Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long‑duration storage targets prompt heated committee debate over near‑term costs and long‑term grid benefits
Summary
A controversial substitute to HB 895 sets short‑ and long‑duration storage targets and modeling directives in the state IRP process; proponents said storage reduces fuel‑cost exposure and can save ratepayers over time, while opponents warned the measure raises near‑term bills and urged strong SCC oversight. The committee reported the substitute to Finance.
The Senate committee spent a substantial portion of its meeting debating HB 895, a bill that would add modeling and targets for short‑ and long‑duration energy storage in utility integrated resource planning (IRP) and set goals intended to accelerate storage deployment in Virginia.
Supporters argued storage is a lower‑cost, dispatchable alternative to building new gas plants and can reduce exposure to volatile fuel costs. Delegate Sullivan told the committee storage can be used to charge when prices are low and discharge when prices spike, improving affordability and reliability; he said pilot projects in other localities show rapid returns. Sullivan described local examples and argued the policy would ``save Virginians money over the long term.''
Opponents including several senators pressed that the bill could raise near‑term costs for residential customers. The State Corporation Commission provided modeled cost estimates in committee testimony, noting the potential per‑household bill impacts under some scenarios: roughly $3.64 per month in 2030, $15.28 per month in 2035, and higher projections later in some models. Senator McDougle urged caution, saying, "We know that this adds cost up front. Ratepayers will pay more in their electric bill when this passes." He and others pressed the committee to leave affordability assessments to the SCC's expert review and to ensure a clear off‑ramp if technologies prove not to be cost‑effective.
The substitute adopted in committee added enactment language requiring the SCC to confirm technological viability for long‑duration targets and to retain authority to adjust short‑duration targets based on technology availability, customer benefit and reliability. Dominion and other stakeholders engaged in negotiation on the substitute; Dominion’s counsel pointed to explicit provisions that let the Commission consider customer benefit and reliability when adjusting targets.
The committee voted to report the substitute and refer HB 895 to Finance after extended debate (recorded tally: eight ayes, three noes). Members said the SCC will play a central role in implementing any targets and that future rulemaking and docketed proceedings would shape how the goals translate into procurements.
What happens next: With the substitute reported to Finance, the bill faces additional scrutiny on fiscal impacts and SCC rulemaking authority. If enacted, the SCC’s analyses, and subsequent utility filings, will determine pace and costs of storage deployment in Virginia.
