Committee hears utility‑disclosure bill asking Dominion to justify self‑scheduling decisions to SCC

The Senate committee heard House Bill 1360, a bipartisan bill that would require investor‑owned utilities to disclose detailed information about self‑scheduling ("must‑run") decisions and for the State Corporation Commission to evaluate whether those choices were reasonable and prudent in fuel‑factor proceedings.

Patron delegates framed the bill as a transparency measure. Delegate Shin told the committee that the bill requires utilities to explain “which hours they've committed units as must run, the cost of running those units, and the reason for each commitment and the market clearing price for each of those hours,” and directs the Commission, under existing authority, to review each decision on a case‑by‑case basis and deny recovery if a decision was found to be unreasonable.

Dominion Energy testified that the SCC already has authority to review generation decisions in rate proceedings and that there are operational reasons for some must‑run choices. Bill Murray, a Dominion representative, said nuclear plants and coal units can have operational constraints that justify running out of strict economic order, noting in committee testimony that “a nuclear plant runs from outage to outage for 18 months at a time, regardless of the clearing price, because that's how nuclear units work.” He told senators that the Commission reviews costs in detail during rate cases and that additional prescriptive mandates can impose administrative burdens that could be recovered in rates.

Environmental and consumer groups including Clean Virginia, Appalachian Voices and the Southern Environmental Law Center supported the bill as a tool for accountability, pointing to a recent Dominion filing related to storm recovery costs as an example of why disclosure matters for ratepayer protection. Laura Gonzalez of Clean Virginia said the bill is “a very simple bill requesting Apco to explain their choices to the State Corporation Commission,” and urged the committee to require transparent documentation so the Commission can evaluate alternatives and best practices.

Committee members questioned whether the bill duplicates ongoing SCC authority or whether it fills an accountability gap; debate focused on the scope of disclosure, defensible operational exceptions and cost recovery implications. After testimony and discussion, the committee recorded motions and carried or reported several related bills; further action was slated as the bills proceed to Finance or floor consideration.

What happens next: The SCC processes and any cost‑recovery consequences would be determined through case dockets if the bill becomes law. Committee discussion made clear that the Commission’s role — and whether additional statutory specificity is needed — will be central to future floor and conference debate.