings. This is because train engineers must stay in the engine with a multitude of responsibilities. As a conductor I’m a second pair of eyes and ears, I serve as an immediate first responder, talk with dispatchers and other trains to resolve issues along the tracks, and look for potential problems while the engineer has to tend to their owns set of obligations and rules. Having two people on the lead engine is paramount for the safe, efficient operation of the railroad.

HB385: there’s an importance and safety to having two man crews.. safety for the company and the public.

As a locomotive engineer/conductor, I feel that a two person crew is critical for the safety of our train crews, the communities we operate in and the cargo we move. With multiple crew members on board, there is always someone available to monitor systems and communicate with dispatch. Effective communication is imperative for safely operating freight trains. If there were only one crew member, that person would be required to perform multiple tasks simultaneously with little to no time left for communication with dispatch. Two person crews have always made the division of responsibilities clear, making for efficient and safe operations. This is especially important with time sensitive goods. A second person helps improve safety and security. There is always someone able to watch for threats, intrusions and emergencies at any given moment. Being able to quickly assess a situation and communicate with dispatch is essential for the safety of all concerned. As a locomotive engineer, my family counts on me to return home safely. The communities I travel the rails through count on me and my crew members to do our jobs safely, without negatively impacting their towns. Our customers expect us to be safe and efficient handling their goods. It is evident that the use of multiple crew members aboard freight trains is beneficial to all concerned. I implore you to vote for two person crews on freight trains. No one wants to ever see a tragedy like the East Palestine OH derailment happen again. A one person crew would almost assuredly have that happen. Thank you for listening and your service to the Commonwealth.

I believe 2 man crews is necessary for safety not only for communities and cities but for the people that work in the field. It's all about making profits anymore and ignoring safety and what is right. Not only trying to cut down on crew members but making the trains longer and making it more dangerous to run trains through communities and risking their safety for a profit.

The reduction of crew size suggested will impact the overall safety of my community. This attempt is solely to increase railroad profits with no due regard for public safety. Advancements in automated train controls are impressive but reported failures with this technology occur frequently. Freight rail corridors move some of the most dangerous chemicals imaginable in massive quantities. NS runs directly through my Town of Orange with CSX passing through Gordonsville. These massive dangerous trains cross multiple road crossings; any of which could spell a catastrophe. Legislature's should be more concerned with limiting the length of trains and insuring trains receive proper safety inspections prior to departing. This bill doesn’t ensure my family’s safety. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.

having multiple crew members on a freight train can also improve efficiency. With more people, tasks can be divided and completed more quickly, allowing for a smoother and more efficient operation. This can be especially important when transporting time-sensitive goods, as it can help to minimize delays.

The railroad is inherently unsafe, and should have at a minimum a two person crew. I believe that a two person crew makes the railroads a safer environment for not only the crew working, but for other crews working in the general vicinity. More people, more eyes, and ears that are around available means that to facilitate complex moves directed toward that crew. Another employee can attach themselves to this crew, and complete it in a fraction of the time that I would take to do this with only one employee. Now for the railroads to implement a one person crew policy this would delay not only general freight movement, but jeopardize the safety of critical infrastructure, local/state, and federal commerce.

Two man crews are necessary for the safety of not only trainmen but also the communities in which they work and live. Protecting your constituents should always come before the profits of the railroad - please support mandating two man crews.

I have worked for CSX railroad for over 22 years, first as a conductor and currently as a locomotive engineer. In my time as a conductor, I had multiple occasions when I was instrumental in preventing train disasters by either reminding my engineer of upcoming speed restrictions, work areas, and stops as well as clarifying verbal instructions from train dispatchers and yard masters. In my time as an engineer, I have (more than once) been reminded by my conductor of important situations that require me to control my train in a particular way to maximize safety. As I am writing this comment, I have already been awake all day and have no real idea when I will be called in to work. When I do go to work, I will be taking a train to one of four destinations and very likely will be on duty close to twelve hours. To think that anyone can work this way on a regular basis without being fatigued at times would be absurd. Two man crews are absolutely vital for the safe operation of trains in our communities. If the carriers are allowed to run one man crews, rail disasters like the recent derailment in East Palestine,Ohio are certain to become more frequent. The carriers preach safety day and night. We must require them to practice what they preach and keep two man crews on all road trains.

Even as a new freight conductor I can clearly see the need for two man crews to stay in place, the safety ramifications are endless. For the sake of the general public and its well being, we need to stick to two man crews. Would you really want to have an unmanned or one man manning a freight train?, aside from all the toxic commodities, the sheer weight and force behind the machines have the potential to cause serious damage. We can look at East Palestine and clearly see the damage to scale, and if you think things are bad now imagine not having a human there to potentially stop these travesties.

Rail companies preach day in and day out that safety is their number one priority. After working for the railroad over 12 years, I have come to realize that safety does not come first. Having two employees in the cab of a locomotive, both conductor and engineer, is imperative for the safety of the train, the crew, and most importantly our community. The carriers claim that the installation of safety devices such as PTC will improve safety but with all technology, it will fail at some point or another. Also, in the event of an emergency, there will be an additional asset in the locomotive cab to assist with the emergency. If a road crossing needs cut or cleared, would you rather have to wait hours for another employee to show to assist or two minutes for the conductor? Train length is another factor that greatly diminishes the safety of the community. With trains exceeding over three miles in some cases, in train forces and physics play a major role in safety. Longer trains have a great chance of derailing, having a greater chance of having dangerous hazmats and a greater chance of derailing dangerous hazmats. Also affected is the length of time that trains occupy road crossings. The longer trains occupy road crossings, the longer the ambulance or other emergency vehicles must wait to service the public. Finally, there are countless rail employees that currently have knee, hip, and back issues. These issues have come into focus due to the employees constantly walking on poor conditions. With the advent of walkways and the use of walking ballast will great impact the switching operations and the employees safety giving them increased longevity. I urge everyone to vote on safety over profits. The next one maybe in your community with your family.

RR needs 2 man crew and shorter trains. Trains today are to long and block many intersections if there is a delay or problem. Can actually move more freight with same amount of engines if smaller trains. example. 2 engines for a 150 coal train. so 2 trains would be 4 engines and 300 coal cars. where now they are having 220 coal cars and 4 engines using DP power.. This is less cars and same power.

It’s really laughable that 1 man crews are even being thought of and considered. It shows that the railroads only care about profit and NOT the SAFETY of their employees or the communities that have 2 mile long trains which are a huge hazard. 2 Man crews are essential to the safety of the workers and communities I can go on and on about the benefits or pros to 2 man crews it’s a no brainer ! But the only benefit to 1 man crews is profit for the companies.

When I first started on the railroad a train that was 10,000 feet long was a monster at that time we had three people on the crew now are exceeding 16,000 feet long only two crewmembers and engineer and a conductor. There is nowhere to hide a train that big the system wasn’t designed for trains in that length road crossings will be blocked to the best of our ability we try to minimize that, but there’s only so much room, on top of all that they want to eliminate another crewmember making it only one person an engineer there’s a lot that goes on and running a train work authorities slow orders trespassers on the track we need two sets of eyes if there was an incident, the conductor would have to walk all the way through the train to find out what’s happened most the time you can’t even talk to him on the radio, his handset, because the distance is too great years ago you had a cab on the back of the train that allowed the conductor at the rear of the train to walk forward and the one on the front of the train to walk back splitting the difference. We need to guarantee that there are a minimum of two men on each crew we need to cut the train sizes down to a manageable level , my personal opinion would be somewhere about 5000 feet that would allow trains to travel and more options for them to be put in the sightings or at least not blocking road crossings.

When I first started on the railroad a train that was 10,000 feet long was a monster at that time we had three people on the crew now are exceeding 16,000 feet long only two crewmembers and engineer and a conductor. There is nowhere to hide a train that big the system wasn’t designed for trains in that length road crossings will be blocked to the best of our ability we try to minimize that, but there’s only so much room, on top of all that they want to eliminate another crewmember making it only one person an engineer there’s a lot that goes on and running a train work authorities slow orders trespassers on the track we need two sets of eyes if there was an incident, the conductor would have to walk all the way through the train to find out what’s happened most the time you can’t even talk to him on the radio, his handset, because the distance is too great years ago you had a cab on the back of the train that allowed the conductor at the rear of the train to walk forward and the one on the front of the train to walk back splitting the difference. We need to guarantee that there are a minimum of two men on each crew we need to cut the train sizes down to a manageable level , my personal opinion would be somewhere about 5000 feet that would allow trains to travel and more options for them to be put in the sightings or at least not blocking road crossings.

I believe all trains should be two person crew. Because you will never know when you will be in emergency or the engineer/conductor can have a medical emergency. Who is going to stop the train properly, if it’s only a one man crew. Who is going to call medical emergency services.

When I first started on the railroad a train that was 10,000 feet long was a monster at that time we had three people on the crew now are exceeding 16,000 feet long only two crewmembers and engineer and a conductor. There is nowhere to hide a train that big the system wasn’t designed for trains in that length road crossings will be blocked to the best of our ability we try to minimize that, but there’s only so much room, on top of all that they want to eliminate another crewmember making it only one person an engineer there’s a lot that goes on and running a train work authorities slow orders trespassers on the track we need two sets of eyes if there was an incident, the conductor would have to walk all the way through the train to find out what’s happened most the time you can’t even talk to him on the radio, his handset, because the distance is too great years ago you had a cab on the back of the train that allowed the conductor at the rear of the train to walk forward and the one on the front of the train to walk back splitting the difference. We need to guarantee that there are a minimum of two men on each crew we need to cut the train sizes down to a manageable level , my personal opinion would be somewhere about 5000 feet that would allow trains to travel and more options for them to be put in the sightings or at least not blocking road crossings.

A vote for this Bill is a vote to protect railroad workers and our communities at large and is a step in the right direction. To choose not to support this Bill is to choose stockholder's profits over your communities and constituents.

HB 385 is very important for every community that railroads travel through this will help prevent the same disaster from happening here that took place in Ohio

A 2 man crew is vital to the movement of freight and passenger trains. This protects the customers, citizens and other employees as well. Having protection over profits is way more important than anything else they are trying to cut from this bill. You would see a dramatic increase in accidents/fatalities if it is cut to 1 man crews. Only 1 set of eyes is so hard when you have multiple things going on in the travel of these trains. Please do not support this wild and unproven fictitious proposed bill.

Two man crews are a must for CSX. Safety is number one and it's goes without saying that having 1 single individual Engineer on a potential 12hr road trip is not safe. Leaving way to much room for error. Must consider emergencies of all sorts when discussin such an issue.

I started on the railroad as a conductor in 2001 and was promoted to engineer in 2011. In my almost 19 years on the railroad I have served as Safety Committee Chairman, as a Critical Incident Review Team Member, as a State Legislative Rep for my Division, as a Vice Local Chairman and currently serve as the Local Chairman for BLET Division 561 in Richmond. Since the implementation of Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), which is anything but precise or scheduled and can only be considered railroading in the academic sense, Class I railroads have proven that they cannot be trusted to self-police. Trains typically run through communities in excess of 2 and a half miles long, they carry extremely dangerous materials. Trains are getting longer, heavier and more dangerous. The carriers would lead you to believe that Positive Train Control (PTC) has replaced the conductor, but this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the PTC system is in its infancy stage at best. It regularly omits slow orders, work authorities and road crossings that are not working, all of which pose significant risk to life. PTC cannot inspect a train for defects such as the one that recently caused the disaster in East Palestine Ohio. PTC cannot communicate with first responders. PTC cannot cut road crossings to let emergency vehicles through. PTC cannot contact dispatchers (who are like our air traffic controllers) in the case of an emergency. If a crew member is injured or becomes incapacitated while the train is moving through your community at 60 mph PTC can do absolutely nothing. The railroads do not even trust PTC enough to let crews rely on it when it says that we have gotten a signal upgrade. How reliable can it really be? Having at the very least two crew members on every train is critical. It is important that one realizes that both conductors and engineers work on call all of the time. We often do not know when we are going to work and thereby are often subject to fatigue. Carriers fail to provide accurate train line ups and most tours of duty can last over 12 hours. It is important that trains be manned by two members so that they can keep each other alert and engaged. Also, with the implementation of newer technology it is common for an engineer to be looking at several computer screens at once. For example, he/she is often looking at the distributed power screen, the PTC screen, the trip optimizer screen all while monitoring the trains speed. While the conductor is also monitoring many of the same screens it is paramount that he/she also monitors his/her train and his/her surroundings. A vote for this Bill is a vote to protect railroad workers and our communities at large and is a step in the right direction. To choose not to support this Bill is to choose stockholder's profits over your communities and constituents.

I have been a locomotive engineer for 28 years I can’t tell you how many times having a second pair of eyes on a locomotive ( Train) saved countless lives in the general public with so many computer screens to watch it’s hard for just one man to see everything going on around them. In the event of an emergencyIt is crucial that the conductor be able to work with first responders immediately.There should be a minimum of two crewmembers on every train for the safety of the operator and the general public.

Two man train crews is essential to the safety of operation of trains. A second person is a must when backing locomotives in reverse with long hood in lead, due to curvature of track in curves and length of locomotives, there is a blind spot that the engineer cannot see. I personally would have hit a car stuck on track that I couldn’t see and was warned by the conductor that a vehicle was stuck on track. Even after I had stopped, I still didn’t see the disabled vehicle. Two crew members are critical in a crossing accident or derailment where one crewman will evaluate the scene from the ground, serve as a first responder, relay information to the engineer so he can advise dispatcher of the resources needed on the scene, assist first responders with hazmat documentation as well. Technology cannot always replace what a person does on the job.

As a locomotive engineer I know first hand that two -man Crews are essential for the safety of our citizens and railroad employees. Conductor jobs are indespensible in keeping our engineers focused and engaged for the entire tour of duty. In my qualified opinion, human factor incidents will rise if we allow single-man Crews, especially when, not if, Positive Train Control fails, as it commonly does today.

Freight trains should have a minimum of 2 people operating them. Anything fewer is dangerous for the crew and the surrounding community. The railroad should not jeopardize safety for a greater profit. Keep 2 people crews!

Two-man crews and train length shouldn't be a question asked by anyone with common sense. Accidents happen every day whether it's the crew's fault or equipment failure, we need to do what's the safest way possible to protect everyone. As an engineer myself, I can state from experience that 4 eyes are better than two and nothing is perfect in this world (including their technology of PTC and TO). Not only for the safety of the public and surroundings, but also for the safety of the crews on the train. In my time, I have seen multiple occasions where one crew members stopped the train due to second member having a medical issue. If anyone was by themself or a computer running the train, technology may stop the train but who would get the help needed? Technology is great, but so far, good thing someone is still behind the controls as it's got it's flaws like everything else. Safety is a way o f life, not all about saving the $$.

2 man crews is a necessity for safety not a want. Freight trains need 2 people for train safety and public safety! Safety over profits!

Two person crews are essential to ensure the safety of not only the crew, but the general public as well.

2 person crews are crucial to railroaders lives, our families and to the public. Trains are not toys and people that think it's easy to operate something that massive are highly mistaken and have no idea that trains can take out whole cities and towns if something bad were to happen. Having 2 brains and four eyes in the cab are obviously much better than half of that. These corporations should know better than this and should have much more respect for the people that operate them , their families and the public. The railroads, like most massive multi-billion dollar corporations, are only concerned about appeasing Wall Street leaches and finding a way to pad their pockets more all while jeopardizing peoples lives. SAFETY FIRST to ALL AMERICANS and keeping 2 person crews is the right thing to do.

Two man crew minimum is a must have on trains of today. In any situation 2 sets of eyes and ears is better than one. Airlines have copilot and so should trains.

2 men are definitely safer than 1. And I would go a step farther, 2 certified engineers on every train scheduled route is over 8 hrs. Similar to a Amtrak. At some point during a trip its necessary to use the restroom. Most trains are over 2 miles long. Are we supposed to stop on crossings to relieve ourself. Conductor isn't allowed at the controls of the locomotive.

All crews need 2, no back up security precautions! Two man crew=double protection

The implementation of positive train control is no substitute for a multi person crew. Given the size of freight trains being currently ran by all railway’s currently. As a 14 year veteran I consider a two man crew even more necessary than ever. I personally have ran two and a half mile trains weighing 18,000 tons at speeds of 50 plus miles per hour. The level of alertness and attention to the locomotive controls leaves little room to pay attention to much of the other aspects of moving 36 million pounds of potentially lethal cargo at high speeds! I ask all of you to imagine that coming down the street you live on every day. Scary to say the least. Given that railroads are self policed and have a history of disregarding safety for profit. This would be a guarantee for future catastrophe. In my career there has been multiple derailments due to equipment failure and trac conditions. More have been prevented by having a two man crew on all trains. In short. Do not jeopardize public safety for the profit of companies that report billions in profit yearly already. Plus consider the jobs that would be lost in our state as a result. As many as 10,000 could lose viable work. In short two man crews are vital to the safety of all Virginians Thank you

All freight trains need 2 to operate safely in Virginia. Mega trains equal mega problems as we have already seen in the past. Do what’s best and keep 2 person crews!

I believe it is in the best interest of Railroad safety for there to be Two member crews.

We need the safety of 2 person crews and shorter train lengths in Virginia.

Two sets of eyes are better than one. A two person crew on a freight train is vital for both personal and public safety. When you have a job that has unconventional hours, and can cover a stretch of territory over 200 and 300 miles, the alertness of an individual is going to suffer at some point. Not every trip, but at some point after day in and day out, it will suffer. Having two people on board helps keep alertness to the job at hand, and mental sharpness. Technology does not cover everything. Technology will not alert the crew if there are a group of kids in the gauge of the track around the curve coming up in 15 seconds. Technology will not alert the engineer “hey, I see something sparking about 10 cars back on my side.” Note “my side.” Once again, two sets of eyes are better than one. With a two person crew, response to an incident is much quicker. If something does happen, say in a rural area at night, a conductor walking their train can spot an issue much quicker than if there was no conductor there to walk a train. With the various commodities hauled by freight trains, time and response matters if there is an incident. The health of others, and environmental impact could be at stake. Conductors can relay critical information to the engineer, get emergency response initiated sooner, and help identify what commodities are involved. Who knows how long it could take just for someone to identify an issue in my scenario if there was no conductor on the train. Lastly I would like to address personal vulnerability in a one person crew scenario. Life happens. People have different health. Who has the locomotive operator’s back if something were to happen to them physically? How is that going to be alerted to the proper personnel? In closing, let it be considered that freight trains run lengthy. And that various commodities are hauled, including many hazmats. Technology doesn’t cover every base. Technology fails from time to time. Freight trains run safer when they have a two person crew to go 250 miles. The communities that these trains traverse through benefit from a two person crew.

One man crew. DEATH SENTENCE!! At least two man crew they can look out for each other. ONE MAN CREW ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING!!

Railroad companies need to maintain 2 man crews, to provide safety for the employees and the general public. The way and hours we work all of us get tired and don’t seem to get enough rest and more eyes from a locomotive on the rails and surrounding area is the best way to provide safety for all of us as well as the public, and rail maintenance workers. I can’t remember a day in the last 15 years that I worked that I haven’t seen someone in the gage of the rails or close enough to the rail that could cause the bodily injury. And also been time when I was looking at the paperwork and keeping up with the gauges on the locomotive that the conductor has bought to my attention that someone or something is on the tracks or about to interfere with the movement of the train , so I feel it is in the best interest of all the company, the employees and the public that all train continue have 2 man crews .

I've worked on the railroad for CSX since 2014. The thought of cutting us from 2 man to 1 man crew is mind blowing. We've caught different issues from each side of the cab whether it be track conditions or something smoking from our train, situations where one man wouldn't have been able to handle. The company thinks Positive Train Control will make it feasible for 1 man crews. I've seen that computer system crash too many times and you're left with 2 mens knowledge of the territory. As a 2 man crew, we've had many issues with these ridiculously long freight trains. Every year it seems they get longer and more problematic, which is too much to handle for 1 man.

The rail industry is a major part of everyone’s lives whether they realize this or not. The rails provide the goods and services to businesses everyday and it is probably one of the most safest ways to transport materials. Technology is a wonderful thing and it should be used when it can however no technology can ever replace the years of training and experience of railroad workers. I think it is imperative that all trains remain a two man crew for safety of the crew and the towns and cities they operate throughout.

Two man crews are very important for the towns and communities that we operate though. One person can do everything.

Railroad companies to maintain 2 man crews, to provide safety for the employees and the general public.

It is must that we protect the community by having 2 person crews on locomotives. I’ve been a locomotive engineer for 9 years and I truly care for the communities along the railway system.

As an engineer at norfolk southern for 27 years I feel a 1 man crew should never be allowed . 1 man could never act timely in an emergency scenereo, as far as moving cars from public areas separating damaged rail cars and moving them. Also keeping one another alert on trains at all hrs. Of night . The risk is too high , for public safety. Thanks

I feel very strongly about keeping a 2 man crew on the Railroad. I think it is much safer for a 2 man crew versus 1 man. Not just for the crews and the trains they operate, but for all involved in the Railroad process. Plus I think it provides a safer environment for all those around employees and the public. Thank You

As a Conductor working for Norfolk Southern I am for mandated two person train crews due to safety concerns that I have seen first hand. Just this month (as of January 20th, 2024) I have had to fix 2 mechanical issues with trains along line of road that would have taken hours for someone to come out and fix if they used ground based conductors and blocking 3 road crossings for longer since we were an over 11000 foot train on my latest issue. I've also had 1 Positive Train Control issue this month which happened last week, their systems are not as sound as the railroad states they are and the SMART Union has been collecting issue reports on this since the railroads do not report them. Going to train length we are moving these monster trains, 10,000 to 14,000 foot long, that if we cannot get them into a terminal we have to tie down on the main lines which could cause us to block road crossings causing issues with local civil services and not allowing people to get into their driveways in some rural areas. We also have issues with train meets due to their size, there are only 2 sidings that can handle trains of these sizes from Crewe to Roanoke but will still cause us to block road crossings in the process. The rail infrastructure we run on was built for smaller train length but with technology the railroad can run them longer but the issue still is the infrastructure has not been updated for this. In closing two person crews should be mandatory at the minimum but I hope this committee does more than that to keep our great state safe. I do not want to see another East Palestine disaster happen due to the railroads corporate greed and dire negligence, especially here in Virginia.

No person who stands in opposition of HB385 has experience in dealing with residents and emergency responders who are sometimes blocked for hours at rail/highway crossings by Class 1 Railroad mega trains now operating in Virgina (sometimes exceeding 15,000 feet in length.) No person who stands in opposition of HB385 has experience or extensive knowledge of operating mainline freight trains that traverse nearly every part of our state. Thank you for consideration.

As a labor representative and a community member it is imperative this bill pass. Our state needs to be protected against the railroads greed. Rail safety here protects communities and workers. This bill is a win win. The Railroads will prosper despite their resistance.

As an employee of one of nation's largest railroads I am a believer that there is no replacement for 2 people on every train. the ptc system is not a replacement it is a tool used to try and make train movement safer when it works which it does not always do. But requiring that 2 people be on every train would always allow our trains to run smoothly, safely, and efficiently without being even more of an inconvenience to the public at large than they already are.

Please Back Two person Crewbill on the behalf of SMART union.

Fully supporting the latest railroad safety bill for a safer future! It wisely limits train lengths and mandates essential safety measures, ensuring trains and public safety are prioritized. Stationary train restrictions, mandatory two-person crews, and improved warning signs are crucial steps forward. This bill isn't just about regulations; it's about protecting lives and enhancing railway safety. Let's stand together for a safer community and a more responsible railway system. #RailroadSafety #CommunityFirst #SafetyMatters

All Trains need at least 2 on a crew to help prevent any delays to the public in case an emergency happens on the Railway. My husband works on the railroad and see first hand how dangerous things can change in a moment. Virginia needs to take safety first and help prevent blocked crossings and have sufficient employees on the trains . Virginia needs to look north in Ohio and realize, Ohio passed these standards after their tragedy which killed all types of wildlife and marine life in East Palestine. Virginia let’s take the first step to keeping our Virginia Beautiful and Safe!

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

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

There are many community meetings going on in the coalfields and many oppositional letters to the newspapers on this and related projects proposed by Gov. Yougkin. HB 741 is a shell game; it redefines all renewable energy sources in order to wedge new nuclear facilities (SMRs) into that category, but under a new name. This is not in keeping with Virginia's Renewable energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy, and which currently excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean nor renewable energy. The bill attempts to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill also requires that DEQ review up to 300 mW of nuclear power, utilizing the same level of scrutiny it applies to a few megaWatts of new solar farm capacity, granting SMRs preferential "permit by rule" before the SCC. Potential toxic releases in water or air by a nuclear plant are much more harmful than anything that could come from a solar project. Those promoting the SMRs are downplaying the risks financially, health wise and environmentally. The bill should be defeated because SMRs are neither clean nor renewable. The bill should also be defeated because of its cavalier approach to legitimate concerns regarding regulatory vigilance around nuclear power, particularly if SMRs come to be sited on unrestored mine lands as Governor Youngkin proposed at “Data Ridge” in Wise Co. on November 1st. Shockingly, this bill also extends the potential reach for siting SMRs to all of SWVA without public input into that proposition. Please vote “NO” on HB 741. (SB 561 is a companion Senate bill.)

HB 741 redefines all renewable energy sources in order to wedge new nuclear facilities (SMRs) into that category, but under a new name. This is not in keeping with Virginia's Renewable energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy, and which currently excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean nor renewable energy. The bill attempts to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill also requires that DEQ review up to 300 mW of nuclear power, utilizing the same level of scrutiny it applies to a few megaWatts of new solar farm capacity, granting SMRs preferential "permit by rule" before the SCC. Potential toxic releases in water or air by a nuclear plant are much more harmful than anything that could come from a solar project. The bill should be defeated because SMRs are neither clean nor renewable. The bill should also be defeated because of its cavalier approach to legitimate concerns regarding regulatory vigilance around nuclear power, particularly if SMRs come to be sited on unrestored mine lands as Governor Youngkin proposed at “Data Ridge” in Wise Co. on November 1st. . SMR sites proposed in a LENOWISCO Planning Commission study are largely on disturbed mining land, which presents potential structural hazards affecting stability of nuclear facilities, which requires greater scrutiny, not less This bill also extends the potential reach for siting SMRs to all of SWVA without public input into that proposition. Expanding the potential site to all of Southwest Virginia without public notice prior to an obscure bill shows a peremptory lack of concern for opinions of affected citizens. Please vote “NO” on HB 741. (SB 561 is a companion Senate bill.)

Please vote against this bill. A law that says so will not make nuclear power plants clean radioactive waste is not clean. DEQ should not treat nuclear power plants like solar or wind energy. They are much more dangerous. Southwest Virginia does not need to again be the dump for outside investors.

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

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

I urge you to vote NO on this bill. This bill effectively lumps small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) into currently defined renewable energy projects such as solar, wind, and storage. SMRs are neither clean nor renewable. They produce high levels of toxic radioactive waste and methods to reuse or renew waste products do not seem feasible. To my understanding there is currently no way to recycle waste which is stored on site and transportation of waste to a recycling facility has inherent risks. The risks of producing electricity by nuclear energy poses potential risks that are far greater than the risks involved with the production of electricity using CURRENTLY available solar, wind, and storage facilities. To lump SMRs into the same permitting requirements as solar or wind projects seems a bit unfair to me. It appears to me that SMRs should have GREATER regulatory scrutiny. There has been little, or no, community input into the potential placement of these SMRs in the four Planning Districts named in this bill. The “potential sites” in Planning District 1 are located on abandoned mined lands which can be very unstable and potentially dangerous locations for construction of a nuclear module. I again urge you to vote NO on HB 741.

I am writing to oppose HB 1074. Delegate O'Quinn's suite of bills related to nuclear development is atrocious. HB 1074 seeks to redefine "zero carbon" nuclear and hydrogen projects as "renewable energy." Once again, this undermines and attempts to hoodwink legislators and residents. Calling nuclear renewable energy is a complete fallacy. We know better. Small modular reactors are neither clean nor renewable energy. They rely on uranium mining and processing and they produce high and low-level radioactive waste. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. The Nuclear Fuel Chain is not zero carbon and to focus only on the final product (or the output) is not an accurate representation of nuclear projects. This bill should be defeated. Uranium and fossil fuels should be left in the ground and Virginia should be a leader in real, clean and renewable energy. Redefining dangerous projects as such is an attempt to fool us. The bill should be defeated because new (SMR) nuclear and hydrogen electrolysis, potentially powered by SMRs and using fossil fuel feedstock, violate the intent of the RPS as enacted. Please vote “NO,” on HB 1074.

I am writing to oppose HB 741. Calling nuclear clean energy is a complete fallacy. It undermines Virginia's Renewable Portfolio Standards and it undermines the intelligence of Virginia residents. We know better. Small modular reactors are neither clean nor renewable energy. They rely on uranium mining and processing and they produce high and low-level radioactive waste. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. This bill should be defeated because not only is it an attempt to hoodwink legislators and residents, it makes it harder for residents to raise legitimate concerns regarding regulation of nuclear power. Vote no on HB 741 and its Senate companion

"My family lives close to where developers propose to put these SMRs. I don't want to live near SMRx - especially when this bill proposes to limit monitoring of them by the Department of Environmental Quality. Please vote "NO" on HB-741.

Greetings! I urge you to oppose HB-741, because I disagree that small modular nuclear plants are "clean" as this bill would claim to define SMRs. Renewable energy, solar, wind, energy storage are clean. Nuclear waste is not clean or safe, with no permanent storage solution. Limiting DEQ's supervision of such facilities is a sign that developers don't want scrutiny of their unproven technology. No SMR has been successfully built in the U.S. Please oppose HB-741

I am writing in opposition of this bill. As someone who is looking at moving back to far southwest Virginia, and who enjoys recreating and engaging in community events in the region, a nuclear energy facility or part creation plant would significantly impact my choices in this regard. I LOVE southwest Virginia, particularly districts 43,44, and 45, but the entire region overall. I feel invested in this place, and want to make it my home. The presence of a facility like this endangers the safety of that. Not to mention the natural world and human communities already in place. There is such a bright, renewable, sustainable future that is truly possible for this area, but nuclear has absolutely NO place in it. I disagree that small modular nuclear plants are "clean" as this bill would claim to define SMRs. Renewable energy, solar, wind, energy storage are clean. Nuclear waste is not clean or safe, with no permanent storage solution. Limiting DEQ's supervision of such facilities is a sign that developers don't want scrutiny of their unproven technology. No SMR has been successfully built in the U.S. Please oppose HB-741

Please oppose this 741 bill. The nuclear energy electric generation will give the most expensive electricity ever. It is not clean energy. The toxic wastes will have to be stored on site about as long as Homo sapiens have walked on earth. When NuScale had the only approved SMnR designed and collapsed financially on that with investors suing because of over promise, our state should have rocked on it's heels on this issue. Dominion that was such a major contributor to political races, wants to go with unproven SMnRs that sucks the oxygen from proven solar, wind projects, hydropower from rivers and promising research and breakthroughs in batteries. Why waste millions and billions even if it is in the pipeline. My call is for public hearing s be held by Senator Deeds on the SMnRs, Carbon Capture and Storage, blue hydrogen, and the unheard of recycling of nuclear wastes planned on the 65k AC in Wise Co. None of those projects will abate Climate Change. Dominion wants to put all the costs on their ratepayers rather than on their stockholders. Louisiana --oil friendly and cancer alleys can approve Carbon Capture and Storage. They have no regulatory powers after that. Come on. There are real risks with CCS. We have 50% cancer rate in SWVA. Adding nuclear power will tip us into a higher rate like it did in Unicoi Co. TN. and in California. When the nuclear plants shut down there, in certain age groups the CA deaths went down per CDC records. Our state is not up to the regulating that is needed. The citizens back here have had plenty of letters in the newspapers opposing the SMnRs. Sentiment is not with the "moon shot" of Governor. Why would you go with risks that no banker would take with little to no assured return. No transparency. Public not invited to the Presser when the Governor announced the plan.. There are many citizens here that need to be heard . Regulations in Virginia have been weak in recent years. The fish are gone for miles in a creek and a river in SWVA that I know of. The Supreme Court has bruised EPA regulation as they have Voters' Rights, Women's Rights and they may land another blow this year. Please don't back the energy facilities mentioned. Hold hearing, get more research, citizens participation...Electric bills here this winter are already breaking peoples backs. One had $1,100 electric bill, another $900 and it wasn't in the heart of winter. Pour some money into weatherization for the public or the like not down the drain, purely wasting it even it is in a money pipeline.

I oppose HB-741. I disagree that small modular nuclear plants are "clean" as this bill would claim to define SMRs. Renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, are better, cheaper options that have proven results! We should be investing in actually clean technology instead of changing the definition of clean. Nuclear waste is not clean or safe, with no permanent storage solution. Our great-grandkids would inherit the problem of nuclear waste. Plus, limiting DEQ's supervision of such facilities is a sign that developers don't want scrutiny of their unproven technology. No SMR has been successfully built in the U.S. Please oppose HB-741!

The plan to fast track SMR implementation, and to do so in a way in which they can “be effective as soon as practicable” is galling. Southwestern Virginia, comprised of your constituency, is not a sacrificial dumping ground for experimental technology just because some, who do not live in these hills and hollers, have decided it should be. This is shameful and shocking. There are no safety measures, no plans, no concrete evidence that SMnR placement, and waste storage, would be safe on the karsed, honeycombed land. Meanwhile these bills are in committee while our communities are left largely in the dark (not for lack of trying, on the part of our frontline neighbors, to bring things to light) about what our representation has planned. Expensive, ineffective. We want a JUST TRANSITION from the extractive practices and industries from which we have been wrought. What about this is just? What, in the grand scheme, could be lost?

"I urge you to oppose HB-741, because I disagree that small modular nuclear plants are "clean" as this bill would claim to define SMRs. Renewable energy, solar, wind, energy storage are clean. Nuclear waste is not clean or safe, with no permanent storage solution. Limiting DEQ's supervision of such facilities is a sign that developers don't want scrutiny of their unproven technology. No SMR has been successfully built in the U.S. Please oppose HB-741. "My family lives close to where developers propose to put these SMRs. I don't want to live near SMRx - especially when this bill proposes to limit monitoring of them by the Department of Environmental Quality. Please vote "NO" on HB-741.

I oppose this bill which Mr. Oquin has introduced without support from his constituents. It is a very expensive project that presents real and present dangers to our region, when there are far less expensive and reliable alternatives. Nuclear energy is not "clean" or safe. Nuclear waste especially is not safe. The proposed reactors should not be excluded from any and all permitting processes. I urge you in the strongest terms to reject this bill.

This bill applies ONLY to Nuclear as a source of electric generation facilities. If Virginia needs more electric generation in the SW, this bill should apply to ANY source of electricity (e.g. renewables, hydrogen). Why are we limiting ourselves in an energy future that is going to require FLEXIBILITY and not single mindedness......

Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) should not be added to this list of expedited permitting for energy projects. Virginia and the nation have yet to deploy any SMRs commercially, with detailed information on their environmental and safety considerations for their deployment unknown, particularly within the unique environmental contexts of Southwest Virginia. This bill is attempting to place policy ahead of the appropriate scientific and technical knowledge needed to make informed policy decisions. Officials, for example, have proposed locating SMRs on former surface mines in the Southwest Virginia coalfields, which are located in close proximity to low-income and vulnerable environmental justice communities and households. These properties present significant risks and considerations for any type of new construction and development, including but not limited to stability concerns and groundwater and surface water liabilities. These considerations are heightened for nuclear projects, particularly considering the current need to store radioactive waste on-site at nuclear generating facilities. Siting an SMR in the Southwest Virginia coalfields will therefore largely be an experimental step in energy development and land use policy for Southwest Virginia, with no robust empirical data existing to guide agencies’ determination of appropriate best practices for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities on post-mined landscapes within local environmental contexts and regulatory requirements. A broad and nonpartisan coalition of more than 800 Southwest Virginia residents has also called for increased transparency and opportunities for public involvement from officials surrounding SMR proposals (source: https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-provide-public-input-on-plan-to-put-nuclear-reactors-in-swva). Public officials have for nearly two years now declined to hold public listening sessions or gather public input to inform SMR policy proposals in response to those calls from their constituents, instead introducing bills like this one that would expedite SMR permitting and remove them from SCC review. A more - not less - rigorous permitting and public review process for SMRs is needed to ensure the environmental compatibility and equitability of SMR development for Southwest Virginia's vulnerable environmental justice communities. SMRs’ inclusion in the expedited environmental reviews provided by this bill should be rejected.

Here is the correct, full citation from HB1491, Del. O'Quinn's companion bill to HB741, which I allude to in my HB741 comment below. The companion bill details clearly the plan that, even with a failed SMR, Virginians would be on the hook for all costs, nearly in real time, whether the SMR is ultimately completed or never generates a single watt. HB741 greases the regulatory skids for HB1491, which reads: "At any time prior to the filing of an application for a certificate to construct a SMR to serve customers in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia, "Project development costs" = all capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with a potential small modular nuclear facility before issuance of a certificate for a SMR facility located in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia to serve customers in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia, including the costs of evaluation, design, engineering, environmental analysis and permitting, land option, and early site permitting. "Small modular nuclear facility" means a nuclear reactor with a generating capacity of not more than 500 megawatts, capable of being constructed and operated either alone or in combination with one or more similar reactors. All development costs incurred for a potential SMR shall be recovered through a rate adjustment clause filed pursuant to subdivision A 6 of § 56-585.1, amortized over a period equal to the period during which the costs were incurred or five years, whichever is greater. If a Phase I Utility serves customers in more than one jurisdiction, such utility shall recover all project development costs from customers located in the Commonwealth and all costs associated energy and capacity from the SMR, once in service, shall be assigned to the Commonwealth to the extent that such costs are requested but not recovered from any system customers outside of the Commonwealth." West Virginians may want to thank us for picking up their tab. However, the best idea is to defeat both HB1491 and HB741 so that our Virginia environment, our health and safety, and our wallets are not on the line for dubious SMR projects. Utility management and stockholders--not residents, businesses and industry--should bear the financial risk for traveling down the hazardous, expensive, rocky road trying to build and operate SMRs. Solar and energy storage is non-toxic,cheaper and far faster to permit, construct and interconnect.

HB741 would redefine small nuclear reactors as "clean energy" and lump nuclear in with currently defined "renewable energy systems" (solar, wind, energy storage). Then rename the new category, "clean energy." SMRs cannot be clean; they produce high and low-level radioactive waste, along with risks associated with accidental radioactive releases, transportation, and storage. Defining new nuclear as clean energy cannot make it so. SMRs and on-site high-level waste reprocessing - Governor Youngkin has proposed that - deal in highly toxic radioactive materials, releases of these deadly materials, hurting people, have happened both in the U.S. and around the world. On-site commercial reactor waste reprocessing has never been accomplished or even attempted in the U.S. There is no permanent storage system for high level nuclear waste. Who, if not DEQ, is going to be monitoring our air and water and requiring appropriate permits and compliance assurances? HB741 equates SMR pollution potential with that of a solar farm or a wind generating facility. That's just not reasonable. HB741 would be laughable, if it wasn't so potentially dangerous, proposing to eliminate environmental and public health protections Virginians expect and deserve under current law. Proceeding with SMRs, employing "permit by rule" simply eliminates DEQ input into highly important planning decisions, not just after the reactor goes critical. HB741 deserves an early death in subcommittee because DEQ must exercise it's full regulatory authority over any dangerous SMR industrial site, which would contain the most toxic waste material known to humankind - especially if an SMR plans on drawing cooling water from ground water - even more cautiously should the Governor Youngkin succeed in his drive to build an SMR on previously mined land at "Data Ridge." in Wise County. The proposed "Data Ridge" mega industrial site Governor Youngkin is promoting on 65,000 Wise Co. acres of previously mined land, was announced on November 1, without the first public hearing in that county. SIX days later, the only SMR in the nation to have achieved preliminary design approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NuScale project, was CANCELED despite the promise of nearly $4 billion in federal subsidies. The dog just would not hunt! HB741 should be defeated because SMRs are simply a boondoggle for utilities to suck up federal funds, then pick ratepayers' pockets . You don't need to believe me. Read Del. O'Quinn's HB1491, "At any time prior to the filing of an application for a certificate to construct a SMnR to serve customers in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia, 'Project development costs' = all capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with a potential small modular nuclear facility before issuance of a certificate for a SMnR facility located in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia to serve customers in the Commonwealth or in West Virginia, including the costs of evaluation, design, engineering, environmental analysis and permitting, land option, and early site permitting." So Del. O'Quinn's companion legislation, SB1491, would assure utilities that that we'll pick up the tab for a failed West Virginia SMR, too, if for some reason West Virginians have the good sense not to pay for that failure. Let's stop this plan dead by defeating HB741. Then do the same to HB1491, if it comes before the subcommittee.

HB741 should be rejected. Nuclear energy has fallen far short of1950's expectations when the phrase "too cheap to meter" was coined. Radioactive waste accumulates globally with no solution in sight. Surface mined land, properly reclaimed, leaves little solid bedrock exposed where construction can be done without risk of accelerated shaking in the event of earthquakes or other disturbance. These and other considerations make the proposal to limit public and government oversite of nuclear reactor siting in southwest Virginia untenable. No consideration is being given to energy conservation. Energ y "demands" may increase, but real needs could be held constant or reduced by small changes in lighting, heating and transportation. Satellite images of Earth at night look like Christmas trees. Surely safe conditions can be maintained with less artificial lighting. Room temperature used to be 68 F. With proper clothing, 65 F is comfortable and healthy. Millions of homes with some rooms rarely used are kept at 72F year-round. Driving at or below speed limit saves fuel. Is every trip necessary? "Demands" are made by children; adults seek solutions.

Sorry...previous comment by BOONE should have said: Please do NOT pass this bill.

As a life-long member of a coal mining community in Wise County, Va, I strongly OBJECT to HB 741 for the following reasons: 1) It redefines all renewable energy sources in order to add nuclear to the category. This does not align with VA's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy that currently EXCLUDES nuclear power. The new Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean nor renewable. This bill is an attempt to greenwash nuclear power to roll these calculations into the Commonwealth's RPS calculations. 2) DEQ is required to apply the same level of regulatory scrutiny to 300 mW of nuclear power as it does to a new solar farm of a few megawatts, granting nuclear SMRs preferential "permit by rule." This defies human logic. The fallout from these small modular nuclear reactors--toxic releases by air and water potentially-- are far removed from any environmental damage produced via the solar farm. 3) In addition, unreclaimed, unstable mine lands, commonly found in Wise County, VA where I reside, may present instability to the nuclear facility itself or the storage of its waste, dangerous to human health for multiple generations, almost into infinity. If nuclear were so safe, the Federal government would not have to underwrite their liabilities, well past a half century now. 4) Finally, this bill expands the area of siting these, far beyond what was originally introduced, and frankly, it seems undemocratic to not seek public input from the affected citizens. I would hope this Committee would consider the health and wellbeing of its southwest Virginia neighbors in your consideration and REJECT Bill No. 741. It is clearly meant to make nuclear green, expand the territory without consultation, and put the health of the residents of Southwest Virginia at risk, their longevity shortened, and their quality of life diminished.

Please do pass HB741. This bill will put a nuclear target on Southwest Virginia. Our communities do not need to bear the risk of nuclear contamination when the cost of nuclear power is more expensive than any other source. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors will only benefit the developers.

I believe HB 741 is a deception to cover ulterior (monetary) motives ; it redefines all renewable energy sources in order to sneak in new nuclear into the category. This is not in keeping with Virginia's Renewable energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy, and which currently excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. The bill attempts to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill also requires that DEQ review up to 300 mW of nuclear power, utilizing the same level of scrutiny it applies to a few megaWatts of new solar farm capacity, granting SMRs preferential "permit by rule." Potential toxic releases in water or air by a nuclear plant are not on the same scale as anything harmful that could come from a solar project. The bill should be defeated because of its disregard to legitimate concerns regarding regulatory vigilance around nuclear power, particularly if SMRs come to be sited on unrestored mine lands as Governor Youngkin proposed at Data Ridge in Wise Co. on November 1st. This bill also extends the potential reach for siting SMRs to all of SWVA. thank you

HB 741 is a shell game; it redefines all renewable energy sources in order to wedge new nuclear into the category. This is not in keeping with Virginia's Renewable energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy, and which currently excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. The bill attempts to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill also requires that DEQ review up to 300 mW of nuclear power, utilizing the same level of scrutiny it applies to a few megaWatts of new solar farm capacity, granting SMRs preferential "permit by rule." Potential toxic releases in water or air by a nuclear plant are not on the same scale as anything harmful that could come from a solar project. The bill should be defeated because of its cavalier approach to legitimate concerns regarding regulatory vigilance around nuclear power, particularly if SMRs come to be sited on unrestored mine lands as Governor Youngkin proposed at Data Ridge in Wise Co. on November 1st. This bill also extends the potential reach for siting SMRs to all of SWVA

In Support of HB 792 Solar United Neighbors is a non-profit organization dedicated to creating a clean, equitable, resilient energy system that benefits everyone. Solar United Neighbors (SUN) has helped more than 1,200 Virginians add 10 MW of solar to their homes and businesses and represents more than twenty thousand solar owners and supporters across the state. These comments are on behalf of SUN. Electric utilities have been given monopolies and we need to hold them accountable to ratepayers who have no choice in who provides their electricity. Investor-owned electric utilities should have shareholders pay for lobbying, public relations, charitable giving, trade association dues, and litigation to challenge laws or regulations. There are already rules set up by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) that limit utility use of ratepayer funds for lobbying, charitable giving, and advertising. This is a good foundation, but the two major IOUs in Virginia: Dominion and Appalachian Power Company have tried to get recovery from ratepayers for millions of dollars of these expenses that should not have been allowed. The SCC has admirably cut back almost $10 million in requests from Dominion in recent rate cases for expenses that ratepayers should not be paying. That likely took many hours of work by SCC staff. We need to pass HB 792 to further limit the use of ratepayer funds for these activities that are often not in ratepayers’ interest and to ensure transparency and accountability for utility spending. Increasing transparency and providing annual data publicly will allow organizations like Energy and Policy Institute and others to dig into these records and ensure that ratepayers are not on the hook for unnecessary expenses. Please vote to support HB 792 and increase utility accountability and transparency in Virginia!

 References:
See January 2024 Energy and Policy Institute post for more details on unallowable expenses that Dominion and APCO have attempted to recover from ratepayers: https://energyandpolicy.org/virginia-bill-would-bar-utilities-from-charging-customers-for-politics-joining-other-states/

Dear Chairman Members of the House Rules Committee, I am writing in support of HB976 which addresses electric utilities and the Commonwealth's energy policy. As a resident of Ashburn, VA, I believe this bill is vital for ensuring a cost-effective, sustainable, and reliable energy future for our state. HB976 recognizes that the Commonwealth's energy infrastructure must evolve to integrate imperatives such as demand-side management (DSM) and enhanced grid security and resilience. DSM has been identified in various studies as a crucial element in realizing emissions reductions in a cost-efficient manner. The construction of a robust and secure energy grid is becoming increasingly vital to support Virginia's growing reliance on electrification and the digital economy in the face of the escalating frequency of extreme weather events. In short, HB976 which will contribute to Virginia's leadership in sustainable energy practices while ensuring the well-being of our citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Milo Ashburn, VA 703-728-0029

Please also support Chairman Sullivan's HB 638. This bill changes the wording concerning the role of nuclear energy in the VCEA, clarifying that mandatory renewable energy targets are applied against only the NON-nuclear portion of a utility’s total load. HB638 also increases from 1% to 5% the percentage of Dominion Energy Virginia and Appalachian Power’s renewable energy purchasing that must come from small projects like rooftop solar, bringing more third-party solar investment and jobs to Virginia communities. In addition, the legislation streamlines SCC review of energy efficiency programs by directing the SCC to create a single cost-effectiveness test. We recommend that Del. Hernandez's HB976, which directs the SCC to ensure energy policy at lowest reasonable cost, be rolled into HB 638 to make a more effective and comprehensive bill. Thank you for voting to support a comprehensive and effective HB638.

I'm not sure which bill I'm commenting on entirely. All I know for sure is I'm a type 1 diabetic of 30 years. And our government seems to care very little about my health or the insane costs of the medication that I absolutely have to have to live. Or getting the care I need. Which has been expensive, and has kept me struggling to survive pay rent or see the many doctors I need to see. I am ready to share my story. About my lows where I wake up in the hospital then wind up with an $8000 hospital bill as well as a $4000 bill for a 10 minute ambulance ride. Or about my highs, or just about the struggle of being a Diabetic who was uninsured who struggles to survive in a government that seems to care more about pharmaceutical companies profits than it's citizens health. I have quite a bit to say on the subject and my struggles as a diabetic.

PosiGen strongly supports HB1062 which makes several critical clarifications to the net metering statute including language to clarify the treatment of battery storage and smart inverters, explicitly allowing for third-party ownership arrangements in the net metering program, and removing barriers in order to participate in net metering. The allowance for third-party ownership ("TPO") is critical for renewable energy developers such as PosiGen. PosiGen is a certified B Corp with a mission to provide "Solar for All" through our low-and-moderate income accessible product offerings. The TPO structure allows PosiGen to utilize the federal tax credit on behalf of households who do not have the tax liability necessary to claim it, opens up additional federal incentives such as the ITC bonus credits, has no upfront cost, and places the burden of maintaining and repairing the system on the developer - not the customer. PosiGen's uniquely accessible TPO product relies on underwriting customers based on expected savings instead of the traditional FICO, income, or DTI requirements which makes it accessible to all homeowners. Currently the ambiguity of whether TPO products are allowed or would subject the developer to regulation as a public utility is a primary reason PosiGen has not been able to expand to Virginia. Given the federal support coming to states for expanding access to clean energy, such as through the EPA's Solar For All competition, addressing this barrier for LMI households is critical to do in 2024. We urge support for HB1062. Thank you.

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

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

HB 1074 seeks to redefine “zero carbon” nuclear (SMRs) and “zero carbon” hydrogen as “renewable energy” in order to shoe-horn these two energy sources into eligibility for meeting the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). The bill fails to define “zero-carbon,” which is particularly problematic with respect to the energy and feedstock used to produce hydrogen, which is likely to be via SMRs and mine methane respectively. Amending the definition of “renewable energy” to “zero-carbon” is not in keeping with Virginia's In In coalfields there are many community meetings of concerned citizens and oppositional letters to the editor on projects proposed by Gov. Youngkin...Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Carbon Capture and Storage, and Blue Hydrogen for the 65k AC in Wise Co. and nearby counties. Clean Economy Act, which is designed to encourage truly renewable energy sources, and which specifically excludes nuclear power. Nuclear wastes are stored on site. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. (The bill is similar to Del. O’Quinn’s HB 741, which attempts a different tactic towards the same purpose, by redefining “renewable energy” as “zero-carbon energy” and incorporating new nuclear and hydrogen into the zero-carbon definition.) This bill (and HB 741) attempt to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill should be defeated because new (SMR) nuclear and hydrogen electrolysis, potentially powered by SMRs and using fossil fuel feedstock, violate the intent of the RPS as enacted. This bill and several others would devour resources that could be used on proven technology, without high risks financially and to health. Please vote “NO,” on HB 1074.

I write in opposition to HB 1074. It seeks to transform “zero carbon” nuclear and “zero carbon” hydrogen to “renewable energy” in order to make them eligible for meeting the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) , the same that requires utilities to comply with in order to satisfy requirements laid out in the Virginia Clean Energy Economy Act (VCEA). The bill fails to define what it is to be zero carbon. This is highly suspect, especially when one considers the energy and food stock likely to be used for hydrogen—SMR’s and methane. Our current RSP specifically excludes nuclear. This bill is trying to greenwash nuclear specifically to include SMR’s proposed for my home county in the Southwestern coalfield counties of Virginia. If we are really trying to address climate change, nuclear came to the party late. It is far too expensive and is coming far too late, considering it would be another decade to be online. Its production, and its waste makes it far too risky for those who live with them. The scientific community agrees that its risks and costs are far higher than those that might arise from “truly green energy.” Please vote NO on HB 1074.

HB 741 redefines all renewable energy sources in order to wedge new nuclear facilities (SMRs) into that category, but under a new name. This is not in keeping with Virginia's Renewable energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), designed to encourage renewable energy, and which currently excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean nor renewable energy. The bill attempts to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill also requires that DEQ review up to 300 mW of nuclear power, utilizing the same level of scrutiny it applies to a few megaWatts of new solar farm capacity, granting SMRs preferential "permit by rule" before the SCC. Potential toxic releases in water or air by a nuclear plant are much more harmful than anything that could come from a solar project. The bill should be defeated because SMRs are neither clean nor renewable. The bill should also be defeated because of its cavalier approach to legitimate concerns regarding regulatory vigilance around nuclear power, particularly if SMRs come to be sited on unrestored mine lands as Governor Youngkin proposed at “Data Ridge” in Wise Co. on November 1st. . SMR sites proposed in a LENOWISCO Planning Commission study are largely on disturbed mining land, which presents potential structural hazards affecting stability of nuclear facilities, which requires greater scrutiny, not less This bill also extends the potential reach for siting SMRs to all of SWVA without public input into that proposition. Expanding the potential site to all of Southwest Virginia without public notice prior to an obscure bill shows a peremptory lack of concern for opinions of affected citizens. Please vote “NO” on HB 741. (SB 561 is a companion Senate bill.)

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

HB 1074 Renewable energy portfolio standard; eligibility of hydrogen and nuclear resources. HB 1074 seeks to redefine “zero carbon” nuclear (SMRs) and “zero carbon” hydrogen as “renewable energy” in order to shoe-horn these two energy sources into eligibility for meeting the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). The bill fails to define “zero-carbon,” which is particularly problematic with respect to the energy and feedstock used to produce hydrogen, which is likely to be via SMRs and mine methane respectively. Amending the definition of “renewable energy” to “zero-carbon” is not in keeping with Virginia's Clean Economy Act, which is designed to encourage truly renewable energy sources, and which specifically excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. (The bill is similar to Del. O’Quinn’s HB 741, which attempts a different tactic towards the same purpose, by redefining “renewable energy” as “zero-carbon energy” and incorporating new nuclear and hydrogen into the zero-carbon definition.) This bill (and HB 741) attempt to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. None of the following issues is a concern for existing "renewable energy" sources under Virginia law. "New or advanced" nuclear and SMRs cannot be clean because: ○ A recent Stanford University study concluded "Small modular reactors [SMRs] may produce a disproportionately larger amount of nuclear waste than bigger nuclear plants." ○ A year ago, Gov. Youngkin said the solution to waste is "recycling opportunities for fuel." There are significant risks with transporting highly radioactive waste materials over mountain roads and railroads to a reprocessing plant. On-site commercial reactor waste reprocessing has never been accomplished or even attempted in the U.S. ○ SMRs and on-site reprocessing could be dangerous as a terrorist target, given recent attacks targeting electrical infrastructure. ○ If nuclear is safe and clean, why does the federal government continue to underwrite commercial nuclear plant insurance, nearly 70 years after the first commercial reactor was placed in service? The bill should be defeated because new (SMR) nuclear and hydrogen electrolysis, potentially powered by SMRs and using fossil fuel feedstock, violate the intent of the RPS as enacted. Please vote “NO,” on HB 1074.

I strongly oppose HB1074. Besides the problem of radioactive waste, nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity and SMRs are neither clean nor renewable. Solar and wind energies are true renewable forms of power and are affordable and already available. Amending the definition of "renewable energy" to "zero carbon" is not in keeping with the Virginia Clean Economy Act which is designed to encourage truly renewable energy sources and which specifically excludes nuclear power. Please vote no on HB1074.

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

Please do not vote for this bill. Nuclear reactors should not be treated like solar or wind energy. They are expensive, leave radioactive waste which will last for thousands of years, and will provide almost no economic benefit except to the wealthy developers. Our country has only been lucky to not have a Chernobyl or Fukushima.

I urge you to vote NO on this bill. It attempts to include two zero-carbon generating facilities (hydrogen and nuclear) as “renewable energy” to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The VCEA was designed to encourage the reduction of carbon emissions primarily by expanding wind and solar power. In general, it takes years for a nuclear reactor to be constructed and placed in service and SMRs are still in the developmental stages and Governor Youngkin says that it will be at least a decade for SMRs to be operational. Most agree that the deployment of SMRs would be too late to counter the effects of carbon emissions and climate change. Why not invest in less expensive, less risky, more safe, more reliable projects that are available NOW? We are able to provide for our communities’ energy needs with proven technologies and not rely on “moonshots”. Again, please vote NO on HB 1074.

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

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

I am writing to oppose HB 1074. Delegate O'Quinn's suite of bills related to nuclear development is atrocious. HB 1074 seeks to redefine "zero carbon" nuclear and hydrogen projects as "renewable energy." Once again, this undermines and attempts to hoodwink legislators and residents. Calling nuclear renewable energy is a complete fallacy. We know better. Small modular reactors are neither clean nor renewable energy. They rely on uranium mining and processing and they produce high and low-level radioactive waste. At every stage of production, it is rooted in environmental injustice and human rights violations. The Nuclear Fuel Chain is not zero carbon and to focus only on the final product (or the output) is not an accurate representation of nuclear projects. This bill should be defeated. Uranium and fossil fuels should be left in the ground and Virginia should be a leader in real, clean and renewable energy. Redefining dangerous projects as such is an attempt to fool us. The bill should be defeated because new (SMR) nuclear and hydrogen electrolysis, potentially powered by SMRs and using fossil fuel feedstock, violate the intent of the RPS as enacted. Please vote “NO,” on HB 1074.

HB 1074 would redefine “zero carbon” nuclear (SMRs) and “zero carbon” hydrogen as “renewable energy” to shoe-horn these two energy sources into eligibility for meeting the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS). The bill fails to define “zero-carbon,” which is particularly problematic with respect to the energy and feedstock used to produce hydrogen, likely to be via SMRs and mine methane respectively. Amending the definition of “renewable energy” to “zero-carbon” is not in keeping with Virginia's RPS, which is designed to encourage truly renewable energy sources, and which specifically excludes nuclear power. "New" small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither clean energy nor renewable energy. (The bill is similar to Del. O’Quinn’s HB 741, which attempts a different tactic towards the same purpose, by redefining “renewable energy” as “zero-carbon energy” and incorporating new nuclear and hydrogen into the zero-carbon definition.) This bill and HB 741 attempt to greenwash nuclear power simply to include SMRs in Virginia's RPS calculations. The bill should be defeated. New (SMR) nuclear and hydrogen electrolysis, potentially powered by SMRs and using fossil fuel feedstock, violate the purpose and intent of the RPS as enacted. Please vote “NO,” on HB 1074. None of the following issues is a concern for existing "renewable energy" sources under Virginia law. "New or advanced" nuclear - SMRs - cannot be clean because: 1) A recent Stanford University study concluded "Small modular reactors [SMRs] may produce a disproportionately larger amount of nuclear waste than bigger nuclear plants." 2) A year ago, Gov. Youngkin said the solution to waste is "recycling opportunities for fuel." There are significant risks with transporting highly radioactive waste materials over mountain roads and railroads to a reprocessing plant. On-site commercial reactor waste reprocessing has never been accomplished or even attempted in the U.S. 3) SMRs and on-site reprocessing could be dangerous as a terrorist target, given recent attacks targeting electrical infrastructure. 4) If nuclear is safe and clean, why does the federal government continue to underwrite commercial nuclear plant insurance, nearly 70 years after the first commercial reactor was placed in service?

I'm not sure which bill I'm commenting on entirely. All I know for sure is I'm a type 1 diabetic of 30 years. And our government seems to care very little about my health or the insane costs of the medication that I absolutely have to have to live. Or getting the care I need. Which has been expensive, and has kept me struggling to survive pay rent or see the many doctors I need to see. I am ready to share my story. About my lows where I wake up in the hospital then wind up with an $8000 hospital bill as well as a $4000 bill for a 10 minute ambulance ride. Or about my highs, or just about the struggle of being a Diabetic who was uninsured who struggles to survive in a government that seems to care more about pharmaceutical companies profits than it's citizens health. I have quite a bit to say on the subject and my struggles as a diabetic.

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

I would encourage you to vote NO on HB1323. SMRs are a never built or tested concept. planned to be placed in a seismically active area. I feel this is a bad idea. I object to this project and having Virginia's taxpayers and ratepayers on the hook to subsidize such a risky, pricey and highly speculative venture.

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

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

The Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA) is an independent non-profit think-tank funded focused on creating the conditions for success for advanced nuclear energy as a clean energy solution. NIA supports HB 1323 and thinks that this bill is an important early step that can enable deployment of small modular reactors in Virginia as part of the state’s future clean energy mix. NIA believes that state level support for advanced nuclear energy will be critical to accelerating the deployment of new nuclear power plants. Advanced nuclear energy and small modular reactors can play an important role in Virginia’s clean energy future by complimenting renewable energy sources and providing a source of reliable clean energy. The clean dispatchable energy from new nuclear reactors can help ensure affordable and reliable energy year-round for residential, industrial, and commercial customers. It will be important for Virigina to create a pathway for utilities to consider investments in these new nuclear projects. HB 1323 enables utilities to explore potential new nuclear projects and consider long-term investments in nuclear energy that could provide Virginia with clean energy for the next 60 to 100 years. It is important to remember that this bill does not commit Virginia to investing in new nuclear projects but enables nuclear energy to be considered as a long-term energy solution for the state. Providing the Commission the ability to evaluate and determine what developments costs are “reasonable and prudent” helps protect Virginia energy customers while still enabling utilities to seriously consider and evaluate the potential benefits of new nuclear projects. NIA supports HB 1323 because it creates a pathway for Virginia utilities to consider long term investments in new nuclear energy projects while protecting rate payers and enables new nuclear energy and small modular reactors to be included as future clean energy solution for Virginia.

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

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 1323! 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!! It is not economical, and it is NOT safe or clean energy!! Also, SB 1323 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 1323. Thank you. Sincerely, Lauren Albrecht

I am writing to vehemently oppose House Bill 1323, a concerning piece of legislation that, if enacted, would grant American Electric Power (Appalachian Power) and Dominion Energy Virginia the authority to petition the State Corporation Commission (SCC) for the recovery of Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMR) project development costs. This opposition is grounded in various critical factors that underscore the risks, financial burden, and potential drawbacks associated with embracing SMR technology in Virginia. Firstly, it is crucial to highlight the Governor's push for new SMR designs, a decision that aligns with a historical trend revealing a troubling correlation between nuclear facility cost projections and the significantly higher actual costs incurred during the implementation of reactors. Furthermore, the cancellation rate of nuclear projects stands at an alarming 50%, with new project designs often leading to extended delays and substantial cost escalations. Recent examples, such as Georgia Power's Vogtle Units 3 & 4, which came online seven years behind schedule and exceeded cost projections by 120%, serve as cautionary tales. The uncertainty surrounding how much of these cost overruns will be passed on to ratepayers emphasizes the financial risks associated with unproven SMR technologies. From an economic standpoint, Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy-2023 (LCOE) places nuclear power as the most expensive means of generating commercial electric power at the utility scale. The cost of nuclear per megawatt-hour (MWh) has surged by 53% between 2016 and 2023 alone, contrasting sharply with the decreasing costs of solar and onshore wind, even when factoring in battery storage for continuous power availability. Adding to these concerns is the existing financial burden placed on federal taxpayers, ratepayers, and communities by the nuclear industry, with hidden subsidies, decommissioning, and mitigation costs running into hundreds of billions of dollars. Federal subsidies, surpassing $100 billion up to 2017, continue to flow, including the Inflation Reduction Act allocating $10 billion for 30% tax credits for "Advanced Energy Projects," including nuclear. The financial landscape becomes even more precarious when considering the competition with more cost-effective, market-driven alternatives like solar, wind, and battery storage. Not only do nuclear subsidies divert resources from these readily available alternatives, but the fierce competition with cheaper and greener power options could likely result in the cancellation of SMR projects. I strongly urge you to vote against HB 1323 to protect Virginians from becoming involuntary financiers of unproven and costly SMR projects. Let us prioritize sustainable, affordable, and market-driven energy alternatives that align with the evolving energy landscape, ensuring the financial well-being of the Commonwealth and its citizens.

Comments Document

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

PLEASE vote against HB 1323. This bill is terribly unfair to citizens of Virginia who are ratepayers. It only protects those who want to invest in SMRs, taking all risk away from them and putting it on ratepayers. Dominion and Appalachian Power can already petition the SCC for approval of SMRs on a level playing field with other types of generation. There is no need to give special treatment to SMRs, especially given the very real financial risks associated with SMRs. If investors want to gamble on SMRs let them bear the risks!

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

Given the opportunity, vote NO on HB 1323. Today, we stand at a crossroad and your likely vote today will be vastly important. HB 1323 paves the way for utilities to recoup their development costs for small modular nuclear reactors, the future of which we are not likely to know for at least a full decade. We are forcing Virginia’s ratepayers to finance their development even though they may never produce any electricity or even be completed at an affordable cost for potential clients. Virginia’s ratepayers should not be their investors; they reap no monetary benefits from their investment. I hope for these and other reasons, including NuScale’s history of a long string of mounting failures before their collapse last November, you will today vote NO on HB 1323.

We OPPOSE HB 1323. This bill removes existing customer protections to provide preferential treatment to SMRs—a technology that is completely unproven for commercial electricity generation. Southwest Virginia has been targeted for SMRs. Over 1,000 citizens have signed our petition raising concerns and alarms about SMRs. There has been no public involvement in decision making. Please protect us here in the Coalfields. This is an environmental justice issue.

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB1323. This bill would remove existing customer protections to provide preferential treatment to SMR technology, a technology that is completely unproven for commercial electricity generation. Utilities can already petition the SCC for approval of SMRs on a level playing field with other types of generation so there is no need to give special treatment to SMRs especially given customer risks associated with SMRs. The nuclear industry already costs regular taxpayers, ratepayers and communities hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies, decommissioning and mitigation costs. Federal subsidies alone, up to 2017, topped 100 billion dollars with more in the pipeline. Nuclear is the MOST expensive way to generate electricity according to Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy 2023 (LCOE) and according to LCOE nuclear is the only utility-scale generation source that has gone up significantly in price/mw per hr between 2009 and 2023 alone (unsubsidized). The LCOE shows that solar, on shore wind and even inclusive of battery storage making power 24/7 are the lowest cost sources of new power generation. Nuclear subsidies send utilities and customers down a costly rabbit hole, away from cheaper, market driven solar, wind and storage that are all available NOW. This bill would force ratepayers to be nuclear project financiers. People are already struggling to support their households. If SMRs are such a great idea, let utility executives and stockholders take the risk of implementing this so-called "advanced" nuclear technology. I ask you to oppose HB1323 which would put the risks that should be taken by these giant corporations onto us. Please vote with the people and vote NO. Jane Branham P.O. Box 14 Norton, VA 24273

I am writing to urge you to vote against House Bill 1323. The push for SM [nuclear]Rs again puts southwest Virginia at risk in order to provide electricity to the rest of the state, and in this case to potentially expand the profits of Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power. And in SB 454 ratepayers across Virginia may be "asked" to pay for this experiment. Please vote NO.

Please oppose all the bills and this bill related to Small Modular nuclear Reactors. Wise Co. is my birthplace where all these plans are proposed and very near where Delta Lab will locate. Storage of the toxic radioactive waste is just one of the concerns. There is a film on how radioactive wastes has contaminated the ocean, Columbia River and so forth. Everyone should watch Radioactive Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare | ENDEVR Documentary It's gripping. A little over an hour. Done in August, 2023. You should be able to find it on YOUTUBE.

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

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

Vote NO on HB 1323 Currently, utilities seek to progress with planning for SMR's in our neighborhoods in the coalfields of Virginia. Subsidies from the federal government are in their pockets but they seek to further their plan now by forcing ratepayers and taxpayers to accept the risks and force ratepayers to pay even if a nuclear plant is never completed. This venture is so financially risky that the only one approved, NuScale, lost its potential customers due to gross cost overruns. The project folded in early November. Why must we, taxpayers and ratepayers, finance their "advanced nuclear technology” follies? There are far less risky financial ventures we can take on to produce the energy we need, to become good stewards of public monies, such as wind and solar. As a life-long resident of Wise County, I am greatly concerned, among others, with the permanent mar of our landscapes. Many generations of this should be enough to sacrifice. We carry the scars, in the land and in the health and early deaths of our people. Please Vote NO on HB 1323.

Dear Sir, HB 1323 would give utility companies the financial green light to lay the burden of the cost for construction of nuclear power plants on rate payers. Utilities want this bill so they can win, no matter what happens. This bill would be a slap in the face to the PEOPLE, forcing us to finance these projects so that they have no financial risk. This bill would be a win for big corporations but a loss for ALL people across the state and possibly beyond. Please put people over profit and vote NO on HB 1323 Thank you, Jane Branham P.O. Box 14 Norton, VA 24273

I am absolutely OPPOSED to this bill. Why should rate payers pick up the bill on these insane investments??? Small modular NUCLEAR reactors are NOT safe!!! They are NOT clean! Far from it!! Please look into this. I, as an individual oppose the electric companies getting subsidies and out of responsibility for what is sure to fail. (As it did with NuScale in Idaho last fall.) And the money is taking away from cheaper, proven true renewables - solar, wind and battery storage.

This bill allows two power companies, American Electric Power and Dominion Energy Virginia, to recover the development costs of small modular reactor projects through a rate adjustment (RATE INCREASE). Customers would be financing and assuming all the risks of developing and constructing a small modular reactor facility, EVEN IF IT NEVER PRODUCES A SINGLE WATT OF ELECTRICITY! Rate payers and tax payers in general are already burdened with subsidizing the nuclear industry and please do not add this financial risk to the residents of the Commonwealth. Please vote NO on HB 1323.

This bill is an assault on the electric rate payers of Virginia. There is NO good reason to bill the risk of nuclear power plants to ratepayers except to give a boondoggle to the nuclear power industry. Please do not vote for this bill.

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

Comments Document

HB 1323 would permit American Electric Power (Appalachian Power) and Dominion Energy Virginia to petition the SCC at any time to recover SMR project development costs. These utilities may seek to recover SMR project development costs along separate development phases from customers prior to any approval or commercial operation of any such SMR facility. This bill would throw the door wide open for utilities to recoup development costs for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which may never be constructed or deliver even one Watt. HB 1323 is a desperate attempt to 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 $1.35 billion more pre-approved for NuScale over the next 10 years! According to nuclear energy-friendly Breakthrough Institute, "These developments suggest that current efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on the promise of advanced nuclear energy.” Del. Marshall is carrying a bill that would likely force Virginia citizens to carry the risk for any SMR project that Dominion Energy or Appalachian Power (AEP) might decide to investigate building. We should never expose the Commonwealth’s residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers to such extraordinary financial risk. Utilities want to win either way by scooping up front-end federal and state subsidies, then forcing ratepayers, as they have in the past (like the $600 million “recovered” from Virginians for the failed North Anna #3), to take the risks and pay even if a nuclear plant is never completed. Please vote ”NO” on HB 1323 before it saddles Virginians upon an extravagant quarter horse which runs up the bills, but fails to make the distance to cross the finish line.

I'm not sure which bill I'm commenting on entirely. All I know for sure is I'm a type 1 diabetic of 30 years. And our government seems to care very little about my health or the insane costs of the medication that I absolutely have to have to live. Or getting the care I need. Which has been expensive, and has kept me struggling to survive pay rent or see the many doctors I need to see. I am ready to share my story. About my lows where I wake up in the hospital then wind up with an $8000 hospital bill as well as a $4000 bill for a 10 minute ambulance ride. Or about my highs, or just about the struggle of being a Diabetic who was uninsured who struggles to survive in a government that seems to care more about pharmaceutical companies profits than it's citizens health. I have quite a bit to say on the subject and my struggles as a diabetic.

Comments Document

The purpose for this amendment is to correct an omission in the current legislation that is preventing property owners from receiving rights to accurate disclosure of utility usage, utility rates charged and proper billing for electric and natural gas utilities that are distributed and controlled by building owners and/or property management companies. The current codes affords usage and billing protections ONLY to "TENANTS" in tenant/landlord situations. NO PROTECTIONS FOR OWNERS OF “OWNER OCCUPIED COMMERCIAL OFFICE UNITS/PROPERTIES” exist in the current Virginia code. Please pass this important legislation to enable equal protections under the law for unit owners and tenants. See the attached PDF file for the rights that this amendment will extend to unit owners.

Comments Document

Currently the Virginia Administrative Code Title 20, Chapter 305 (20VAC5-305.90), that covers utility distribution and billing for apartment houses, office building and shopping centers, INCLUDES NO PROTECTIONS FOR UNIT OWNERS when electric and natural gas utilities are provided to unit owners by a property management company. The current codes affords usage and billing protections ONLY to "tenants" in tenant/landlord situations. See the attached attached PDF file. This deficiency has created a situation in which unit owners are unable to attain any insight into their actual utility usage, the rates charged for their electric and/or natural gas utilities and proper billing for utilities from property management companies. The purpose for this amendment is to eliminate a loophole in the legislation that is preventing unit owners from the right to receive accurate disclosure of utility usage, utility rates charged and proper billing for utilities that are facilitated and controlled by property management companies.

The purpose for this bill is to amend the Virginia Administrative Code 20VAC5-305-90 for sub-metering and billing to afford the same sub-meter reading and billing protections for office building unit owners that are afforded to tenants in office building tenant/landlord situations. Under the current legislation, requirements for proper metering and billing by property management companies are not inforceable. As such, unit owners have no rescourse for attaining accurate utility usage and billing data for electric and gas utilities that are distributed via sub-meters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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