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

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

Chairman Sullivan's HB108 would extend shared solar to Appalachian Power customers for the first time. This program will be especially helpful to low-income customers and those living in multi-family housing. Unlike the problem with community program in Dominion service area, this bill limits the costs that can be included in the minimum bill, while providing a means for Appalachian Power to recover any additional costs in its triennial review. I encourage all delegates to support HB108. Thank you.

Chairman Sullivan's HB108 would extend shared solar to Appalachian Power customers for the first time. This program will be especially helpful to low-income customers and those living in multi-family housing. Unlike the problem with community program in Dominion service area, this bill limits the costs that can be included in the minimum bill, while providing a means for Appalachian Power to recover any additional costs in its triennial review. I encourage all delegates to support HB108. Thank you.

Because Dominion Power is a monopoly service provider, it is incumbent on the state government to provide motivation for the company to address customer concerns. In this case, streamlining the process of interconnecting solar projects. Please support HB 117/SB 346 to improve solar interconnection and help more people and organizations benefit from solar,

I have a vision of all schools in Fairfax County, including the three in my local pyramid (Hollin Meadows, Sandburg, and West Potomac) mounting gleaming solar panels atop their roofs, and generating electricity for use in the school and the local community. That's why I'm writing to urge you to support SB 346. This bill would streamline solar interconnection in Virginia and help more solar connect to the electric grid. Solar systems need permission from their utility to turn their systems on and interconnect to the electric grid. This should happen in 30 days for residential solar systems and 60 days for non-residential systems in Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power territories. But, some solar customers are waiting months for approval. And, utilities are not receiving any penalties for these delays. Dominion Energy is blocking more than 50 solar projects on schools, churches, community organizations, and businesses due to unnecessary, cumbersome requirements. These projects would create local jobs, and lower energy bills for people that need it most. These interconnection delays reduce solar savings for customers and increase costs for solar companies discouraging solar installations. We need to ensure fair costs and reasonable interconnection timelines for these solar projects. We also need to hold monopoly utilities accountable and ensure penalties for delays. Please support HB 117/SB 346 to improve solar interconnection and help more people and organizations benefit from solar !

HB 118 would hold Dominion and Appalachian Power accountable for creating the infrastructure necessary to support the electrification of transportation that is occurring and will accelerate in the coming years. Plans submitted to the SCC re: transportation electrification have been light on details, making it difficult for charging station operators to evaluate potential sites. Also, a time of use rate for charging is essential for future load balancing. It is for these reasons that we support this bill.

Unlimited FREE Buyer Traffic On Autopilot Fully-automated software for SET & FORGET traffic 24/7 Ultra-fast SAME DAY results 100% free traffic and it always will be Click on link ----> https://instantrealtraffic.com/go

Hey there, Natalie from Social Buzzzy , your guide in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've stumbled upon something extraordinary for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine unveils a revolutionary service that propels your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's a breeze: - Concentrate on crafting unforgettable content. - Extremely affordable at a mere $36/month. - Utterly reliable (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and the ideal Instagram companion. I've experienced outstanding results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence this instant: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster To your success, Natalie

I'm Heath, Founder of CaseConnector.io. We're experiencing an overflow of cases from our Client Acquisition Program and see a potential fit with your firm's expertise. Let's discuss further? Reach out at https://caseconnectors.com or my personal email heathd@caseconnector.io Best, Heath Find me on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathdonald

HB122: I would like to say that I do not support this bill in any way, shape or form. I am worried that such a bill would lead to the unfair destruction and/or euthanasia of many free roaming outdoor cats. We would be better served by requiring spay/neuter of pets. Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO to all industrial solar in Sussex County.

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

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

NO TO SOLAR IN VIRGINIA!

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

Vote NO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whom do all these "improvements" benefit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sussex County, a rural county, does not any more solar farms. Our Board of Supervisors need to be the ones to vote on solar farms in our area. Please vote NO!!!

Do not pass a bill that would allow the SEC/ state to override municipal organizations their right to govern themselves. Leave the municipalities alone and let them decide for themselves what is right for their citizenry. State , stay out of it !!!

Truly feel that each County should be able to take into consideration their residence and be able to make decision for what is best for their County.

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.

Chairman Sullivan's HB108 would extend shared solar to Appalachian Power customers for the first time. This program will be especially helpful to low-income customers and those living in multi-family housing. Unlike the problem with community program in Dominion service area, this bill limits the costs that can be included in the minimum bill, while providing a means for Appalachian Power to recover any additional costs in its triennial review. I encourage all delegates to support HB108. Thank you.

The Nature Conservancy strongly SUPPORTS HB746. Virginia's energy demand is growing, and energy efficiency can help balance the impact of that growth. Helping customers reduce demand means reducing ALL the impacts of new energy generation on our air, water, land, and climate. Virginia's existing Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) gives utilities the same return on equity from energy efficiency as they do on building new generation. HB746, The SAVE Act, strengthens our existing EERS policy. It is a win for ratepayers, for utilities, and for nature. The current method of determining cost-effectiveness of utility energy efficiency programs is cumbersome, opaque, and outdated. Of greater concern, passing the current cost-effectiveness tests leads to energy efficiency programs being watered down, rather than strengthened. The SAVE Act would initiate a process of the SCC developing one new cost-effectiveness test that fits Virginia and would result in greater cost-effective energy savings achieved through utility energy efficiency programs. The SAVE Act would require the SCC to follow a nationally recognized best-practice process outlined in the National Standards Practice Manual. This manual does not dictate what the cost-effectiveness test should be. IT GUIDES THE PROCESS of the SCC developing the test with utility and stakeholder input, FOLLOWING 8 PRINCIPLES listed below. I cannot think of a reasonable objection to any of these principles. 1. Treat Energy Efficiency as a Resource. 2. Align With State Policy Goals. 3. Ensure Symmetry Across Costs and Benefits. 4. Account for Relevant Material Impacts. 5. Conduct a Forward-Looking, Long-term Analysis. 6. Avoid Double-Counting Impacts 7. Ensure Transparency. 8. Conduct Benefit Cost Analyses Separate from Rate Impact Analyses.

On February 5, 2024 the Rappahannock County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution opposing legislative efforts to shift make-ready costs for broadband expansion to electric cooperatives. The resolution specifically referenced HB800 and SB713 and stated that the Board of Supervisors would oppose any legislation that would shift responsibility for these costs to electrical cooperatives, suggesting that amendments might change the legislation from that introduced, but might not fully protect against cost shifting.

Members of the Sub-Committee: I am Neil Gray, an International Representative with the IBEW [Labor Union]. Thank you for receiving this written testimony today. I would like to thank the Patron, Del. Herring for her hard work in negotiating a compromise on this legislation which mitigated the safety and cost-shifting concerns that the IBEW was concerned over. The IBEW is neutral on the legislation in its current form. Thank you.

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.

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.

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.