Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority; established, report. (SB1138)

Introduced By

Sen. Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium. Establishes the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium Authority as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth for the purposes of making the Commonwealth a national and global leader in nuclear energy and serving as an interdisciplinary study, research, and information resource for the Commonwealth on nuclear energy issues. The 17-member board of directors of the Authority is directed to form a nonstock, nonprofit corporation, referred to as the Virginia Nuclear Energy Consortium. Membership in the Consortium is open to specified educational institutions, Virginia-based federal research laboratories, nuclear-related nonprofit organizations, business entities with operating facilities in Virginia that are engaged in activities directly related to the nuclear energy industry, and other persons whose membership is approved by the Consortium's board of directors. The purposes of the Consortium include carrying out the rights, powers, and duties of the Authority and conducting other activities useful in (i) making the Commonwealth a leader in nuclear energy, (ii) serving as an interdisciplinary study, research, and information resource for the Commonwealth on nuclear energy issues, and (iii) raising money on behalf of the Authority in the corporate and nonprofit community and from other nonstate sources. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/09/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13103526D
01/09/2013Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
01/17/2013Rereferred from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/17/2013Rereferred to Commerce and Labor
01/18/2013Impact statement from DPB (SB1138)
02/04/2013Reported from Commerce and Labor with substitute (14-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2013Committee substitute printed 13104840D-S1
02/05/2013Read second time
02/05/2013Reading of substitute waived
02/05/2013Committee substitute agreed to 13104840D-S1
02/05/2013Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB1138S1
02/05/2013Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2013Passed Senate (32-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2013Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2013Passed Senate (32-Y 7-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/08/2013Impact statement from DPB (SB1138S1)
02/11/2013Placed on Calendar
02/11/2013Read first time
02/11/2013Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
02/14/2013Reported from Commerce and Labor with amendment (20-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2013Read second time
02/19/2013Read third time
02/19/2013Committee amendment agreed to
02/19/2013Engrossed by House as amended SB1138
02/19/2013Passed House with amendment (90-Y 7-N 1-A)
02/19/2013VOTE: PASSAGE (90-Y 7-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/20/2013House amendment agreed to by Senate (36-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
02/23/2013Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB1138ER)
02/23/2013Signed by President
02/23/2013Signed by Speaker
02/25/2013Impact statement from DPB (SB1138ER)
03/14/2013G Approved by Governor-Chapter 394 (effective 7/1/13)
03/14/2013G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0394)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 6 minutes.


Erica Gray writes:

We need safe renewable energy. Not toxic, dangerous and expensive nukes!

Deborah Dix writes:

Love this: "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.Albert Einstein"

Nuclear power is an old way to produce power, cannot get insurance, tax payers foots the bill for nuke plants.

Nuke plants in Finland and GA are running very behind, cost has increased 3x.

Do not need nuke plants, cannot afford nukes plants

Susan Halloran writes:

Move ahead with the times and stop being another of the follow the leader Republicans. Think of the future, the future of our children. We need clean energy, not this outdated toxic garbage. If you can't move with the times then you are not representing the future!

Chip Atkins writes:

Please do not advance short term gains by accepting long term risk. Uranium mining is not worth the risk.

Nathan Roland writes:

To whom it may concern, I never thought that Virginia would put it's profits before it's people and pristine environment. At what cost? What will be left for future generations, a toxic wasteland, a land so vast yet so empty? Priority should be people over profits. The people do not want this, the cons far outweigh the pros. What will it take to understand the magnitude of dangers involved continuing on the path of nuclear power, Fukushima in Virginia? Instead of permanently ruining all of the land..with mountain-top removal and mining uranium..why not preserve the land (and it's inhabitants) and move forward with renewable energy? Is it not painfully obvious what the clear choice is? How many politicians have been to see the destruction caused by such things as mountain-top removal..or ever visited communities where the people cannot even drink or shower with their water..? Do not pass a bill when you haven't even taken the time to look at the consequences of your actions. It's easy to vote on a bill when your not directly affected by the outcome. Well let me tell you my friend, we will all be affected by the continued use of nuclear energy in this country, and until we move toward clean renewable sources we're a ticking time bomb. - Nathan Roland

Erica Gray writes:

NO to a nuclear think tank!

Colleen Stephens writes:

Please pay attention to what is happening in Japan! We want the future to be safe for our children! Clean Energy, not outdated Nuclear Energy!

Deborah Dix writes:

Strange to think VA wants to back such an old energy push, the cost of new nuke plant will average $35 billion which in the long run is paid by federal tax payers.

The global nuclear industry is sick, indeed, it is in palliative care. And here are 10 good reasons why: (see side bar for a little more detail on these)

1. Gloom overlies the nuclear lobby, fear of this question: the next nuclear catastrophe. Not IF it will happen, but WHEN and WHERE?

2. Aging, dangerous nuclear reactors that are too costly to make safe. .

3. “New nuclear” is a joke. The nuclear lobby will boast of so many “planned”, “proposed” reactors. But new ones actually being built? – just two and a half duds.

4 Discord and dissension in the nuclear camp. Nuclear countries cannot afford new reactors, so desperately compete to sell them to other countries.

Emmy Bass writes:

If uranium is mined and its by-products stored in Chatham . . The Commonwealth of Virginia will be known as a "Toxic Radioactive Waste Dump".
Don't put the interest of a uranium mining corporation above the health and welfare of the people you were elected to represent.