An Act to amend and reenact §§ 56-597, 56-598, and 56-599 of the Code of Virginia, relating to electric utilities; integrated resource plans; State Corporation Commission; Commission on Electric Utility Regulation; work group; report.
HB429 revises Virginia’s electric utility integrated resource planning requirements for investor-owned utilities. The bill updates definitions related to electric utilities, advanced conductors, grid-enhancing technologies, integrated resource plans (IRPs), and surplus interconnection service, and it changes the planning horizon for IRPs from 15 years to 20 years. It also clarifies that IRPs should account for demand-side programs, virtual power plant aggregation, energy storage, and the state’s energy savings targets.
The bill requires utilities to identify a single preferred resource portfolio that best serves the public interest and is most likely to meet forecasted demand while maintaining reliable service at reasonable long-term prices. In doing so, utilities must consider generation from existing or planned facilities, purchases from affiliates and third parties, demand reduction, grid-enhancing technologies, and short-term market purchases, while also taking the social cost of carbon into account. The measure is aimed at strengthening long-range utility planning and aligning resource decisions with reliability, affordability, and environmental goals.
HB429 amends §§ 56-597, 56-598, and 56-599 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the statutory framework governing integrated resource plans filed by investor-owned electric utilities. It expands the planning criteria utilities must use, broadens the list of resources and technologies that may be included in IRPs, and lengthens the forecast period utilities must analyze. The bill primarily affects electric utilities, the State Corporation Commission’s oversight of utility planning, and related stakeholders involved in generation, transmission, storage, and demand-side energy programs.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote data, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the enacted chapter text, the bill appears to have been treated as a policy update to modernize utility planning requirements rather than a controversial overhaul. Its focus on reliability, cost control, and newer grid technologies suggests a generally pragmatic and technical legislative posture.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate inherent in the bill include the expanded use of the social cost of carbon in planning, the requirement to consider demand-side programs and virtual power plants, and the emphasis on grid-enhancing technologies and storage. These provisions could draw differing views from utilities, consumer advocates, environmental stakeholders, and regulators over cost, reliability, and the pace of energy transition.