We are asking you to amend SB 1182 which increases the required liability limits for auto insurance. Under current law if you can't afford or don't desire to purchase automobile liability insurance, you can pay the DMV an uninsured motorist fee. If this bill gets passed, many more Virginia drivers will become uninsured instead of buying the higher more expensive limits. Therefore, we ask that you amend this bill to increase the uninsured motorist fee to the DMV to $750 payable to the Uninsured Motorist Fund which is used to reduce the cost of uninsured motorist insurance coverage. Please pass with the amendment.

We are opposed to SB 1195. 1. Passage of SB 1195 would completely rewrite our state’s definition of “underinsured” when determining uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage, moving Virginia from a state that uses an “offset” provision to one that uses an “excess” provision in order to determine when UIM coverage is necessary. This change could significantly increase the number of claims that qualify for UIM coverage, thus increasing loss costs thus putting significant upward pressure on auto insurance rates for Virginia consumers. 2. In fact, states with definitions of underinsured and uninsured motorist bodily injury similar to those outlined in SB 1195 have costs that are 86% higher than Virginia’s under current law. These costs likely will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher auto insurance rates. 3. Why Now? There is never a good time to raise insurance rates for hardworking Virginians, but now is an especially bad time to do so. Please help keep insurance costs down across the state by opposing SB 1195. Virginia has the 17th lowest rate of uninsured motorists in the country, but this bill is very likely to increase that trend. Voters would be extremely likely to face a hefty premium increase, and it would fall hardest on those who could least afford it.

We are opposed to this bill as it will raise insurance costs for policyholders (consumers and businesses) that are already struggling because of the pandemic. 1, Under SB 1202, an insurer found to have acted in "bad faith" will be responsible fr the entire amount awarded regardless of policy limits. This is a substantial change in Virginia insurance law. 2. SB1202 also gives judges little guidance for determining bad faith. For example the term "reasonable settlement offer" is undefined for determining whether an insurer acted in "good faith". It is likely the bill will cause long and complex litigation battles that could add costs to consumers. 3. SB 1202 also is unnecessary as the Bureau of Insurance has full regulatory authority to handle consumer UM/UIM complaints. Between November 2017 and November 2020, the Bureau received 38 consumer complaints regarding UM/UIM claims. The complaints consisted of a combination of claim denials, alleged claim delays and unsatisfactory settlement offers. These complaints were either concluded with the company position being substantiated or compromise resolutions with no unfair claims violations found. 4. Insurance fraud is real, and costs policy holders Millions. An insurance company must be able to deny a fraudulent claim. SB 1202 requires insurers to pay any “reasonable” demand under any circumstances but “reasonable” is not defined. The threat of litigation could deter insurers from reviewing claims for fraud. 5. Increased litigation = Increased Costs. SB 1202 is very likely to lead to increased litigation and awards against insurers which in turn will increase the cost of insurance for policyholders across Virginia. 6. Virginia has strong consumer protection laws in place. Consumers can file a complaint with the Virginia Bureau of Insurance (BOI) who can impose fines and suspend the license of insurance companies. Virginia law also provides remedies if an insurer is found to have failed to act in good faith, in some cases allowing recovery of double the amount due under the terms of the policy, as well as interest, attorney fees and costs

The Nature Conservancy supports SB1223-Boysko. This timely bill would ensure that subsequent Virginia Energy Plans will include analysis of current and projected electric vehicle sales and their impact on the Commonwealth’s electric system. Transportation is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in Virginia (48.5%). Electrifying the transportation sector is vital to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change because it can dramatically reduce the carbon pollution associated with transportation. This bill is one piece of a comprehensive proactive approach to prepare for the increased demand that that vehicle electrification will place on the power sector.

Electrification of Virginia's transportation system is an essential step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change. Transportation is the single highest sector contributing to climate change in VA. Personal vehicles cause 70% of pollution from the transportation sector. Analysis of electric vehicle charging infrastructure is critical to electrifying VA's transportation system. Please pass SB1223. Thank you.

Power plants are a significant source of revenue for some localities. They will be closed in order to meet the mandates made in the Virginia Clean Economy Act. Impacted communities must be informed about power plant closures to address this source of revenue. This bill: 1.Requires owners of carbon-emitting electrical facilities ≥80 megawatts to notify impacted communities and relevant state agencies of power plant closures and work with local governments to provide public hearings. ○The notice must include information regarding worker transition assistance and environmental clean-up. ○Notice must be provided within 30 days of a decision to close, and public hearings must take place within 6 months. 2.Requires the Department of Energy to maintain a website of carbon-emitting power plants with announced, required, or estimated closures, and environmental permits. 3.Requires investor-owned utilities’ periodic integrated resource plan filings to include facility retirement studies, which must be provided to impacted communities and relevant state agencies. Protect impacted communities by passing this transparency bill. Thank you.

I believe that Bill 1276 should be supported with the changes proposed. The main reason is that allowing for abortion to be covered on insurance allows women to make choices that are best for their health and also respects situations women may be in. In addition, it offers support (if insurances do cover abortion) for those of lower-income in a more convenient way rather than forcing them to make sacrifices. There are also cases where fetuses may have anomalies that make them incompatible for survival and it is a painful decision for mothers but they may choose to go through with abortion for the sake of the fetus but that is not a feasible option as of now and mothers have to deal with that pain and devastation after birth even if they know of the anomalies due to the current restrictions on abortion especially in regards to insurance.

To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SB 1276: Essential health benefits; abortion coverage. I am Emma Kennedy, a second-year University of Richmond student. Through one of my leadership studies classes this spring, I have become aware of this particular legislation and how it relates to justice as well as my own personal beliefs. I would like to voice my opposition to the passing of SB 1276. Since the 2020 session, abortion is more accessible than ever in the United States. If passed, this bill will add another element in abortion legislation by inevitably enmeshing taxpayer dollars in the accessibility of a hugely controversial act. Taxpayer money pays to make the Virginia health insurance exchange run (healthinsurance.org). With this fact, it is no longer a matter of limited access to abortion, but more of who will bear the burden of providing the means for these elective abortions. While this bill may grant each individual provider the freedom to choose to use federal funding for abortions, it discards the individual’s freedom to choose to support such a morally and ethically controversial act. Taxpayer money WILL be used one way or another to fund an elective abortion. This legislation, which lifts nearly all restrictions on elective abortions in Virginia, should not be signed into law while the majority of citizens are strongly against it. According to Marist Poll, three quarters of Americans, including a majority who identify as prochoice, want significant restrictions on abortion (https://www.toomey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2021%20Marist%20Poll[3].pdf). Ultimately, I believe that by involving taxpayer money in the funding for this procedure, you would directly infringe on the consciences and individual rights of Virginians. And finally, I believe that such an imposing legislation should not be signed into law when too many Americans are at odds with each other on the one fundamental truth underlying the morality of abortion, which is the definition of life itself. Sincerely, Emma Kennedy

In the absence of neither HB1937 Green New Deal Act nor HB2292, support SB1284 in order to: 1. promote environmental justice within the state’s clean energy policy.; 2. address and prevent energy inequities in historically economically disadvantaged communities; 3. to be consistent with the 100% clean energy goals of the Commonwealth.

The Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this initiative to help expand broadband access to those currently unserved. We believe that this legislation will aid in efforts to attract businesses and their employees to more rural parts of the Commonwealth and we appreciate Senator Edwards for bringing this effort forward. Please support SB 1334.

The Virginia Poverty Law Center opposes SB 1341 and the expansion of Association Health Plans. This bill in the companion to HB 2033, which was previously tabled in sub-committee 2 by the patron. I agree that there is still a health insurance affordability issue for many Virginians, especially those who must by individual coverage and are ineligible for Premium Tax Credits. However, AHPs are not the answer - expanding them inadequately addresses the issue, and may even exacerbate it. AHPs can skirt important ACA consumer protections and target younger and healthier enrollees. They can discriminate against older workers by charging them 4 times (lines 180-181) more than younger ones versus the ACA’s to 3:1 ratio. AHPs can also discriminate by using non-ACA such as drug utilization. This hurts older and sicker individuals. These practices split the ACA risk pool and increase rates in the individual and small group markets. Additionally, this bill is ambiguous. Lines 186-188 say that these plans are not insurance. However, the legislation is written into and refers to many insurance provisions in Title 38, Virginia's insurance code. This brings into question the regulatory authority of the SCC over these plans. If AHPs are not insurance and not subject to Virginia’s insurance laws, then the SCC cannot regulate the plans. The language that the SCC can impose any insurance requirement “as it deems appropriate” (Lines 188-191) does not address this. In fact, the SCC FIS states, “If the coverage is to be subject to the Commission’s regulatory authority as stated in the bill, the paragraph on lines 186-190 should be deleted.” The SCC FIS also states that the inclusion of self-employed individuals is contrary to federal law regarding the formation of AHPs. The law, as is written, cannot be implemented. Oral arguments on the rule that would allow this were heard over a year ago. On January 28, 2021, the DOL requested that the court hold the appeal further while the new administration reviewed the rule, the same day President Biden issued an executive order requiring the review of this rule. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no on SB1341.

Dear Chair Ward and Members of the Labor and Commerce Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the American Lung Association in Virginia and the patients we serve with lung disease and on behalf of all the Virginians who depend on access to adequate, affordable and accessible health coverage. Lung Disease patients including those with asthma, lung cancer, and acute bronchitis have unique health needs. Comprehensive coverage is vital to ensure all lung disease patients have access to the medications, treatments and specialists they require to live. The American Lung Association strongly opposes SB 1341 that would allow any expansion of Association Health Plans. SB 1341 creates plans that are defined as not insurance coverage • As drafted the plans created are not required to comply with current state regulation and the patient protects of the Affordable Care Act (lines 183-184 demonstrate this) • While they may appear to provide protections for people with pre-existing conditions, the referenced code is only applicable to insurance policies. SB 1341 puts people who purchased plans on the individual market at risk • These plans could market to and attract younger, healthier individuals, pulling them out of the marketplace, leading to potential higher premiums for those that remain, essentially cherry-picking healthier consumers and allowing sicker patients to remain in the marketplace • This bill would allow AHPs to charge older adults 5 times as much for their premiums, which is much more limited in ACA complaint plans SB 1341 would be available to groups beyond Realtors in Virginia • These plans could be sold in other states, as long as just one member lives in Virginia • There is nothing prohibiting another group to seek the same authorization and create their own plan, therefore potentially destabilizing the ACA marketplace Association Health Plans (AHPs) are the wrong solution. These plans pose risks to patients and consumers and the Lung Association is asking that you PLEASE VOTE NO on SB 1341. The American Lung Association thanks you for the opportunity to share our comments on this proposed piece of legislation. We hope that you will act to protect patients with lung disease and all those who rely on adequate, affordable and accessible health care.