The 2000 Session of the General Assembly adopted Senate Joint Resolution 75 (Appendix A), which established a joint subcommittee to study the Status And Implementation of the Virginia Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act (the "Act"). The joint subcommittee was directed to consider the certification and governance of the notification centers by the State Corporation Commission. SJR 75 recites that the implementation of various provisions of the Act by the State Corporation Commission ("SCC"), including the Act's incident reporting requirements, has recently been the subject of criticism. It further recites that the effectiveness of the Act, relative to the burdens it imposes on utility operators and excavators, has not been comprehensively studied since the State Corporation Commission became responsible for enforcing the Act. The joint subcommittee is to complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 2001 Session of the General Assembly. The joint subcommittee was chaired by Senator William T. Bolling of Hanover County, who patroned SJR 75. Delegate Riley E. Ingram of Hopewell was. elected vice chairman. Other legislative members of the joint subcommittee were Senator J. Randy Forbes of Chesapeake, Senator William C. Mims of Loudoun County, Delegate Harvey B. Morgan of Gloucester, Delegate Frank D. Hargrove of Hanover County, and Delegate Viola O. Baskerville of Richmond. Delegate C. Richard Cranwell of Vinton was appointed to the joint subcommittee but resigned from the body following its second meeting.

The Act has successfully reduced damage from accidental cut-ins to buried utility facilities. The successes of Virginia's "Miss Utility" program can be attributed to the Act, its implementation by the staff at the SCC's Division of Energy Regulation, and the hard work and cooperative spirit of the excavators and operators who work with the program on a daily basis. Despite these successes, the State Corporation Commission has recognized that interests of public safety are properly served by ensuring that Virginia's program' is periodically reviewed for appropriate modifications. An example of the SCC's aggressive approach to keeping the program as good as it can be is the new "Always CARE" campaign.

The sec also initiated an investigation and invited public comment on December 13, 1999, in case PUE 990786 to determine whether amendments to the sec's enforcement regulations were appropriate. In a report filed on May 26, 2000, changes in the rules to address specific issues were proposed. On June 14, 2000, the Commission issued an order inviting comments on proposed changes to the SCC's rules for enforcement of the Act.

In reviewing the Act and its implementation, the SCC's staff identified a number of areas where, though they may be appropriate, changes in the program would require amendments to the Act and therefore could not be implemented through the rulemaking process. The SCC has convened a task force to consider possible amendments to the Act for introduction in the 2002 Session of the General Assembly.

The SCC's staff also identified a number of areas where, in their opinion, improvements in the Commission's enforcement of the Act could be accomplished through regulations. The SCC has been charged with enforcing the Act as the result of amendments adopted in the 1994 Session. The most controversial of the proposed enforcement regulations would require utilities and other operators to report incidents involving damage above certain thresholds to the SCC. Under the current voluntary reporting system, the reporting of incidents by operators is optional. Though concerns about these proposed regulatory changes prompted the General Assembly to create this joint subcommittee, the joint subcommittee realized that the Act was in need of a comprehensive legislative examination. The effectiveness of the Act and its implementation had not been studied subsequent to the adoption of changes in the 1994 Session.

The joint subcommittee recommends the enactment of legislation that would prevent the SCC from requiring, by regulation, that non-gas operators be required to report cut-ins and related incidents involving buried facilities to the Commission. (Appendix B). The other joint subcommittee recommendations for legislative action in the 2001 Session of the General Assembly seek to accomplish the following:

• Eliminate the statutory distinctions between the measure of damages that operators and excavators are authorized to recover following incidents resulting from violations of the Act. (Appendix C)

• Exempt excavations performed in installing signage upon property from the provisions of the Act, if the excavations are not more than 12 inches deep. (Appendix D)

• Authorize revenues collected through enforcement of the Act, to the extent they exceed the costs of administering the program, to be used for· training and education programs and for programs providing incentives for excavators, operators, line locators, and other persons. (Appendix E)

• Clarify the standards to be applied by the SCC in actions involving the certification of notification centers established under the Act. SCC actions shall be made in furtherance of the purpose of preventing or mitigating loss of, or damage to, life, health, property or essential public services resulting from damage to underground utility lines. Decisions to approve or revoke notification center certifications shall ensure protection for the public from the hazards that the Act is intended to prevent or mitigate; ensure that persons receive an acceptable level of performance; and require the notification center and its agents to demonstrate financial responsibility. (Appendix F)