Electric utility regulation; recovery of nuclear costs, rate adjustment clauses. (SB459)

Introduced By

Sen. Walter Stosch (R-Glen Allen)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Electric utility regulation; recovery of nuclear refueling costs. Requires an electric utility to establish a regulatory asset for regulatory accounting and ratemaking purposes under which it shall defer operation and maintenance costs incurred in connection with the refueling of any nuclear-powered generating plant and certain related work. These deferred O&M costs shall be amortized over the refueling cycle, but in no case for more than 18 months. The State Corporation Commission is required to treat the deferred and amortized costs of such regulatory asset as part of the utility's costs for the purpose of certain proceedings. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/07/2014Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14102198D
01/07/2014Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
01/14/2014Impact statement from SCC (SB459)
01/23/2014Impact statement from SCC (SB459)
01/27/2014Reported from Commerce and Labor with substitute (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/27/2014Committee substitute printed 14104492D-S1
01/29/2014Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
01/30/2014Read second time
01/30/2014Reading of substitute waived
01/30/2014Committee substitute agreed to 14104492D-S1
01/30/2014Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SB459S1
01/31/2014Read third time and passed Senate (40-Y 0-N)
02/03/2014Impact statement from SCC (SB459S1)
02/07/2014Placed on Calendar
02/07/2014Read first time
02/07/2014Referred to Committee on Commerce and Labor
02/18/2014Reported from Commerce and Labor with substitute (18-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2014Committee substitute printed 14105031D-H1
02/20/2014Read second time
02/21/2014Passed by for the day
02/24/2014Read third time
02/24/2014Committee substitute agreed to 14105031D-H1
02/24/2014Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB459H1
02/24/2014Passed House with substitute (74-Y 21-N 3-A)
02/24/2014VOTE: PASSAGE (74-Y 21-N 3-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2014Impact statement from SCC (SB459H1)
02/26/2014House substitute agreed to by Senate (32-Y 6-N 1-A)
02/26/2014Reconsideration of House substitute agreed to by Senate (39-Y 0-N)
02/26/2014House substitute agreed to by Senate (31-Y 8-N)
02/26/2014Title replaced 14105031D-H1
02/28/2014Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB459ER)
02/28/2014Impact statement from SCC (SB459ER)
03/03/2014Signed by Speaker
03/03/2014Signed by President
04/03/2014G Approved by Governor-Chapter 541 (effective 7/1/14)
04/03/2014G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0541)


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 17 minutes.


Erica Gray writes:

Virginians want safe clean renewable energy sources.
NO to a third nuclear reactor at North Anna on the fault line.
We already have enough highly radioactive nuclear waste,that will remain dangerous and toxic for thousands of years, with NO where to go.
We need to STOP making more of this waste and move away from nuclear energy!!!

Mitzi Humphrey writes:

Keep the ban on nuclear energy. Join the 21st century with clean renewable energy. Solar energy is the safe, healthy alternative, and there is no reason to continue the hazards of radioactive nuclear waste or nuclear plant accidents such as that in Fukishima, Japan. Remember Hiroshima, Chernoble, and Three Mile Island. Why exploit the people and environment of the Commonwealth with unnecessary danger such as nuclear reactors on an earthquake fault line? Taxpayer money should NEVER be used to support or subsidize this dangerous industry, nor should our representatives in government take any actions to further nuclear mining or creation or importation of nuclear waste.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Keep the ban on nuclear energy.

What ban on nuclear energy?

Mitzi Humphrey writes:

I meant to say:


Mitzi Humphrey writes:

https://www.facebook.com/KeepTheBan refers to keeping the ban on uranium mining, not nuclear energy per se.

Erica Gray writes:

Outrageous! This bill is asking us to prepay for North Anna unit 3.

Erica Gray writes:

1/30/14 Fukushima task force recommendations hearing.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioners testified on efforts to implement the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force recommendations. The task force, formed in reaction to the nuclear power plant failure after Japan’s 2011 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami, released a series of recommendations on nuclear energy safeguards. They include requiring licensees to upgrade plants to protect against earthquakes or other natural disasters. Facilities must also have detailed emergency plans for long-term black outs at nuclear power plants.


Erica Gray writes:

Nuclear power project financing option sticks ratepayers with tab

Erica Gray writes:

12/1/14 Proposed utility law could have big impact
Measure offers benefits for Va. Power; opponents cite costs, effect on SCC
Why are a few being allowed to decide what energy source we as Virginians want to pay for and what risks are we willing to take?
Let's not forget, North Anna nuclear power plant is on a faultline, it's two reactors already there had their design basis exceeded by the earthquake back in 2011.
No one is talking about the cost of securing the toxic(for thousands of years)nuclear waste we will be stuck with,on site.