Bill to require refunds or credits for failed SMR projects draws strong opposition and is laid on the table

Delegate Keys Gamara introduced HB74 to provide relief to ratepayers in the event Dominion’s small modular reactor (SMR) project development costs are not realized by an SCC‑established deadline. The patron said the substitute would place certain SMR development costs on par with overearnings and require crediting 85% of incurred development costs back to customers in some scenarios (Delegate Keys Gamara).

The proposal reignited debate from prior sessions. Supporters argued the measure protects customers from bearing the full risk of nascent technologies, citing past problems where ratepayers covered costs for projects that did not come to fruition. The Virginia Poverty Law Center, environmental groups and labor representatives expressed concern about past outcomes and supported protections.

Dominion Energy and other industry groups strongly opposed the bill, saying it changes negotiated terms, could chill investment in generation, and imposes unfair penalties on utilities for costs that the commission may later deem reasonable and prudent. Dominion’s representative noted the bill contains built‑in rate caps and sunsets under prior law and warned against altering expectations in the middle of development.

Members debated several amendments, including one by Delegate Anthony to restore the State Corporation Commission’s remedial discretion and avoid mandating asset sales; the amendment was accepted as part of a substitute. After extended discussion and with awareness that the language had shifted during the hearing, the subcommittee voted to lay HB74 on the table by 7‑1, indicating more stakeholder work is expected before the bill moves forward.