I strongly support the passage of House Bill No. 1588. This legislation provides crucial consumer protections by limiting the frequency and timing of public utility rate increases. Frequent and unpredictable utility rate hikes place a significant burden on Virginia households and businesses. By restricting the number of increases within a year and prohibiting them during the winter months, this bill offers much-needed relief and predictability for Virginians. I urge the General Assembly to swiftly pass HB1588 and ensure that we are protected from excessive and untimely utility rate increases.

Comments Document

On behalf of the Electronic Transactions Association (“ETA”), the leading trade association for the payments industry, we appreciate the opportunity to provide the comments below in strong support of HB 1942 related to adopting money transmission modernization standardization for the state of Virginia. ETA strongly supports the passage of HB 1942 which incorporates the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) Model Money Transmission Modernization Act (“Money Transmitter Model Law”) into Virginia law. We commend the work of CSBS in bringing together regulators and other stakeholders to develop a uniform, nationwide framework for the regulation of money transmission businesses.

Please do not support any of these three bills: HB 2089, HB 2495, and HB 2764. If passed, any of them will cause many problems for the vast majority of Virginia's citizens. We do NOT need collective bargaining in the Commonwealth. I am speaking from experience as a retired City of Virginia Beach employee with over thirty-three years of service. Thank you. Thomas K. Tillman

Vote NO to collective bargaining!! There is nothing good that will come from this!

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice Opposes this legislation as introduced. Current reimbursement rates for agency directed personal care are so low that it is imposable to provide a sick leave benefit. We would support this legislation if it required DMAS to reimburse agency directed personal care for providing a sick leave benefit.

The Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice Opposes this legislation. We believe it will place thousands of frail, disabled and elderly individuals in great harm by creating a collective bargaining unit. The goal of collective bargaining is called a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement is meant to establish rules of employment for a set number of years. It appears that this legislation is a forced unionization of home care workers. We know that union members pay for the cost of this representation in the form of union dues. The collective bargaining process may involve antagonistic labor strikes or employee lockouts if the two sides have trouble reaching an agreement. How does the authority reach a bargaining agreement when they do not have authority to appropriate state funds? What happens when your personal care aide goes on strike? You don’t receive needed care. Let us remember people receiving this care are nursing facility eligible. Are we going to temporarily put them in a nursing facility? Is the Virginia General Assembly prepared and willing to allow employee collective bargaining determine how state general funds are spent? Virginia’s Budget decision making process may not be perfect, but we call have the right to be heard. That will not happen if this legislation is enacted. Simply this is not good policy! Massachusetts currently has a similar structure to the one described in the legislation. It is not part of its Medicaid agency and it applies to consumer directed personal care only. In Massachusetts consumer directed personal care aide under this law are considered public employees. This has resulted in huge program cost growth making consumer directed personal care the highest per capita program in the country. There have been no improvements in oversight, reduction in fraud, waste and abuse has not improved. It has been about wages. The cost of waiver services cannot exceed the cost of institutional care which in most waiver would be nursing facility cost. This is a federal requirement. We estimate that Medicaid personal care rates fall short approximately $1.5 billion according to several recent rate studies. How does collective bargaining function when the state is at a loss for revenue? Dose this result in a tax increase on all Virginians? VAHC has been working with the General Assembly since in inception of Medicaid Personal care in the early 80s. While the system is flawed and rates have been suppressed for decades it is unclear how collective bargaining will solve these issues. Ultimately, collective bargaining will affect all home care workers, agencies and MOST importantly the person receiving care. We have tens of thousands of Virginians that pay out of their own pocket for in-home private duty personal care. At some point the cost of delivering this care will exceed the ability for many of these self-pay individuals to receive services. Some will go into a spend down situation and qualify for Medicaid, other will go without needed care resulting in hospitalization or even early death. Is this really the direction we want to go for Virginians? Please vote against the passage of this legislation.

Having worked in the health care industry for many years I can tell you that unions do not benefit the industry, unions are not about customer service, it's about control. Control over the very industries that employ their members in ordor to increase their coffers with membership dues. The first nursing home I worked in was a union required state facility, the patients barely had clothing, one patient I remember had a bedsore you could put your fist in, The next was a non union facility patients were well taken care of, had clothing, were well feed, had activities and physical and occupational therapy. They had another facility that was unionized and when they went on strike I became a SCAB thats' a person that crosses union lines. So while they were striking I was taking care of the patients . We were not under paid I made more money in the non union shop than the union shop and the customer service was far better. I never worked in another union shop again. While you can join a union if you want to Employers should NEVER be forced to collectiving bargain with them.

Due to the confusing landscape of choosing a Medicare Supplement, recipients should be able to change their carrier or plan without penalty of medical insurance underwriting. Some plans, Plan C and Plan F, are being phased out and therefore the population of these plan participants will be getting older and therefore more expensive. The individuals should be able to choose a new plan as their plans may soon become cost prohibitive. Among individual lettered plans there are many carriers with a wide range of premiums. This changes annually and everyone should be able to choose the lowest premium available in their area without underwriting of their pre-existing conditions. This would encourage a more competitive market and better service. At age 65, I chose Anthem because my agent said it was the largest carrier in VA and therefore, they would be able to keep premium increases low. Unfortunately, this has not held true and now there are numerous plans that have lower premiums that I would like to avail myself of. Presently because we cannot switch, there is no pressure to keep prices low. Doug Gray from the insurance industry stated in his Senate testimony that insurance brokers, which his plans pay commissions, would be unlikely to provide honest recommendations to Medicare recipients in reference to the hazards of switching policies. So why should we believe him that this would adversely affect insurance premiums when the difference in overall expenditures between the different carriers or plans is marginal at best. Here in VA, most Medicare recipients choose the broadest coverage. 43.5% are enrolled in Plan F which is no longer available, 42.4% in Plan G, 7.2 % in Plan N and all the lesser plans make up less than 7%. So, seniors are not going to give up their broad coverage unnecessarily. They just want to get the lowest premium for their healthcare services. Many states have loosened restrictions on allowing Medicare recipients to switch plans and carriers with open enrollment and guaranteed issue under a variety of circumstances. 29 states allow recipients to change when they lose retirement benefits, 10 states when they lose Medicaid eligibility, and 12 allow guarantee issue rights for current Medigap policyholders like myself. And 4 states allow either continuous or annual guaranteed issue rights for all including Medicare Advantage members. The cost of premiums has not shown a relationship between the loosening of these restrictions among the various states that have passed these more consumer-friendly policies. Matter of fact some of these states now have premiums that are lower than we have here in Virginia. Let’s remember these plans cover every physician and hospital in the United States. Each lettered plan covers the same exact services no matter which carrier you choose without prior authorization. Thank you.

Comments Document

January 30, 2025 Delegate Jeion Ward Chair, Labor and Commerce Committee The Honorable Chair Ward, Vice Chair Herring and Members of the Labor and Commerce Committee: RE: HB 2100 -- Medicare supplement policies; annual open enrollment period Position: SUPPORT My name is Lindsay Jack, and I am the Managing Director of Advocacy at the ALS Association. I am writing today in support of HB 2100, Medicare supplement policies, annual open enrollment period. ALS is a fatal progressive neurodegenerative disease that that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, it slowly robs a person’s ability to walk, talk, eat, and eventually breathe. There is no cure for ALS (also commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease), every diagnosis is lethal. Every 90 minutes, someone is diagnosed with the disease, and someone passes away from it. HB 2100 would make Medicare supplemental insurance policies, known as “Medigap,” more accessible and affordable for people living with ALS. Medigap plans, sold by private companies, are intended to cover gaps in Medicare coverage, such as copayments, deductibles, and other healthcare costs. Virginia would join 12 other states to provide a once a year 60-day guaranteed access open enrollment window for current Medigap plan enrollees who wish to switch insurance carriers, but not their Medigap plan, to an insurance carrier offering a more affordable premium. The bill offers what is commonly called a “birthday rule” offering an additional annual open enrollment period commencing on the day of the individual’s birthday. This bill allows Medigap enrollees to switch the insurance carrier of their Medigap plan, but not switch their plan itself (i.e., someone could go from an Wellcare Plan A to an Anthem Plan A, but could not switch from a Wellcare Plan A to an Anthem Plan G). This provides enrollees with an option to change insurers to make sure premiums fit their financial circumstances while not allowing an enrollee to change their level of coverage. If an insurer has increased premiums to the point where enrollees are struggling to make premium payments, shouldn’t they be allowed to switch to another insurance carrier that offers lower premiums for the same Medigap plan without being medically underwritten? The 12 other states that have passed similar laws have dozens of insurers offering hundreds of Medigap plans in their states. Given the number of insurers offering hundreds of Medigap plans, one can reliably conclude that the Medigap insurance markets in states which have already passed laws like HB 2100 are an apparent success. For all these reasons, I respectfully request your support for HB 2100. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lindsay Jack Lindsay Jack Managing Director, Advocacy The ALS Association Lindsay.Jack@als.org

Support bill

Seniors should be able to freely change health plans based on their own health and budget, not denied for needing more coverage or having pre-existing conditions (when switching to Medicare from Medicare Advantage). This bill needs to apply to all Medicare recipients, including those switching from Medicare Advantage. Using the regular Medicare open enrollment period (Oct-Dec) is less confusing than using individual birthdays to permit supplemental policy changes. Please amend. We can do better for our seniors. Thank you.

This proposed “birthday bill” allowing Medigap subscribers to change plans in the month after their birthday may be quite beneficial to the health insurance industry, but doesn’t go nearly far enough ro protect Medicare recipients who missed the initial Medigap enrollment window or are trying to switch to traditional Medicare from a Medicare Advantage plan. I am calling on the committee to amend this bill so that it includes the following provisions: 1. Require Medicare supplement issuers to provide guaranteed issue rights for all Medicare recipients – without medical underwriting – during the annual Medicare open enrollment period (October 15 - December 7); 2. Allow enrollees to upgrade Medigap coverage to meet their future health needs, rather than limiting their choice only to Medigap plans with “equal or lesser coverage” to their current Medigap coverage during this open enrollment period; 3. Ensure that ALL Medicare recipients have guaranteed issue enrollment in a Medigap plan, including those transitioning from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare; and 4. Prohibit Medicare supplement issuers from imposing waiting periods, imposing higher premiums, or denying coverage to Medicare recipients based on age, pre-existing conditions, or disability. Virginia legislators have the opportunity to stand up for vulnerable seniors and disabled individuals in their communities against the powerful health insurance lobby. I hope you will also have the courage to do so.

Due to the confusing landscape of choosing a Medicare Supplement, recipients should be able to change their carrier or plan without penalty of medical insurance underwriting. Some plans, Plan C and Plan F, are being phased out and therefore the population of these plan participants will be getting older and therefore more expensive. The individuals should be able to choose a new plan as their plans may soon become cost prohibitive. Among individual lettered plans there are many carriers with a wide range of premiums. This changes annually and everyone should be able to choose the lowest premium available in their area without underwriting of their pre-existing conditions. This would encourage a more competitive market and better service. At age 65, I chose Anthem because my agent said it was the largest carrier in VA and therefore, they would be able to keep premium increases low. Unfortunately, this has not held true and now there are numerous plans that have lower premiums that I would like to avail myself of. Presently because we cannot switch, there is no pressure to keep prices low. Doug Gray from the insurance industry stated in his Senate testimony that insurance brokers, which his plans pay commissions, would be unlikely to provide honest recommendations to Medicare recipients in reference to the hazards of switching policies. So why should we believe him that this would adversely affect insurance premiums when the difference in overall expenditures between the different carriers or plans is marginal at best. Here in VA, most Medicare recipients choose the broadest coverage. 43.5% are enrolled in Plan F which is no longer available, 42.4% in Plan G, 7.2 % in Plan N and all the lesser plans make up less than 7%. So, seniors are not going to give up their broad coverage unnecessarily. They just want to get the lowest premium for their healthcare services. Many states have loosened restrictions on allowing Medicare recipients to switch plans and carriers with open enrollment and guaranteed issue under a variety of circumstances. 29 states allow recipients to change when they lose retirement benefits, 10 states when they lose Medicaid eligibility, and 12 allow guarantee issue rights for current Medigap policyholders let myself. And 4 states allow either continuous or annual guaranteed issue rights for all including Medicare Advantage members. The cost of premiums has not shown a relationship between the loosening of these restrictions among the various states that have passed these more consumer-friendly policies. Matter of fact some of these states now have premiums that are lower than we have here in Virginia. Let’s remember these plans cover every physician and hospital in the United States. Each lettered plan covers the same exact services no matter which carrier you choose without prior authorization. Thank you.

I am certain we all agree that the healthcare of your constituents is the most important consideration when it comes to health insurance. And that is exactly the issue before this Committee. I thus strongly recommend amending HB2100 to allow all Medicare enrollees the maximum choice to alternate between any Medicare plan without penalty; and I urge you to put the healthcare of Virginians first by supporting the amended bill. Thank you. Jay D. Brock, MD Fredericksburg 1/21/2025 Former Assistant Professor Faculty of Medicine Department of Family Medicine McGill University Montreal, Canada Past President Fredericksburg Area Medical Society Fredericksburg, Va

Dear Honorable Members of the Labor and Commerce Subcommittee, I am writing to you as a member of the Governor’s Fire Services Board and a staunch advocate for the fire service in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Over the course of numerous Fire and EMS studies conducted across Virginia, I have witnessed firsthand the severe financial hardships faced by fire departments, particularly those reliant on volunteers. These challenges not only hinder their ability to operate effectively but also pose a significant risk to public safety. The Commonwealth of Virginia’s fire service, as documented in the United States Fire Administration’s 2024 National Fire Department Registry Summary, consists of 556 registered fire departments. These departments are predominantly volunteer-based, with 70.7% being fully volunteer, 16.9% mostly volunteer, 5.4% mostly career, and only 7.0% fully career. Despite the critical role these volunteer departments play, the current allocation of Aid to Localities (ATL) funding is inequitable and insufficient to meet their needs. The ATL distribution system, which allocates funds based primarily on population, disproportionately benefits jurisdictions with larger tax bases while leaving smaller, predominantly volunteer departments severely underfunded. For example, in FY 2025, Fairfax County is eligible to receive $5,666,249, and Virginia Beach $2,354,749, while smaller towns receive a minimum of $4,000 and counties no less than $10,000, per Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP) policy. While this ensures a baseline, it is far from sufficient to address the actual costs faced by these departments. To illustrate: Basic personal protective firefighting gear ranges from $3,000 to $10,000 per set and must be replaced every 10 years. Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) systems cost $3,000 to $5,000 each. A new fire engine can range from $800,000 to $1,200,000. The reliance on bake sales, Brunswick stew events, and raffles to fund such critical needs is no longer sustainable. During the 2024 Virginia State Firefighters Association meetings, the urgency of this funding crisis was emphasized. When I asked members when we should sound the alarm that the Commonwealth is in an emergency situation regarding the volunteer fire service, the unanimous response was, “Now!” The National Volunteer Fire Council highlights that departments are struggling to recruit and retain members due to increased demands on time, training requirements, and societal changes, such as the prevalence of two-income households. Without significant investment in recruitment and retention incentives for the volunteer fire service, the Commonwealth will face the monumental challenge of replacing 70.7% of its firefighting workforce with paid personnel—an outcome that would impose substantial financial burdens on local governments and taxpayers. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to take immediate action to increase ATL funding and revamp the current distribution system to ensure equitable and adequate support for all fire departments, especially those serving rural and volunteer-reliant communities. Addressing this issue now will help avert a crisis and ensure the safety and resilience of our communities. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I am available to discuss this issue further and provide additional insights based on my experiences. Sincerely, Dr. James Alan Calvert

Comments Document

Due to the confusing landscape of choosing a Medicare Supplement, recipients should be able to change their carrier or plan without penalty of medical insurance underwriting. Some plans, Plan C and Plan F, are being phased out and therefore the population of these plan participants will be getting older and therefore more expensive. The individuals should be able to choose a new plan as their plans may soon become cost prohibitive. Also as people get older they may not need to have the Foreign Travel Emergency coverage and could then choose a plan with lower premiums. Among individual lettered plans there are many carriers with a wide range of premiums. This changes annually and everyone should be able to choose the lowest premium available in their area without underwriting of their pre-existing conditions. This would encourage a more competitive market and better service. Presently because we cannot switch, there is no pressure to keep prices low. Doug Gray from the insurance industry stated in his Senate testimony that insurance brokers would be unlikely to provide honest recommendations to Medicare recipients in reference to the hazards of switching policies. So why should we believe him that this would adversely affect insurance premiums when the difference in overall expenditures between the different carriers or plans is marginal at best.

Please let me know about anything to do with ANY SOLAR or wind. Also why aren't you working on lowering this socialism health obamare that is failing! We pay double our house payment for healthcare. They do a certain percentage of what u make a year. I have to take money out of my 401k for healthcare that counts as income. It shouldn't count as income when you are taxing the heck out of us. We can't travel,most our prescriptions we use to take won't be covered and could go on and on about this robbery of people s hard earned money!

Comments Document

Please see attached written comments in support of HB2258 and HB2773 from the Infusion Access Foundation.

Comments Document

Please see attached document outlining the National Infusion Center Association's support for HB 2258 and HB 2773.

Comments Document

Dear Chair Ward and Members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee, I’m writing in support of HB 2258 on behalf of ZERO Prostate Cancer, the leading national nonprofit with the mission to end prostate cancer and help all those who are impacted, and on behalf of the patients and patient advocates we represent. When medically inappropriate, step therapy delays access to needed care and can lead to severe or irreversible health outcomes for patients. Most Americans receive insurance through their employer, and it is important to establish a meaningful step therapy exception process for this segment to ensure timely access to medically necessary care. Payer-mandated step therapy protocols are included in employer plans and research has shown that they often conflict with clinical guidelines, increase overall healthcare spending, and delay access to needed care. HB 2258 requires the Virginia Bureau of Insurance to collect and study data on oncology step therapy protocols and the time frame for final decisions regarding step therapy. Since the study commissioned by HB 2258 would provide insight into the impact step therapy has on cancer outcomes and what policy solutions would improve outcomes for patients, ZERO Prostate Cancer recommends passage of HB 2258. Please follow up with georgia@zerocancer.org with any questions.

The League of Women Voters of Virginia supports HB2371. We believe that contraceptives should be accessible to all. Eliminating burdensome co-pays, cost-sharing, reimbursement requirements, and coverage delays would help decrease barriers to utilization of contraception thus increasing reproductive health equity in Virginia. Accessible contraception is critical for a range of reasons including and beyond preventing pregnancy. This essential care includes treating a range of healthcare needs such as hormonal regulation, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and ovarian cysts, just to name a few. We urge you to support HB2371.

Please do not support any of these three bills: HB 2089, HB 2495, and HB 2764. If passed, any of them will cause many problems for the vast majority of Virginia's citizens. We do NOT need collective bargaining in the Commonwealth. I am speaking from experience as a retired City of Virginia Beach employee with over thirty-three years of service. Thank you. Thomas K. Tillman

Vote NO to collective bargaining!! There is nothing good that will come from this!

Please do not mandate unions to collectively bargain for public employees. Theres a reason residents are leaving the high taxes states like New York Public services such as policing the streets and putting out fires gives government a monopoly. Collective bargaining is not about a seat at the table or customer service, it's about control. Unions work everyday to take control over the very governments that employ their members. They run up the cost of government, taxpayers are left out of the process while negoications take the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring them to union officials, with whom the public has vested no such authority. There is a difference between private and public unions. the private sector has to compete in the market place to keep cost down, they could go out of business if customers choose to shop elsewhere, the public sector on the other hand has no such controls. While the private sector makes money, the public sector spends money they don't go out of business their only choice is to raise taxes or reduce services. Collective bargaining is adversarial you don't just sit down and negotiate a contract every 3 years. In between there are grievances, charges, labor disputes, disagreements on contract language. Unions work every day to gain power to exert control over the very governments that employs their members. They will take control over working shifts, hours, conditions, equipment; they will insist management needs to consult with them before implementing rules any of kind. Non-union employees will be given the worst assignments and shifts to convince them to join they also don't like voluteers as many of our EMS are. It's not about customer service Even though striking is not allowed Unions will threaten to walk out, "work the rule", call in sick or do work slowdowns. Didn't the teacher’s union keep schools closed for almost two years during Covid? The National Unions have years of experience our localities do not! Unions will insert language that benefits them not taxpaers or management into contracts like: Arbitration: taking decision making away from management puts a third party in control, terminations and even discipline can be overturned or Tenure, making it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher as in NY. Organizational leave: so union members can attend union conferences, Fairfax County Public Schools paid $5.8 million in 2016 for “organizational leave” to teacher’s union officials. Access to employee information; a violation of privacy rights and loss of productivity as they will want to meet with employees during working hours. Automatic Payroll deduction of union dues and rules limiting when employees can decline paying them. An Evergreen clause, simply stated a contract stays in effect until a new one is agreed to, which gives them NO Incentive to come to the table during a financial crisis or recession. During a downturn in the economy Miami thought that and declare a financial crisis changing their union contracts, the police union sued them saying they hadn't fired non-unions employees, raised taxes or put in street cameras, their supreme court agreed. In 2008 Vallejo California tried for 2 years to negotiate with their unions they finally filed bankruptcy. During Covid the city of Cincinnati had to furlough over 1700 people, the unions would not agree to renegoiate their contracts.

OPPOSE Collective Bargaining Public services such as policing the streets and putting out fires gives government a monopoly. Collective bargaining is not about a seat at the table or customer service, it's about control. Unions work everyday to take control over the very governments that employ their members. They run up the cost of government, taxpayers are left out of the process while negoications take the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring them to union officials, with whom the public has vested no such authority. There is a difference between private and public unions. the private sector has to compete in the market place to keep cost down, they could go out of business if customers choose to shop elsewhere, the public sector on the other hand has no such controls. While the private sector makes money, the public sector spends money they don't go out of business their only choice is to raise taxes or reduce services. Collective bargaining is adversarial you don't just sit down and negotiate a contract every 3 years. In between there are grievances, charges, labor disputes, disagreements on contract language. Unions work every day to gain power to exert control over the very governments that employs their members. They will take control over working shifts, hours, conditions, equipment; they will insist management needs to consult with them before implementing rules any of kind. It's not about customer service Even though striking is not allowed Unions in other localities are already threatening to walk out over what's in their ordinance to allow it. They will "work the rule", call in sick or do work slowdowns. Didn't the teacher unions keep schools closed for nearly 2 years during COVID? Unions insert language that benefits them not management into contracts like: Arbitration: taking decision making away from management puts a third party in control, terminations and even discipline can be overturned. It's demoralizing for those employees doing a great job while non performing emp;oyees are still employed, customer service becomes a downward spiral. Taxpayers will be paying for non government services like Organizational leave: so union members can attend union conferences, Fairfax County Public Schools paid $5.8 million for “organizational leave” to teacher’s union officials. Union will want Access to employee information; a violation of privacy rights and loss of productivity as they will want to meet with employees during working hours. Automatic Payroll deduction of union dues . An evergreen clause, simply stated a contract stays in effect until a new one is agreed to, which gives them NO Incentive to come to the table during a financial crisis or recession. Once you agree on a contract don't think that you will have control during a downturn in the economy Miami thought that when they declared a financial crisis changing their union contracts, the police union sued saying they hadn't fired non-unions employees, raised taxes or put in street cameras, their supreme court agreed. In 2008 Vallejo California tried for 2 years to negotiate with their unions they finally filed bankruptcy. During Covid the city of Cincinnati had to furlough over 1700 employees, the unions would not agree to renegoiate their contracts. The highest taxed states in the union have public employee unions, just say NO to collective bargaining

TechNet's written comments on HB 2515 are attached.

Comments Document

On behalf of the R Street Institute, I want to urge your support of HB2528. I have attached long form testimony on the proposal for your review.

Chairman Sullivan and members of the committee, My name is Robert Melvin and I am the Northeast region director for the R Street Institute. R Street is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization with a mission to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government including in relation to electric utility regulations. This is why we have an interest in HB 2436, HB 2528, and HB 2547. Currently states have adopted a variety of models for how to structure their electricity markets. Around a third of states allow for retail and wholesale competition in electricity; another third of states have maintained the vertically integrated monopoly utility system and do not participate in an organized wholesale electric market; the final third have adopted a hybrid approach, maintaining vertical integration but allowing competition in some areas. Virginia is firmly in the hybrid camp. Virginia participates in the PJM Interconnection, an organized competitive wholesale market, and while the vast majority of customers are served by monopoly generation and retail services, Virginia law does provide for several avenues for certain customers to access competition. The legislation before this committee today would not fundamentally change Virginia’s hybrid electric system. It would, however, make it easier for businesses to access competition in ways that are already provided for under Virginia law. For example, current Virginia law allows large commercial and industrial customers (over five megawatts) to access competition. Businesses that choose to do so, however, are required to give five-year advance notice to utilities if they enroll with a competitive supplier and later seek to return to utility supply. This needlessly discourages businesses from entering competition, because if it doesn’t work out, they will be trapped outside the utility for half a decade. The five-year requirement is not necessary. Nearby states such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the District of Columbia require only 15 days’ notice. Similar issues exist for residential and commercial customers who would like access to renewable electricity. Current law provides a mechanism for customers to access competition to procure 100 percent renewable derived electricity. However, mass market customers, including residential, are only allowed to access competition if their utility does not have a renewable offering already. To foreclose this possibility, Virginia utilities have created their own 100 percent renewable products. While these plans offer inferior terms to what a customer could get on the open market, their existence is sufficient under current law to prevent customers from seeking a better option. The legislation before you today would help resolve these problems by reducing the advanced notice from five years to six months, allowing for easier aggregation of demand to meet the minimum use requirement for larger commercial and industrial customers, and by allowing all customers to access competition for renewable electricity. These changes will provide benefits to consumers and help Virginia’s electric markets to function in a more innovative and efficient manner. For these reasons, we urge you to give favorable consideration to HB 2436, HB 2528, and HB 2547. Thank you, Robert Melvin

Chairman Sullivan and members of the committee, My name is Robert Melvin and I am the Northeast region director for the R Street Institute. R Street is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy research organization with a mission to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government including in relation to electric utility regulations. This is why we have an interest in HB 2436, HB 2528, and HB 2547. Currently states have adopted a variety of models for how to structure their electricity markets. Around a third of states allow for retail and wholesale competition in electricity; another third of states have maintained the vertically integrated monopoly utility system and do not participate in an organized wholesale electric market; the final third have adopted a hybrid approach, maintaining vertical integration but allowing competition in some areas. Virginia is firmly in the hybrid camp. Virginia participates in the PJM Interconnection, an organized competitive wholesale market, and while the vast majority of customers are served by monopoly generation and retail services, Virginia law does provide for several avenues for certain customers to access competition. The legislation before this committee today would not fundamentally change Virginia’s hybrid electric system. It would, however, make it easier for businesses to access competition in ways that are already provided for under Virginia law. For example, current Virginia law allows large commercial and industrial customers (over five megawatts) to access competition. Businesses that choose to do so, however, are required to give five-year advance notice to utilities if they enroll with a competitive supplier and later seek to return to utility supply. This needlessly discourages businesses from entering competition, because if it doesn’t work out, they will be trapped outside the utility for half a decade. The five-year requirement is not necessary. Nearby states such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the District of Columbia require only 15 days’ notice. Similar issues exist for residential and commercial customers who would like access to renewable electricity. Current law provides a mechanism for customers to access competition to procure 100 percent renewable derived electricity. However, mass market customers, including residential, are only allowed to access competition if their utility does not have a renewable offering already. To foreclose this possibility, Virginia utilities have created their own 100 percent renewable products. While these plans offer inferior terms to what a customer could get on the open market, their existence is sufficient under current law to prevent customers from seeking a better option. The legislation before you today would help resolve these problems by reducing the advanced notice from five years to six months, allowing for easier aggregation of demand to meet the minimum use requirement for larger commercial and industrial customers, and by allowing all customers to access competition for renewable electricity. These changes will provide benefits to consumers and help Virginia’s electric markets to function in a more innovative and efficient manner. For these reasons, we urge you to give favorable consideration to HB 2436, HB 2528, and HB 2547. Thank you, Robert Melvin

The addition of odorant to intra state gas pipelines is a critical necessity to the safety of Virginia's citizens, allowing emergency personnel as well as private citizens to be aware of gas leaks in the pipes under their feet, through their yards, and into their houses. This should be expanded to interstate pipelines as well, but at least Virginia can ensure the safety of it's own citizens against catastrophic gas fires.

Vote Yes for HB2545! Currently those forced to live near these pipelines have almost no safety protections when tasteless, odorless, colorless natural gas is forced through transmission lines. While many technologies exist that could help, nothing requires their use. Owners fly planes over pipelines to visually determine if there are changes but do not have the benefit of required stress gauges or similar remote monitoring by available technology. When gas escapes, those exposed will not know until it is too late because gas in transmission lines does not contain the odorant required in distribution lines that bring it to a home or business. Cutoff valves are often located 20 miles apart, meaning that when there is a break, a huge amount of gas must escape after the valve closes whether automatically or after a person manually closes it. Don't believe the industry when they tout the technology used. Ask how often it is used and whether it is used everywhere. Monitoring tasteless, odorless, colorless gas from a distance and even up close is extremely difficult. Today escaping gas is not even measured but accepted as normal activity. Further, the training/information provided to communities and first responders in areas with transmission pipelines is extremely general. It is not tailored to the specific community and its risk. We have no distribution lines and cannot use the gas. We heard more about what to do around distribution gas lines than about what to do around the transmission lines in our community. There are no requirements for the industry to properly train first responders to use equipment required when tasteless, odorless, colorless gas escapes - or to make sure they have the necessary equipment. No one can taste, see or smell natural gas that does not have oderant included. Currently, those unlucky enough to have a natural gas transmission pipeline in their backyard have little safety protection. We are sacrificial. This is unacceptable! We need to at least be allowed to have necessary information to protect ourselves. Without odorant in the colorless, odorless gas, we can't. The federal government finally has a new proposal for CO2 pipelines that, if adopted, might finally lead to some better safety but it has many steps before adoption and will only apply to new facilities. Until now, the industry has effectively blocked requirements for specific safety requirements in this infrastructure. The industry has maximum flexibility to hide and delay information sharing with affected people. The system is so broken that when there is erosion of dirt over a pipeline, the industry tells farmers they have to stop using their land unless they - not the company - replace eroded soil! HB2545 is a critical first step toward giving landowners and communities safety that should be a minimum provided. When land can be taken via eminent domain and landowners and communities have no say over siting, as currently exists, the least we owe people is safety. Today that is not happening. The federal government has not acted and will not for the foreseeable future. Pass HB2545 to signal to all that Virginia cares about citizens forced to live with natural gas infrastructure. Show Virginia doesn't consider us sacrificial!

I am a resident in Montgomery Co and I think I always assumed odorant was mandatory. Except for the MVP of course. It very much should be mandatory. I do not have any gas lines in my on home but I do clean houses for a living and some of those do have gas stoves. The only way I know I have accidently turned the stove knob on while cleaning is when I smell it. Then I panic briefly and cut it off. But Im grateful for that added safety measure. This is a common sense safety measure to keep people and cleaning ladies safe. Please vote YES on HB 2545. This should be one of the easiest bills and shameful for anyone who does vote NO. Thank you, Crystal

Wild Virginia strongly supports HB 2545. This measure is vital to increase the safety of residents and communities where instrastate gas pipelines are located. Including odorant in the gas is simply a common sense way to provide notice to the public and to emergency personnel to leaks and potentially catastrophic release and accidents. David Sligh, Conservation Director, Wild Virginia

I'm writing to ask that you please support this commonsense safety measure for those living along pipeline paths as well as for rural emergency response crews. When I was renting a home in the city of Salem, there were two instances when I was able to detect a methane leak by smelling the odorant, and the gas company came quickly and made the repairs necessary to keep us safe. That was in a tiny (by comparison) line coming into my home, and as scary as that potential was for my family and neighborhood, that risk pales in comparison to a transmission line, an explosion from which would cause catastrophic harm to every creature and structure in a much wider path. This simple change could make an enormous difference in pipeline safety as well as offering some reassurance to landowners who may currently feel they have no protections or recourse. Many rural landowners have very close ties to their property, and may walk them daily to check livestock or monitor other features. Odorant would give them the means to help avert major disasters along pipeline routes, saving the lives of their families and neighbors as well as those of emergency response crews. Please support House Bill 2545. Thank you.

I am writing to support House Bill 2545. I am a land owner in Giles County, living on my family farm in the blast zone of the MVP transmission pipeline. I have researched the safety measures in place now that the pipeline is in service. There are none. I attended an emergency management seminar paid for by MVP. It did not address measures prior to or after an explosion, in fact the word "explosion" was never spoken. I have had 25 years of experience through the USG with emergency exercises and this was the worst effort I have ever witnessed. Although transmission pipelines are large and high pressure and when they fail can cause catastrophic damage, I discovered that transmission pipelines only require one (1) inspection per year. These inspections are sub-contracted and paid for by the pipeline company. The inspections are visual (fly-overs, vehicles and foot traffic). It is therefore clear that inspection and protection against pipeline failure is left to those of us living next to it. Unfortunately, the only tool we have to ensure our safety is visual inspection which may be too late. An odorant would at least give us something to detect and give us a chance to evacuate the area. The choice is clear. The only reason NOT to support this bill is to save pipeline companies money. Supporting this bill will give Virginians at least one useful safety tool.

I live 5 minutes away from the Mountain Valley Pipeline and I support House Bill 2545. It will strengthen gas pipeline safety. I would feel much better with this bill in place knowing that my community has some protection. This bill deserves support because it makes pipelines safer. Requiring odorization in intrastate lines provides a vital early warning system, allowing residents and first responders to quickly detect leaks and prevent potential disasters. This is crucial for protecting lives, property, and the safety of first responders who are often the first on the scene.

A farmer who has a Mountain Valley Pipeline right-of-way running through his cow pasture noticed a sinkhole right above the pipe which could have been created by leakage from hydrostatic testing. Before he could get a PHMSA person to check it out, MVP came and filled it in. Obviously, he is worried that gas could leak there and cause a fire in the grassy right-of-way. If the gas had odorant in it, he would be aware that a leak existed, since he regularly goes out there to check on his cows. Many landowners live even closer to gas pipelines and would be at great risk if a leak caused an explosion or a fire. Adding odorant to a gas pipeline could not be anywhere near as costly as compensating a landowner for an explosion or fire. Virginia has a responsibility for the safety of its citizens. Please put HB2545 into law to ensure our safety.

I support House Bill 2545 and believe it will strengthen gas pipeline safety. Expanding SCC oversight closes dangerous regulatory gaps, protecting communities. Requiring odorization in intrastate lines provides a vital early warning system, allowing residents and first responders to quickly detect leaks and prevent potential disasters. This is crucial for protecting lives, property, and the safety of first responders who are often the first on the scene. This bill is a significant step towards safer pipelines and deserves support.

I’m writing in support of House Bill 2545. This commonsense safety measure would require that odorant be added to any intrastate transmission pipeline in Virginia and correct a glaring safety deficiency in the transportation of highly pressurized methane gas. With the addition of odorant, residents and emergency personnel living, working and serving our communities in close proximity to methane pipelines could detect a leak and alert the pipeline operators and appropriate authorities. This would help prevent disaster and protect the lives of fire emergency responders who are often all-volunteer squads living directly in the communities they serve. Please honor the sacrifices that emergency responders make every day by giving them one more essential tool to protect lives and homes. Thank you.

Comments Document

The purpose for this attachment is in support of House Bill no.2671, section 59.1-310.9

I am writing to express my support of HB2671. This bill updates who can perform septic inspections and provides minimum inspection requirements which in turn will standardize these inspections across the state. In my 20 years in the industry one of the most inconsistent aspects of the industry has been the inspection, resulting in many upset homeowners with septic problems that could have been addressed before their transaction. HB2671 will help in eliminating many of these issues and provide more successful real estate transactions for all parties involved. I strongly urge the legislature to pass HB2671 to provide consistency for real estate transactions though out the state.

As the current president of VOWRA (Virginia Onsite Wastewater Recyling Association) we support this bill with the additions as submitted.

I am writing to express my strong support for HB2671, which aims to remove the outdated designation of an "accredited septic system inspector" from the Code. This term was established before the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) set up a comprehensive licensing program for septic system designers, inspectors, and installers. The bill also defines the minimum inspection requirements for conventional, alternative, and alternative discharging systems, which will standardize septic system inspections for real estate transactions across Virginia. By bringing consistency and reducing variability between localities and inspectors, HB2671 ensures a more reliable process for all stakeholders involved in real estate transactions. It also provides clear guidelines for the DPOR to evaluate complaints related to septic system inspections, further enhancing transparency and accountability in the industry. I urge the legislature to pass HB2671 to streamline and improve septic system inspections across the state.

Please support this bill to require insurance companies to apply generally accepted standards of care when making medical necessity review determinations for mental health, substance use disorders, addiction, and behavioral health. An insurance company should not be making medical decisions, each individual's medical provider should be making that decision. When an insurance company does not apply generally accepted standards of care when making medical necessity review determinations, patients do not get the medical care that (1) their medical provider recommends for them and (2) that the patient needs for their health.

I am writing to express my strong support for House Bill 2738, which seeks to ensure that health insurance plans in Virginia provide comprehensive coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment. As someone deeply invested in the well-being of individuals in our community, I believe this bill is a critical step toward addressing the ongoing mental health crisis and underserved members in our state. HB2738 requires insurance providers to cover mental health and substance use disorder services under the same medical necessity standards used for other health conditions. This ensures that individuals receive timely and appropriate care based on clinically accepted practices, rather than arbitrary or restrictive insurance policies. Additionally, the bill mandates parity between mental health/substance use disorder benefits and medical/surgical benefits, aligning with the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act . As a provider of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) services through Blue Ridge Autism Care, I have witnessed firsthand how delays and denials in mental health treatment can have devastating consequences. Many individuals in our area struggle to access necessary care due to insurance barriers, and HB2738 would provide much-needed relief by ensuring fair and standardized coverage. Mental health conditions and substance use disorders are treatable, but only if individuals can access the services they need without unnecessary delays or denials. I urge you to support HB2738 to strengthen Virginia’s mental health system and provide critical protections for those in need. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your support for this important legislation.

Please pass this. As a provider of individuals with IDD and other mental health diagnosis (bi-polar, schizophrenia, etc.), treatment works and should not be hassle to get coverage for. Thank you, Dr. Robin Moyher

Comments Document

Authorization denials for ABA therapy contradict the generally accepted standards of care.

There are so many families who find barriers in seeking the care and education that their children with disabilities require. We pay high insurance bills but when it comes time to apply this money to a specific disability the insurance companies don't want to pay for services. This hurts the families and the providers of these services. The providers have to make a reasonable living for the work they do, but many cannot afford to provide services at the rate the insurance companies want to pay. Please hold the insurance companies accountable so that our children of Virginia can receive the services that they need. Thank you

Hello! I am respectfully urging members of the house to pass this bill to provide coverage for desperately needed mental health services for the patients and families that I serve. Children and adults who are able to access our services can have life changing results from evidence-based therapies. I am only asking that you consider this as if your own family member needed life-saving treatment. Would this not be the same coverage you would want for them? If so, then please pass this bill!

Comments Document

Please see attached written testimonial on behalf of myself and my company

Dear Representatives, Please support HB2738. Many Americans are in need of care for behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, and addiction issues. Please support the removal of additional barriers for these very real medical concerns which require generally accepted standards of care. As a practitioner of Applied Behavior Analysis, I can speak to the positive treatment outcomes which benefit individuals, families, and communities when individuals in need receive much-needed quality services like ours. Thank you , Delegates Sickles and Torian for championing this bill.

Members of Labor and Commerce sub-committee, I'm writing on behalf of Capital ABA, an-home behavioral healthcare agency that has served Virginia families for nearly 15 years, asking you to vote in support of HB2738. It is all too common for commercial health insurances to impose extraneous hurdles to utilization management decisions, at minimum delaying service provision, and at worst denying medically necessary services all together. Requiring insurance companies use generally accepted standards of care when making healthcare utilization decisions will improve patient access to medically necessary services. Thank you,

I am writing in support of this bill as a person, parent, and provider of services for individuals impacted by mental health issues. This bill will hold insurance companies accountable for contributing to the solution by providing proper treatment to those who need services.

Please support this bill to help families and children who desperately need services and are often denied services based on non-relevant criteria set by insurance companies. These families need these critical services.

My name is Tyler Williamson and I am the CEO of FACT (Families of Autism Coming Together). We are a nonprofit serving 400+ kids and adults with autism in Hampton Roads. I am writing in strong support of HB2738 to require insurance companies to apply generally accepted standards of care when making medical necessity review determinations for mental health, substance use disorders, addiction and behavioral health. In addition to being CEO of FACT, I am also the older brother of an amazing autistic adult named Brian Williamson who lives in Chesapeake but does have some significant behavioral issues. I strongly encourage to you support this bill and allow medical and mental health professionals, and not the self-interested insurance companies, to be the ones to determine what is medically necessary for those dealing with various mental health issues. Many autistic individuals have significant behavioral health and mentals health needs and issues. These needs are going unmet and programs to support them are being closed because the insurance companies are denying their claims. The insurance companies, who have a clear monetary bias to rule against providing help, should not be allowed to unilaterally determine when these services are needed. That should be left to medical professionals and reflected in the generally accepted standards of care. Please support HB2738 and help families and individuals get the important services they need, when they need them, to help prevent tragedies and these issues from becoming worse. Our government needs to start to being proactive, not reactive, when it comes to mental health issues and this will end up saving the system money in the long run. Thanks Tyler

Comments Document

I have attached comments in support of HB 2738 from the Council of Autism Service Providers.

Delegates, On behalf of the Behavioral Health Providers Coalition, which represents seven of the largest behavioral health professional associations across the state, I urge you to pass HB2738. This legislation is critical to ensuring that individuals with mental health and substance use disorders receive the care they need, based on evidence-based standards rather than insurer-defined criteria. In September 2024, our organization conducted a statewide survey, gathering over 300 responses from behavioral health providers in just three weeks. The results highlighted a troubling trend: insurance denials are among the leading causes of harm to patients. For individuals struggling with mental health and substance use disorders, such denials significantly increase the risk of suicide and other adverse outcomes. Historically, mental health and substance use disorders have been stigmatized, leading to systemic inequities in treatment access and coverage. HB2738 aims to address this disparity by strengthening Virginia’s parity law and providing critical protections for individuals with these conditions. Current law allows insurers to use proprietary, profit-driven criteria to determine whether treatment is covered. This practice undermines the goal of parity and jeopardizes patient outcomes. Data from the Virginia Bureau of Insurance’s 2024 report further underscores the disparities. In 2023, 5 categories of denials were measured. Mental health emergency care claims were denied 4.9% more frequently than medical/surgical claims. Substance use disorder claims faced an even starker disparity, with denial rates 13.4% higher than those for medical/surgical benefits. For office visits, denials for MH were 1% higher and SUD claims 17.6% higher. Across the 5 measured categories, substance use denials exceeded medical/surgical denials in every category. When these denials were appealed through external review, 55.6% of mental health and substance use disorder claims were overturned, compared to 48.8% for medical/surgical claims. Additionally 52.6% of the complaints received related to substance use disorder benefits were related to utilization management review. 22.6% of the complaints for mental health were related to access to care compared to 10.1% for medical/surgical. These figures make it clear that insurers are not applying fair or consistent standards when determining coverage. HB2738 offers a straightforward solution: it requires insurers to use generally accepted standards of care when determining coverage for mental health and substance use disorders. These standards, developed by professionals in the field, ensure that decisions are based on evidence and clinical best practices rather than financial incentives. This bill does not impose new or unreasonable burdens on insurers. Instead, it holds them accountable to the standards they should already be meeting from both a parity and ethical standpoint. Passing HB2738 will save lives, improve health outcomes, and help dismantle the longstanding inequities in mental health and substance use treatment. I urge you to support this bill and take a vital step toward ensuring that all Virginians can access the care they need and deserve. Sincerely, Rebecca Kaderli Chair Virginia Behavioral Health Providers Coalition BOI report: https://rga.lis.virginia.gov/Published/2024/RD712/PDF

Please support HB2738 so that Virginians in need of mental health care can receive it. Right now, insurance companies deny care that has been recommended to Virginians by their healthcare providers by using medical necessity criteria that are more strict than generally accepted standards of care. These more strict guidelines only serve to create barriers to needed care for Virginians while increasing profits for the insurance companies. Decisions about what level of care is needed for a person should be made by the treating provider and the patient following accepted standards of care - NOT by reviewers who are unfamiliar with the case, uninvolved in the treatment process, and using guidelines that do not align with accepted standards of care.

Greetings Labor and Commerce Subcommittee, I'm writing in support of HB2101, HB2755, and HB2578. I live in Loudoun County, where we have over 200 data centers. In our county, data centers are being built near residences, malls, bike trails, parks, pretty much all over the place including where people don't want them. Many of them are pretty loud if you're near them, and I expect that louder data centers are coming because there isn't enough energy, so some art starting to turn to on-site natural gas generation for base-load, non-emergency power. We have one such data center with 8 natural gas turbines. I've heard from friends that live fairly close that they can tell by the sound not just whether or not the gas turbines are on, but how many. The recent JLARC study paints a picture of an industry that has grown out of control, is burdening its neighbors, and is completely unsustainable. While some in my counties Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission seem completely captured by this industry, others are trying to address the problems that we're having as a result of data centers, but are unable to do much due to lack of local authority, and so I must ask the General Assembly for help. As burdened as the public is by data centers in Loudoun County, we need better regulation specific to that industry. These 3 bills would go a long way to improving the situation, specifically: HB2101 Electric utilities; data center cost allocation: This is needed to ensure that all of us ratepayers aren't paying for infrastructure that would not be needed except for this one industry. HB2578 Retail Sales and Use Tax; exemption for data centers, reports: This bill is needed to provide incentives for data centers to adhere to best practices regarding air pollution from on-site generation. Considering the high levels of particulate pollution that some generators emit, this is a public health concern in my county. HB2755 Underground transmission lines; qualifying projects: Loudoun county is being forced to tolerate additional electric infrastructure on huge towers. These lines should be built underground rather than on towers in order to minimize impact on local residents, such as myself. Thank you, -Chris Tandy

Dear Members of Subcommittee #4: I am writing you to ask that you vote HB2101, Electric utilities: data center cost allocation out of the subcommittee and onto the full Labor and Commerce committee for action. This bill would protect ratepayers from increases in their utility bills which would pay utility costs of infrastructure expansion to power data centers. Data Centers need to pay their fair share of utility such costs. I do not wish to subsidize data center utility use. Aditional, I'm asking that you vote to bring HB2755 before the full committee. This bill would fund a pilot program for underground transmission lines qualifying projects. There must be ratepaer fairness in the utility grid system. Thank you, Rev. Dr. Jean Wright, Ashburn, VA 20147

I am writing in support of these three bills.

I am a resident and business owner in Loudoun County where above ground power lines are destroying property values and our quality of life. The main thrust is that this bill provides a framework that permits energy to be delivered to high energy use customers without destroying existing residential and commercial neighborhoods that would otherwise be severely impacted by massive overhead power lines. I speak in favor of this bill.

Public sector workers in VA are currently denied the right to bargain collectively and have a say in their own working conditions. Not only does this harm workers, who make significantly lower wages and salaries than their private sector counterparts, it harms our public sector institutions. Schools, universities, transit organizations, firefighters, city governments, and more are not able to recruit or retain the best people to do their vital work. As a university employee, I care deeply about the services I provide to our students and community, and I know my colleagues do too. However, it is to provide a high level of service when my colleagues are commuting over an hour because they can't afford to live where they work; are not paid on time because they don't have an enforceable contract; or are afraid of losing their jobs due to capricious decisions by university administrators. Collective bargaining allows public sector workers to have a seat at the table to improve their own working conditions and improve the institutions they work at. These institutions are vital to the continued functioning of our commonwealth, and collective bargaining is the next necessary step to take.

Please do not support any of these three bills: HB 2089, HB 2495, and HB 2764. If passed, any of them will cause many problems for the vast majority of Virginia's citizens. We do NOT need collective bargaining in the Commonwealth. I am speaking from experience as a retired City of Virginia Beach employee with over thirty-three years of service. Thank you. Thomas K. Tillman

Vote NO to collective bargaining!! There is nothing good that will come from this!

Please do not mandate unions to collectively bargain for public employees. Theres a reason residents are leaving the high taxes states like New York Public services such as policing the streets and putting out fires gives government a monopoly. Collective bargaining is not about a seat at the table or customer service, it's about control. Unions work everyday to take control over the very governments that employ their members. They run up the cost of government, taxpayers are left out of the process while negoications take the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring them to union officials, with whom the public has vested no such authority. There is a difference between private and public unions. the private sector has to compete in the market place to keep cost down, they could go out of business if customers choose to shop elsewhere, the public sector on the other hand has no such controls. While the private sector makes money, the public sector spends money they don't go out of business their only choice is to raise taxes or reduce services. Collective bargaining is adversarial you don't just sit down and negotiate a contract every 3 years. In between there are grievances, charges, labor disputes, disagreements on contract language. Unions work every day to gain power to exert control over the very governments that employs their members. They will take control over working shifts, hours, conditions, equipment; they will insist management needs to consult with them before implementing rules any of kind. Non-union employees will be given the worst assignments and shifts to convince them to join they also don't like voluteers as many of our EMS are. It's not about customer service Even though striking is not allowed Unions will threaten to walk out, "work the rule", call in sick or do work slowdowns. Didn't the teacher’s union keep schools closed for almost two years during Covid? The National Unions have years of experience our localities do not! Unions will insert language that benefits them not taxpaers or management into contracts like: Arbitration: taking decision making away from management puts a third party in control, terminations and even discipline can be overturned or Tenure, making it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher as in NY. Organizational leave: so union members can attend union conferences, Fairfax County Public Schools paid $5.8 million in 2016 for “organizational leave” to teacher’s union officials. Access to employee information; a violation of privacy rights and loss of productivity as they will want to meet with employees during working hours. Automatic Payroll deduction of union dues and rules limiting when employees can decline paying them. An Evergreen clause, simply stated a contract stays in effect until a new one is agreed to, which gives them NO Incentive to come to the table during a financial crisis or recession. During a downturn in the economy Miami thought that and declare a financial crisis changing their union contracts, the police union sued them saying they hadn't fired non-unions employees, raised taxes or put in street cameras, their supreme court agreed. In 2008 Vallejo California tried for 2 years to negotiate with their unions they finally filed bankruptcy. During Covid the city of Cincinnati had to furlough over 1700 people, the unions would not agree to renegoiate their contracts.