Promoting and defending the interests of Virginia's water and waste authorities

Legislation: What Was Proposed, What Happened

• Prohibiting Utility Disconnects Under Certain Circumstances
  
  For the second year in a row, legislation was proposed to constrain or prohibit certain electric, gas, water, and wastewater utilities from disconnecting residential customers for nonpayment of bills and fees when a state of emergency has been declared. HB 2283  and SB 1447 would suspend certain utilities’ ability to disconnect customers for 30 days following a state of emergency declaration or when temperatures are expected to fall below 32° F or rise above 95° F within 24 hours of a scheduled disconnection. It also would prohibit disconnections for nonpayment of bills or fees on Fridays, weekends, state holidays, or the day after a state holiday. These bills applied to utilities regulated by the State Corporation Commission (SCC); they did not apply to authorities. The water and wastewater industries (and all affected utilities) opposed the bills. These bills did not pass.
  
  Additionally, HB 1857 would require the SCC to adopt regulations requiring electric, gas, water, and wastewater to delay disconnections of residential customers suffering from serious medical conditions. The bill established complex criteria. The bill applied to utilities regulated by the SCC; it did not apply to authorities. This bill did not pass.
   

• PFAS-related Bills
  
  Two PFAS-related bills were introduced. Only one passed.
  
  First, SB 1013 would require waterworks owners to broadly notify customers – through newspapers and mailers – when PFAS is shown by analysis to be present in a water supply or when exceeding state or federal maximum contaminant levels in a water supply. The wastewater industry worked with the bill’s sponsor to amend it to narrow the PFAS applicability, apply to finished water only, and to better align with commonly used reporting protocols. In the end, however, the bill did not pass.
  
  The other PFAS bill was HB 2189, which, as introduced, would require industrial users of publicly-owned treatment works that receive and clean, repair, refurbish, or process items that contain PFAS to test waste streams for PFAS before and after their receipt and work on the items. The bill also required testing for PFAS after certain toxic agents are discharged into state waters, with the results submitted to affected local governments’ emergency coordinators.
  
  Municipal wastewater agencies and authorities opposed the bill, as introduced, but worked with the sponsor on an agreeable approach. The bill was successfully amended to narrow its applicability to certain PFAS chemicals for which there is an approved EPA testing method, and to direct the State Water Control Board to adopt pretreatment standards for offsite industrial users of POTWs to test for the PFAS chemicals in waste streams before and after cleaning, repairing, or refurbishing their products. The industrial users will have to submit their test results within three days of receiving them to the POTW. This bill passed.
   

• Microplastics
  
  A bill was introduced directing the health commissioner to convene a workgroup to study the occurrence of microplastics in state drinking water supplies. The General Assembly concluded that HB 1721 is premature, as EPA itself has not begun extensively studying microplastics. The bill did not pass.
   

• Requiring Customer Consent for Smart Meters
  
  The General Assembly considered legislation that would prohibit a public utility from installing a smart meter on a customer’s premises without obtaining consent. Moreover, it would require a public utility to obtain customer consent for any smart meter already installed (before July 1, 2023), and if the customer declined, the utility would have to remove it at no cost to the customer. This was SB 849. The bill did not pass.
   

• Rural Water, Wastewater Infrastructure Study
  
  Legislation was introduced to encourage the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to conduct a study on opportunities to improve water and wastewater infrastructure in rural areas. The Virginia Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Quality would provide technical assistance for the study. A DHCD report would be due before the 2024 General Assembly. HB 2310 did not pass.
   

• License Reciprocity Legislation Proposed for Waterworks Operators, Other Professions
  
  Several bills were introduced to make it easier for the Department of Occupational and Professional Regulators (DPOR) to recognize and process certain professional certificates and licenses. Bills to speed up DPOR’s processing of waterworks and wastewater works operator licenses were proposed to help address POTW workforce shortages (HB 1940 and SB 999). Additionally, the Governor proposed legislation (HB 2180 and SB 1213) taking a more universal approach to licensure reciprocity – establishing criteria for DPOR to recognize most all out-of-state certificates and licenses under the agency’s jurisdiction. The General Assembly passed all four bills.
   

• Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan; Changing the Effective Date
  
  The General Assembly considered HB 1485 and SB 1129, proposing to extend the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan’s effective date from July 2026 to July 2028, with provision to extend it further under certain circumstances and if the General Assembly has failed to provide sufficient funding for agricultural best management practices. The bill also requires a stakeholder advisory group to assess annual Bay TMDL progress and to develop plans to promote certain Ag BMP practices. Municipal wastewater advocates worked to ensure that additional Bay TMDL Phase III WIP requirements were not shifted from the agricultural sector to the wastewater sector. The General Assembly passed the bills.

The State Budget: Most Amendments are Stalled

In June 2022, the General Assembly passed, and Gov. Youngkin singed into law, a new biennial budget (FY22-24). In preparation for the 2023 General Assembly, the Governor proposed amendments to the adopted two-year state budget, including in the wastewater and water realms.

When the General Assembly adjourned on February 25, legislators working to reconcile differences between the House and Senate budgets failed to conclude their work before time ran out. Thus, a number of additional clean-water investments were left on the table.

Among the Governor’s budget proposals were an additional $237 million in FY24 for wastewater treatment plant improvements, notably for those in the Enhanced Nutrient Reduction Certainty Program, and an additional $100 million to the City of Richmond for its $1 billion-plus combined sewer overflow project.

The General Assembly also had proposed additional investment in the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund, funding for a number of locality-specific stormwater projects, and additional funds for agricultural best management practices.