An Act to amend and reenact § 18.2-162 of the Code of Virginia, relating to damage or trespass to public services or utilities or critical infrastructure; penalties.
HB317 amends Virginia’s criminal damage-and-trespass statute for public services, utilities, and critical infrastructure. The bill keeps the existing felony/misdemeanor framework for intentionally destroying or damaging facilities, fixtures, equipment, or information technology systems used to provide oil, telegraph, telephone, electric, gas, sewer, wastewater, cable television, broadband, or water service, and it continues to cover other critical infrastructure as defined elsewhere in the Code. It also preserves the special rule allowing utility security personnel at marked electric generating property to detain a trespasser for up to one hour while law enforcement responds.
The bill also retains and clarifies the separate provision for conduct that could threaten the release of radioactive materials or ionizing radiation. Under that section, intentional destruction, damage, or attempted destruction/damage of covered facilities or materials remains a Class 4 felony, with enhanced penalties if the conduct causes injury or death from radiation exposure. The act notes that it may increase incarceration commitments and assigns the required minimum fiscal impact for sentencing purposes.
HB317 updates § 18.2-162 of the Code of Virginia, reinforcing criminal penalties for damage, trespass, and attempted damage involving utilities and critical infrastructure. It affects persons who interfere with infrastructure supporting essential public services, as well as conduct involving radioactive materials or ionizing radiation, and it preserves the authority of utility security personnel in limited circumstances. The bill may increase state correctional and juvenile commitment costs because it can result in additional periods of imprisonment or commitment.
The available record shows no committee transcript, floor debate, or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the provided materials. The bill’s enactment as Chapter 105 indicates it ultimately passed and was approved by the Governor, suggesting legislative acceptance of the measure’s public-safety and infrastructure-protection goals.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided context. Based on the text, any debate would likely have centered on the scope of protected infrastructure, the severity of felony penalties for damage or attempted damage, the one-hour detention authority for utility security personnel, and the fiscal impact associated with increased incarceration. However, none of those issues are attributed to any particular legislator or stakeholder in the record supplied.