On behalf of the members of the Lynchburg Regional Business Alliance, we oppose the passage of HB74 - Electric utilities; recovery of development costs associated with small modular reactor. The Lynchburg region, along with Lynchburg Regional Business Alliance members BWXT and Framatome, is playing a critical role in developing commercialized small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide safe, reliable, carbon free, base-load electricity at a time when we need every electron on the grid. We have supported permitting and siting reforms over the last few years, to streamline the process in order to facilitate the deployment of more Virginia generated electricity to meet the growing demand for power. In 2024, the General Assembly approved a carefully crafted compromise on development costs for a small modular reactor which included a cost cap ($1.40 a month) and a sunset (2030). Customer protections are already built into the SMR project development cost recovery provisions. The SCC reviews this rider annually to assure transparency and accountability, like all riders.  While this legislation is focused on Dominion Energy's SMR project, it is likely the passage of this legislation would have negative impacts to AEP's SMR project development at Joshua Falls in Campbell County. Changing the rules on energy projects, whether while under development or under construction, makes it hard to have the predictability needed to proceed on building the power generation needed to serve Virginia’s growing electricity load. It will likely have the opposite effect of lowering the cost of electricity. Virginia is currently the second leading importer of electricity and urgently needs more power generation. Governor Spanberger noted in her inaugural address that part of reducing the cost of electricity was more in state power generation. Changing the rules in the middle of the process of developing a project is not the way to meet this goal and could affect investment in the future. We urge the Subcommittee to vote against the passage of HB74.

HB3 Why do we have to pay for another "group" to tell people they get free money to fix their homes? Why should I have to work 3x as hard for what little I get, because someone else isn't willing to work? HB67 Offshore wind isn't going anywhere. Why are we having this? This is useless. HB74 How about we can recover the costs of lobbying out of the executives' pay. The SCC keeps approving garbage, and if VEPCO was required to be as watched as the regular people are, and with public reporting for all their fraud and abuse, we'd have lower rates (removing the clean energy money sucking mandates). Stop taking VEPCO's money, you're paid off just like a crook and then vote for it. HB120 The SCC is supposed to protect us!! We don't need MORE layers of govt doing the same thing. Either the SCC is doing it or it isn't. It is not, so get rid of it.

The SWVA DCTA supports HB84. We are in favor of additional reporting from electric utilities to track changes in rates, especially in the wake of data center construction.

SUPPORT House Bill 120 the Office of the Public Utility Ombudsman established by this bill will help to support residential public utility customers by providing an independent resource to assist in navigating utility-related concerns. The Ombudsman can offer impartial guidance, help resolve disputes, and improve access to information for individuals and communities that lack the resources or familiarity with regulatory processes to effectively advocate for themselves. By institutionalizing this function, HB 120 strengthens transparency, accountability, and equitable access to assistance and oversight.

HB3 Why do we have to pay for another "group" to tell people they get free money to fix their homes? Why should I have to work 3x as hard for what little I get, because someone else isn't willing to work? HB67 Offshore wind isn't going anywhere. Why are we having this? This is useless. HB74 How about we can recover the costs of lobbying out of the executives' pay. The SCC keeps approving garbage, and if VEPCO was required to be as watched as the regular people are, and with public reporting for all their fraud and abuse, we'd have lower rates (removing the clean energy money sucking mandates). Stop taking VEPCO's money, you're paid off just like a crook and then vote for it. HB120 The SCC is supposed to protect us!! We don't need MORE layers of govt doing the same thing. Either the SCC is doing it or it isn't. It is not, so get rid of it.

HB323 - I support this study. 3 years ago, my husband and I co-founded an organization to object to 5 data centers in our village of Catlett. I am completely disappointed that up until this point, we do not have such a study!

We support HB289 and HB395 as they will enable a broad swath of Virginians , including renters, to afford small-scale solar. We support HB590 as it streamlines approval of residential solar, which will help consumers implement solar projects. We support HB617, as it will expand the very important virtual power plant program so necessary to meeting grid demand. We strongly support HB628 to expand power purchase agreements, a crucial element of meeting clean energy goals. We support HB634 to enhance energy assistance and weatherization. We support HB807's shared solar proposal to improve the viability of that program. We oppose HB369 as it puts nuclear energy in a category that should be reserved for clean, renewable power.

I support having the Department of Energy study the potential uses and best practices for waste heat. I ask you to pass HB323.

The SWVA DCTA supports HB323. While we would like to see regulations and requirements regarding heat created by data centers, a study is a step in the right direction.

I'd like to thank the Chair and committee for consideration of this bill, and thank Delegate Reid for his efforts to put HB369 forward. We are supportive of the bill in concept, but believe more work is needed to address the particulars.

HB369 MUST BE DEFEATED. Re-starting or continuing operation of old nuclear facilities beyond their retirement date is potentially costly and dangerous, and unnecessary. Old nuclear reactors - present a multitude of concerns - facilities exceeding designed and permitted life cycle, waste and storage, emissions, safety, terrorism, and weapons proliferation to name the most apparent. New nuclear facilities present even greater concerns of excessive costs and unreliable construction schedules. These concerns, however, pale compared to newly revealed safety rule changes - heightened by an exclusive NPR investigative report on 1/28/26, "THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SECRETLY REWRITTEN NUCLEAR SAFETY RULES." (See attachment.) To cope with escalating nuclear costs (the highest costs of power generation at utility scale) the NPR report states: ** "The Trump administration has overhauled nuclear safety directives and shared them with the companies it is charged with regulating, without making the new rules available to the public, according to documents obtained exclusively by NPR." ** “The sweeping changes were made to accelerate development of a new generation of nuclear reactor designs...The changes are to departmental orders, which dictate requirements for almost every aspect of the reactors' operations – including safety systems, environmental protections, site security and accident investigations... ** "The orders slash hundreds of pages of requirements for security at the reactors. They also loosen protections for ground water and the environment and eliminate at least one key safety role. The new orders cut back on requirements for keeping records, and they raise the amount of radiation a worker can be exposed to before an official accident investigation is triggered." Without public involvement, over 750 pages of NRC safety regulation and worker protection were eliminated in this unprecedented secret collaboration between government and the nuclear industry. This is no way to run what is potentially the most catastrophy-prone industry on earth! Current legislation permits accelerated renewable energy buyers to purchase renewable energy across PJM, there is no need to add nuclear. It's needless to incur financial, health and safety risks of purchasing old or new nuclear capacity. The VCEA excluded nuclear eligibility for the RPS because of the problems experienced with the technology across the country and to encourage the development of far cheaper alternatives, which are truly renewable. Please vote NO on HB369.

We support HB289 and HB395 as they will enable a broad swath of Virginians , including renters, to afford small-scale solar. We support HB590 as it streamlines approval of residential solar, which will help consumers implement solar projects. We support HB617, as it will expand the very important virtual power plant program so necessary to meeting grid demand. We strongly support HB628 to expand power purchase agreements, a crucial element of meeting clean energy goals. We support HB634 to enhance energy assistance and weatherization. We support HB807's shared solar proposal to improve the viability of that program. We oppose HB369 as it puts nuclear energy in a category that should be reserved for clean, renewable power.

I am in favor of HB 420 and HB 422. I am a retired teacher living on a fixed income in a single person household. I have lived in the Lake Land 'Or community in Caroline County since 2002. My water and sewer service was purchased by Aqua Virginia a few years after that. My monthly bills range from $98 to $120 monthly although I feel I am pretty consistent in my use. Like many in my community, I try to limit my water use as the cost is so high. I try to wash only full loads of laundry (approx 3 weekly), run my dishwasher 1 time weekly, limit flushing, rarely use outside water. Lake Land 'Or takes water from a few different wells and the water quality seems to vary from one area to another. Some in my community are afraid to drink their tap water as they feel the quality is poor or downright unsafe. Aqua Virginia's constant requests for rate increases are exhausting and expensive to combat. Limiting these would benefit the customers, their local governments and the SCC. It is also a concern that Aqua is making yet another request while also working on a merge with Virginia American Water. Please vote YES on HB 420 an HB 422

Greetings, I am writing in support of preventing rate increases as an Aqua Virginia customer. In the year of 2025, I spent a total of over $4,000 for their services. During the course of that last year, I have had a broken meter, pressure to purchase an extended warranty due to the potential of deteriorating lines that would then be imposed on me, and brown water. I am already spending close to $200 a month for unreliable and unpredictable water/sewer services. I understand my county cannot provide public services, but I strongly believe that until Aqua Virginia (before or after their merger) show some real upgrades in our deteriorating system AND reliable water we can use, they SHOULD NOT be able to increase their rates for their customers. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Shaun McBride Lake Land Or Resident

My wife and I areresidents of the Lake Monticello development and Aqua Virginia has been our water and sewer provider since 2013 when we bought our home. During that time Aqua has requested at least 3 rate increases with the most recent increase being approved by the VA SCC in 2024. Now Aqua is requesting further increases to take effect in 2026. I want to make 2 points about this request. First off, how is it that Aqua can make new increase requests within a 2 year span? This seems like a waste of taxpayer money and VA SCC resources to have to go through public comment, review, hearings, etc. Why is there no limit on how often a company can bring a rate increase request in front of the VA SCC? Second, since the 2024 rate increase approval there has been a new housing development added to Aqua's water and sewer systems. It is called The Coves at Monticello (https://www.covesatmonticello.com/) and it is higher density housing than the Lake Monticello Development which means that Aqua's infrastructure has to be much cheaper to maintain. By Aqua's own admission they are using the same wells and water treatment plant to service this new development as they are using for the Lake Monticello Development. It would seem to me that given the fact that Aqua is less than a year into servicing this new development they would need more time to understand the financial impact of adding this development to their water/sewer services. There should be some kind of a law that says a company must have at least a couple of years of financials before asking for rate increases after adding a substantial amount of new customers to their service area. Thanks for your time and please do everything possible to pass these bills. The reality is that the VA SCC will approve yet another increase for Aqua and these bills are really our only hope of reigning in these increases.

Dear Nicole Cole, I have been a resident of the Lake Land Or community since 2021. I come from Atlanta where the water bills never exceeded $75 and have been shocked to see the extremely high water bills in Carolina county. Additionally, I am a single retired person who lives alone and I am very frugal with my water consumption. As such, there is absolutely no reason my water bills should be so high. Moreover, the pervasive water quality issues requires that we flush our water heaters more frequently and have to fill the water heaters up again at the consumers cost. I have had several pieces of clothing that have been stained and was told I have an extraordinary amount of calcium and chlorine in my water. I understand that our community has had these issues for years and we have an over aging system that needs repair/replacing. It seems to me that this needs to be done before any work to add infrastructure to our county begins. We have more than paid for updating our current system in our high water bills and shouldn’t be extending any rate hikes to pay for new infrastructure for new residents or businesses. That expenditure should be charged to the new residents and businesses, not the long standing customers that have been over charged for so long. I wholeheartedly support efforts on HB 420 and HB422. Thank you, Sincerely, Sharon R. Dunn

Formal Support for HB 242, HB 420, and HB 422 (Utility Consumer Protections) ​Dear Members of the Committee: ​I am writing to express my strong support for the suite of utility consumer protection bills currently before this committee: HB 242, HB 420, and HB 422. As a resident of Caroline County and a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, I am advocating for these measures to bring much-needed predictability and transparency to our local utility costs. ​HB 242: Stability for Fixed-Income Families ​Many residents in my district utilize "budget plans" to manage their monthly household expenses. When a utility increases these payments mid-cycle without sufficient notice, it creates an immediate financial crisis for those on fixed incomes. HB 242’s requirement for a 30-day written notice and a limit of one increase per 12-month period is a common-sense protection that ensures families aren't blindsided by their basic service costs. ​HB 422: Preventing Rate-Hike Fatigue ​Water and sewer services are non-negotiable essentials. Frequent, year-over-year rate applications make it impossible for families and small businesses to plan their long-term budgets. By establishing a three-year window between general rate increase applications, HB 422 provides a necessary "cooling off" period and encourages utilities to manage their infrastructure costs more efficiently rather than passing them immediately to the consumer. ​HB 420: Ensuring Transparency in Mergers & Sales ​When a utility company is sold or merged, the resulting "synergy savings" should benefit the ratepayers as much as the shareholders. By empowering the SCC to reopen rate cases if a sale occurs within 24 months of an increase, HB 420 ensures that corporate transitions do not become a vehicle for hidden profit at the expense of the public. ​Conclusion: These bills are not just about numbers; they are about the financial dignity of Virginians. We need a utility system that prioritizes stability over volatility. I urge the committee to Report all three bills. ​Respectfully, ​Nicholas J. Broughan Caroline County Resident Candidate for Board of Supervisors, Western Caroline

HB420 I want to voice my concern that Aqua Virginia's pending application for a utility rate increase does not address the merger with Virginia American Water that was announced in October 2025, or how this merger will impact rates. By passing this bill, I ask the SCC to reopen the prior rate case to confirm that the merger will have no impact on rates, as is required by law.

Respectfully request and appreciate denying any future rate increases to Aqua: 1) just in past few years granted increase, with no data to indicate quality improvement to users 2) with Aquas merger announced and "pending" is it in the best interests of the consumer to bear burden of additional costs of unknowns when quality at present is at best poor to moderately fair at best? 3) if merger is accepted, will consumers then be subject to another rate increase? It appears that valuable data, evidence and performance do not align and we, the consumers are bearing the $$$ for lack of transparency and reliable service and performance . It's time to to STOP, please. Best regards Ms V Ross Aqua customer, Caroline County VA

Comments Document

Please let me share my personal story with you as a concerned citizen. I would like a zoom call to express the inconveniences and inconsistencies with our water quality and how now we are being financially for the amount of money to invest in filters and water sources. We, ourselves and our children have been diagnosed with eczema, hair loss, period of chlorine exposure and other conditions where the water was not treated properly and caused other medical issues. I would appreciate you also seeing the attach document where Aqua failed to give proper disclosure of flushing when they do flush causing more issues in the month of Jan where all of my family was treated for ecoli! This isn’t new, this is 20 year period of Aqua getting more and more money out of residents and the state to fund their own pockets and not invest in the infrastructure to provide residents with the basic service of good, clean water!

I am in favor of HB 420 and HB 422. I am a retired teacher living on a fixed income in a single person household. I have lived in the Lake Land 'Or community in Caroline County since 2002. My water and sewer service was purchased by Aqua Virginia a few years after that. My monthly bills range from $98 to $120 monthly although I feel I am pretty consistent in my use. Like many in my community, I try to limit my water use as the cost is so high. I try to wash only full loads of laundry (approx 3 weekly), run my dishwasher 1 time weekly, limit flushing, rarely use outside water. Lake Land 'Or takes water from a few different wells and the water quality seems to vary from one area to another. Some in my community are afraid to drink their tap water as they feel the quality is poor or downright unsafe. Aqua Virginia's constant requests for rate increases are exhausting and expensive to combat. Limiting these would benefit the customers, their local governments and the SCC. It is also a concern that Aqua is making yet another request while also working on a merge with Virginia American Water. Please vote YES on HB 420 an HB 422

Greetings, I am writing in support of preventing rate increases as an Aqua Virginia customer. In the year of 2025, I spent a total of over $4,000 for their services. During the course of that last year, I have had a broken meter, pressure to purchase an extended warranty due to the potential of deteriorating lines that would then be imposed on me, and brown water. I am already spending close to $200 a month for unreliable and unpredictable water/sewer services. I understand my county cannot provide public services, but I strongly believe that until Aqua Virginia (before or after their merger) show some real upgrades in our deteriorating system AND reliable water we can use, they SHOULD NOT be able to increase their rates for their customers. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Shaun McBride Lake Land Or Resident

My wife and I areresidents of the Lake Monticello development and Aqua Virginia has been our water and sewer provider since 2013 when we bought our home. During that time Aqua has requested at least 3 rate increases with the most recent increase being approved by the VA SCC in 2024. Now Aqua is requesting further increases to take effect in 2026. I want to make 2 points about this request. First off, how is it that Aqua can make new increase requests within a 2 year span? This seems like a waste of taxpayer money and VA SCC resources to have to go through public comment, review, hearings, etc. Why is there no limit on how often a company can bring a rate increase request in front of the VA SCC? Second, since the 2024 rate increase approval there has been a new housing development added to Aqua's water and sewer systems. It is called The Coves at Monticello (https://www.covesatmonticello.com/) and it is higher density housing than the Lake Monticello Development which means that Aqua's infrastructure has to be much cheaper to maintain. By Aqua's own admission they are using the same wells and water treatment plant to service this new development as they are using for the Lake Monticello Development. It would seem to me that given the fact that Aqua is less than a year into servicing this new development they would need more time to understand the financial impact of adding this development to their water/sewer services. There should be some kind of a law that says a company must have at least a couple of years of financials before asking for rate increases after adding a substantial amount of new customers to their service area. Thanks for your time and please do everything possible to pass these bills. The reality is that the VA SCC will approve yet another increase for Aqua and these bills are really our only hope of reigning in these increases.

Dear Nicole Cole, I have been a resident of the Lake Land Or community since 2021. I come from Atlanta where the water bills never exceeded $75 and have been shocked to see the extremely high water bills in Carolina county. Additionally, I am a single retired person who lives alone and I am very frugal with my water consumption. As such, there is absolutely no reason my water bills should be so high. Moreover, the pervasive water quality issues requires that we flush our water heaters more frequently and have to fill the water heaters up again at the consumers cost. I have had several pieces of clothing that have been stained and was told I have an extraordinary amount of calcium and chlorine in my water. I understand that our community has had these issues for years and we have an over aging system that needs repair/replacing. It seems to me that this needs to be done before any work to add infrastructure to our county begins. We have more than paid for updating our current system in our high water bills and shouldn’t be extending any rate hikes to pay for new infrastructure for new residents or businesses. That expenditure should be charged to the new residents and businesses, not the long standing customers that have been over charged for so long. I wholeheartedly support efforts on HB 420 and HB422. Thank you, Sincerely, Sharon R. Dunn

Formal Support for HB 242, HB 420, and HB 422 (Utility Consumer Protections) ​Dear Members of the Committee: ​I am writing to express my strong support for the suite of utility consumer protection bills currently before this committee: HB 242, HB 420, and HB 422. As a resident of Caroline County and a candidate for the Board of Supervisors, I am advocating for these measures to bring much-needed predictability and transparency to our local utility costs. ​HB 242: Stability for Fixed-Income Families ​Many residents in my district utilize "budget plans" to manage their monthly household expenses. When a utility increases these payments mid-cycle without sufficient notice, it creates an immediate financial crisis for those on fixed incomes. HB 242’s requirement for a 30-day written notice and a limit of one increase per 12-month period is a common-sense protection that ensures families aren't blindsided by their basic service costs. ​HB 422: Preventing Rate-Hike Fatigue ​Water and sewer services are non-negotiable essentials. Frequent, year-over-year rate applications make it impossible for families and small businesses to plan their long-term budgets. By establishing a three-year window between general rate increase applications, HB 422 provides a necessary "cooling off" period and encourages utilities to manage their infrastructure costs more efficiently rather than passing them immediately to the consumer. ​HB 420: Ensuring Transparency in Mergers & Sales ​When a utility company is sold or merged, the resulting "synergy savings" should benefit the ratepayers as much as the shareholders. By empowering the SCC to reopen rate cases if a sale occurs within 24 months of an increase, HB 420 ensures that corporate transitions do not become a vehicle for hidden profit at the expense of the public. ​Conclusion: These bills are not just about numbers; they are about the financial dignity of Virginians. We need a utility system that prioritizes stability over volatility. I urge the committee to Report all three bills. ​Respectfully, ​Nicholas J. Broughan Caroline County Resident Candidate for Board of Supervisors, Western Caroline

HB422 I am in support of this bill that prohibits Aqua Virginia from applying for multiple rate increases within a three year period. This limitation will not only help control the tremendous increases in water and sewer rates that Aqua Virginia has already imposed and is in the process of imposing, but would also limit the cost and time associated with having to participate in litigation before the SCC every year. This bill would allow for more predictable rate increases for their customers, if they could only be imposed every three years.

HB420 I want to voice my concern that Aqua Virginia's pending application for a utility rate increase does not address the merger with Virginia American Water that was announced in October 2025, or how this merger will impact rates. By passing this bill, I ask the SCC to reopen the prior rate case to confirm that the merger will have no impact on rates, as is required by law.

We want to keep and maintain bills affordable for homeowners.

Respectfully request and appreciate denying any future rate increases to Aqua: 1) just in past few years granted increase, with no data to indicate quality improvement to users 2) with Aquas merger announced and "pending" is it in the best interests of the consumer to bear burden of additional costs of unknowns when quality at present is at best poor to moderately fair at best? 3) if merger is accepted, will consumers then be subject to another rate increase? It appears that valuable data, evidence and performance do not align and we, the consumers are bearing the $$$ for lack of transparency and reliable service and performance . It's time to to STOP, please. Best regards Ms V Ross Aqua customer, Caroline County VA

Comments Document

Please let me share my personal story with you as a concerned citizen. I would like a zoom call to express the inconveniences and inconsistencies with our water quality and how now we are being financially for the amount of money to invest in filters and water sources. We, ourselves and our children have been diagnosed with eczema, hair loss, period of chlorine exposure and other conditions where the water was not treated properly and caused other medical issues. I would appreciate you also seeing the attach document where Aqua failed to give proper disclosure of flushing when they do flush causing more issues in the month of Jan where all of my family was treated for ecoli! This isn’t new, this is 20 year period of Aqua getting more and more money out of residents and the state to fund their own pockets and not invest in the infrastructure to provide residents with the basic service of good, clean water!

Comments Document

Written statement of Jigar Shah, Founding Advisory Chair of Deploy Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, writing in support of HB 434.

Comments Document

My name is Jigar Shah, and I am Founding Advisory Chair of Deploy Action, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit dedicated to removing barriers to clean energy deployment at the state level. I am also a Partner at Multiplier, an advisory firm helping clean energy, cleantech, and climate tech companies accelerate their growth, and prior to that served as Director of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office, the federal government’s clean energy investment vehicle. Prior to my time in government service, I co-founded and was President of Generate Capital, founded SunEdison, and was the founding CEO of the Carbon War Room. Building new transmission and distribution infrastructure is the biggest driver of cost increases to ratepayers, since those investments are capital-intensive. For example, based on utility reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report (2024) from several national labs estimated that, as of 2021, utility investments in distribution systems nationwide exceeded $60 billion annually. This question is all the more critical at a time of unprecedented projected load growth. For example, according to Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (2024), the Commonwealth faces historic energy demand growth from a number of sources, including data centers, potentially more than tripling overall electricity usage over the next 10 to 15 years if data center expansion continues at current projections. Given the size of these grid investments and the length of time it takes to bring new infrastructure and generation online, Virginians reasonably want to make sure they know what they’re buying. Today, utilities and regulators lack consistent, transparent metrics to understand how much unused or underutilized capacity already exists on the transmission and distribution grid. Because of this, the SCC cannot effectively evaluate whether existing grid assets are used to their full potential, fully gauge whether proposed grid upgrades are necessary, or weigh alternatives that could meet the same needs at lower cost. HB 434 directly addresses that gap by requiring covered utilities to submit by November of this year standardized, transparent grid utilization metrics to assess how the grid is operating. The bill calls for identifying distribution system peak load versus total distribution capacity, load delivered to potential deliverable load, and potential losses with some granularity and on a seasonal basis. Together, these metrics can help regulators prioritize effectively using existing transmission and distribution infrastructure as part of their evaluation of new utility investments, and can provide Virginians more information about whether to defer or right-size new grid investments to reduce any unnecessary capital spending to lower long-term ratepayer costs. Grid utilization can take many forms, so let me provide some examples. The same DOE national laboratory study referenced above looked at energy demands on the distribution and transmission grid from transportation electrification in five study states. It found that a range of solutions under the broad umbrella of grid utilization – such as proactive utility planning, tariff structures, and vehicle-grid integration technologies – could help mitigate grid infrastructure investment needs by 30%.

Comments Document

Building new transmission and distribution infrastructure is the biggest driver of cost increases to ratepayers, since those investments are capital-intensive. For example, based on utility reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report (2024) from several national labs estimated that, as of 2021, utility investments in distribution systems nationwide exceeded $60 billion annually. This question is all the more critical at a time of unprecedented projected load growth. For example, according to Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (2024), the Commonwealth faces historic energy demand growth from a number of sources, including data centers, potentially more than tripling overall electricity usage over the next 10 to 15 years if data center expansion continues at current projections. Given the size of these grid investments and the length of time it takes to bring new infrastructure and generation online, Virginians reasonably want to make sure they know what they’re buying. Today, utilities and regulators lack consistent, transparent metrics to understand how much unused or underutilized capacity already exists on the transmission and distribution grid. Because of this, the SCC cannot effectively evaluate whether existing grid assets are used to their full potential, fully gauge whether proposed grid upgrades are necessary, or weigh alternatives that could meet the same needs at lower cost. HB 434 directly addresses that gap by requiring covered utilities to submit by November of this year standardized, transparent grid utilization metrics to assess how the grid is operating. The bill calls for identifying distribution system peak load versus total distribution capacity, load delivered to potential deliverable load, and potential losses with some granularity and on a seasonal basis. Together, these metrics can help regulators prioritize effectively using existing transmission and distribution infrastructure as part of their evaluation of new utility investments, and can provide Virginians more information about whether to defer or right-size new grid investments to reduce any unnecessary capital spending to lower long-term ratepayer costs. Better data can lead to better decisionmaking in SCC’s review of utility long-term plans, including capital investment and cost recovery requests that directly affect rates. Measuring utilization is an important first step to making smarter, more cost-effective decisions about how the grid should grow to meet today’s electricity demands. HB 434 focuses on outcomes, namely better utilization and affordability, to put Virginia on a trajectory to achieving those ends. Finally, we also want to commend Delegate LeVere Bolling and Governor Abigail Spanberger for their leadership in making grid utilization and energy affordability priorities. We are excited to continue to support this legislation in the House of Delegates and to work with Senator Kannan Srinivasan on his companion bill Senate Bill 621. Thank you for your consideration of HB 434, and we urge the Subcommittee to favorably report the bill. Please feel free to contact Kyle Winslow, policy consultant at Deploy Action, at kyle@winslowpa.com, or Jennie O’Holleran at jennie@broadstreet.group, for any questions or for stakeholder discussions on the important issue of creating grid utilization metrics. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Hello, My name is Richard Caperton and I am the Vice President for Public Policy at SPAN. I am writing in support of House Bill 434 offered by Del. LeVere Bolling. We commend the Delegate and the Governor for supporting this effort. SPAN is a manufacturer of smart electric panels and grid-edge hardware and software solutions. Smart panels, such as those developed by SPAN, serve as a direct replacement of the traditional residential electrical breaker box. The panel includes intelligent hardware that can enable whole-home electrification, including the installation of rooftop solar, backup battery, heat pump HVAC, hot water heaters, induction cooking, and EV charging without the need for expensive service upgrades and additional upstream investments to the distribution system. Grid utilization is an emerging concept in utility regulation that prioritizes effectively using existing transmission and distribution infrastructure over additional utility investments. Today, utilities and regulators lack consistent, transparent metrics to understand how much unused or underutilized capacity already exists on the transmission and distribution grid. Ratepayers are paying for the entire grid but receiving only a small percent of the value in most circumstances. HB 434 brings a new way of measuring existing grid utilization and assessing the true need to build, or defer building, new transmission and distribution infrastructure – which is the biggest driver of cost increases to ratepayers. By better utilizing existing assets, the Commonwealth can defer or right-size new grid investments, reduce unnecessary capital spending, and lower long-term ratepayer costs. The bill gives the State Corporation Commission (SCC) the tools it needs to measure whether utilities are taking actions to unlock the full value of their existing infrastructure before asking Virginians to pay for more. The legislation focuses on outcomes, namely better utilization and affordability, not prescriptive mandates, and opens the door for any technology, resource, or other non-wire alternative that will deliver better utilization – allowing utilities the flexibility to determine how best to improve utilization, subject to SCC oversight We urge the subcommittee to favorably report the bill. We look forward to continuing to work with your office, the Committee on Labor and Commerce, and other stakeholders in Virginia, including our utility partners, on this important legislation. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello, My name is Will Baker. On behalf of Renew Home, I am writing in support of House Bill 434 offered by Del. LeVere Bolling. We commend the Delegate and the Governor for supporting this effort. Renew Home delivers personalized, comfort-aware adjustments to smart devices—beginning with Google Nest thermostats—that help customers save energy effortlessly throughout the day. Energy Shift Capacity (ESC) can be scheduled more frequently than traditional DR, reach more homes, and result in fewer opt-outs, ultimately providing greater reliability and flexibility for energy providers and grid operators. Utilities can specify when Energy Shifts are needed to address real-time grid needs. Personalization is key to increasing savings and ensuring a reliable energy resource while protecting customer comfort and control. Renew Home Energy Shifts are increasingly personalized to account for weather, home performance and personal preferences, and are often so subtle they aren’t noticeable. Concurrently, grid utilization is an emerging concept in utility regulation that prioritizes effectively using existing transmission and distribution infrastructure over additional utility investments. Today, utilities and regulators lack consistent, transparent metrics to understand how much unused or underutilized capacity already exists on the transmission and distribution grid. Ratepayers are paying for the entire grid but receiving only a small percent of the value in most circumstances. HB 434 brings a new way of measuring existing grid utilization and assessing the true need to build, or defer building, new transmission and distribution infrastructure – which is the biggest driver of cost increases to ratepayers. By better utilizing existing assets, the Commonwealth can defer or right-size new grid investments, reduce unnecessary capital spending, and lower long-term ratepayer costs. The bill gives the State Corporation Commission (SCC) the tools it needs to measure whether utilities are taking actions to unlock the full value of their existing infrastructure before asking Virginians to pay for more. The legislation focuses on outcomes, namely better utilization and affordability, not prescriptive mandates, and opens the door for any technology, resource, or other non-wire alternative that will deliver better utilization – allowing utilities the flexibility to determine how best to improve utilization, subject to SCC oversight We urge the subcommittee to favorably report the bill. We look forward to continuing to work with your office, the Committee on Labor and Commerce, and other stakeholders in Virginia, including our utility partners, on this important legislation. Thanks for your consideration.

I'd like to thank the Chair and the committee members for taking time to consider HB466, and we (Amazon Web Services) appreciate Delegate Cohen putting forward this important piece of legislation. AWS is invested in this bill for the following reasons: 1) We are invested as an economic developer. AWS has invest $91 billion dollars in the Commonwealth between 2011-2025.  Our ability to execute such large investments over the short, medium, and long term is dependent on certainty in government review processes.  This bill ensures certainty in a critical component of not only our projects, but for projects of all types across the Commonwealth.  Variations in the process for application review or the perception of undue delay can be deterrents to investors to bring projects to parts of the Commonwealth.  We believe this time period will provide sufficient opportunity for review and determination.  2) We are invested as a renewable energy developer. AWS has 22 solar farms in the Commonwealth and we are deeply committed to driving progress on both ours and Virginia's renewable and clean energy targets.  In order to do so, we will need transmission infrastructure.  There is a significant backlog and numerous hurdles for the development of renewable power in Virginia.  This bill will help to define and clarify a very critical step in the process to bring more clean power to the Commonwealth. 3) We are invested as a electric utility customer. We recognize that data centers have been at the forefront of the energy and affordability conversation.  This bill addresses a key component of the affordability conversation that is often overlooked, which is time.  Time delays are a major contributor to increased costs, both in terms of cost paid, costs saved, and opportunity costs.  Ensuring clear, certain timelines will support managing costs. Finally, this bill does not force approvals.  It clarifies and makes certain a review process that stakeholders can rely on.

HB466 - I object to limiting the timeline needed to evaluate transmission lines and routes. You should not impose a 6-month time limit on SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES. That time allotment is absolutely unacceptable. Dominion is poised to file MANY MAJOR NEW TRANSMISSION LINE CASES that would affect Southern Fauquier County, among many others to feed data centers in Northern VA Counties that keep approving them! We all know that the energy infrastructure to power these will be extremely expensive and many lines are hundreds of miles long, on new ROW, going through many VA counties. A 6-month time limit would severely compromise SCC analysis, public involvement, and the rights of affected parties. Our family's historic farm and many generational farms around us are in danger of being squashed by these big companies and all their land and energy needs. Please amend or defeat this bill so that we can get proper analysis before railroading through without proper vetting.

HB466 would impose a 6-month time limit on SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES. That is unthinkable and unacceptable. Dominion is poised to file MANY MAJOR NEW TRANSMISSION LINE CASES -- which are extremely expensive and will feed the increase in electricity rates for VA households. Moreover, these projects will have major impacts on VA communities and residents. Many lines are hundreds of miles long, on new ROW, going through multiple VA counties. A 6-month time limit would severely compromise SCC analysis, public involvement, and the rights of affected parties. Amend or defeat this bill. DO NOT LIMIT SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES TO JUST 6 MONTHS."

Amend or defeat HB466. As written, it would impose a 6-month time limit on SCC Transmission line cases. Six months is not enough time for the process because of all the nuances of these proposals and far-reaching impacts. Many lines are hundreds of miles long and will impact many Virginia counties. These projects will impact all Virginia ratepayers with higher costs. A 6-month time limit would severely compromise SCC analysis, public involvement and the rights of affected parties. Amend or defeat this bill. DO NOT LIMIT SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES TO JUST 6 MONTHS.

HB466 would impose a 6-month time limit on SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES. That is unthinkable and unacceptable. Dominion is poised to file MANY MAJOR NEW TRANSMISSION LINE CASES -- which are extremely expensive and will feed the increase in electricity rates for VA households. Moreover, these projects will have major impacts on VA communities and residents. Many lines are hundreds of miles long, on new ROW, going through many VA counties. A 6-month time limit would severely compromise SCC analysis, public involvement, and the rights of affected parties. Amend or defeat this bill. DO NOT LIMIT SCC TRANSMISSION LINE CASES TO JUST 6 MONTHS.

Piedmont Environmental Council has concerns about the phrase, "or a facility subject to the requirements of subsection B of § 56-46.1" which refers to transmission lines in the bill. We do not have concern with the reduced review time for review of small renewable energy but the transmission lines, especially those serving data center facilities and impacting private property and public facilities and parks, are complex and sometimes controversial projects and require months and can take even over a year of study, review, testimony, and deliberation by the SCC. Some of the lines selected by PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Projects (RTEP) are completed new to the utilities or the state, such as the 765kV from Joshua Falls to Yeat and the new HVDC likely to be selected in the current 2025 Window 1 RTEP. These lines go through multiple states and numerous resources requiring study, review, mitigation, testimony, and deliberation. It is inappropriate and unjust to all the stakeholders impacted to rush this process. Currently there is no timeline for SCC review of transmission lines, this would place an arbitrary one on them for the benefit of the data center industry. None of the lines currently being planned through northern Virginia or as part of the various RTEPs show any connection to renewable energy. As you can see on our map, lines are going out to coal, gas, and nuclear facilities or they are directly serving data centers. https://piedmont.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fb87700e5c0747518b284e31386924b7 Thank you for considering our concerns.

Comments Document

I am writing on behalf of Secure Solar Futures, a solar development company headquartered in Staunton, VA in support of HB617 sponsored by Delegate McNamara to develop a pilot program in APCo territory for battery storage and Virtual Power Plants. Today the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) awarded a $450,000 grant towards a $2,550,000 project by Secure Solar Futures to install behind-the-meter solar + battery storage microgrids at two high schools of the Roanoke City Public Schools in APCo territory. Secure Solar Futures has installed two one-megawatt solar arrays at the two high schools in December 2025 under solar PPAs, and will be financing the balance of $2.1 million to install, own and operate the batteries to build resiliency and energy savings for the public schools. Passage of this bill will send the right signal that solar + battery storage is not only the path forward, but entirely doable today if done in partnership with the electric utilities. This bill is also supported by the Virginia Distributed Solar Alliance (VA-DSA), of which I serve as Chair and Co-Founder. VA-DSA is a network of solar companies, small businesses, customers, and energy advocates from across the Commonwealth that advocate for distributed energy resources.

We support HB289 and HB395 as they will enable a broad swath of Virginians , including renters, to afford small-scale solar. We support HB590 as it streamlines approval of residential solar, which will help consumers implement solar projects. We support HB617, as it will expand the very important virtual power plant program so necessary to meeting grid demand. We strongly support HB628 to expand power purchase agreements, a crucial element of meeting clean energy goals. We support HB634 to enhance energy assistance and weatherization. We support HB807's shared solar proposal to improve the viability of that program. We oppose HB369 as it puts nuclear energy in a category that should be reserved for clean, renewable power.