[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6111143,"mediaKeyId","2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58","parentId",2753218,"title","Committee reviews provisions for on-site power purchase agreements; no final action recorded","audioSeconds",704,"startMs",3380000,"endMs",4084000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58&start=3380&end=4084","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58/thumbnail_3380000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6111143/West-Virginia/Committee-reviews-provisions-for-on-site-power-purchase-agreements-no-final-action-recorded","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111143-5fcca3cba800b8fca73d1c0117e6b397/orig.mp4?Expires=1776001944&Signature=nH9PTzHwi8c-6F0pkdnJW3a9bqc4mbFHaDf5sSTrsPHpoaiu~tb5XCXRBB1OK--DfkM4HR96CZnkqAiB0n9N~uRIoq3hQhFngnraNNVVA6xcz27OMYzTs8C51sqVPubq4C78iyjOs423HlOk-d4NJn53kGZBLMiMYGz7YppEHkaqpjujkwW6Dmf0yka4RmiPkLDn3UUUBbAbtaReO008~D8~80lPyZae6np5zujhs0RweoRJGzbruCxJQ-CVMrM4ud69cu6Zvgq5alqqXsZuLcmarhuKai-GcJP~f3qqM5CKfanuDG00XBqT9wUPimRnLlPM~ukEuLIbvnI3X8B0nQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","West Virginia Legislature","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","The committee heard counsel’s explanation and extensive questioning on a committee substitute for Senate Bill 763, which would add criteria for on-site power purchase agreements (PPAs) that govern rooftop or on-site generation designed to serve a retail customer at the same property.

Counsel summarized the substitute: a PPA’s quoted price must be less than the local utility’s cost per kilowatt-hour at the start of the agreement and for each year of the agreement; a PPA may not exceed five years (although it may be renewed); PPA energy quotes and subsequent agreements must include provisions for on-site storage sufficient to meet the property’s power needs for a minimum of 48 hours in the event of a utility outage; and a third party must inspect meters at the onset and at least once per year or every three years thereafter.

Committee members sought technical clarification about typical PPA term lengths and the bill’s definition of “public entity.” Counsel and sponsor Senator Flamingo explained the bill was intended to protect public entities — particularly schools — by limiting contract duration to five years so the public entity could revisit terms regularly. Senator Marion and others expressed concern that limiting PPA duration to five years could increase costs because many PPAs amortize installation costs over longer terms.

The sponsor said the bill’s aim is to ensure public entities understand the contract and do not end up paying more than utility rates. The committee did not adopt the substitute at this meeting; the sponsor said the bill will be laid over for further consideration at a subsequent committee meeting.

No vote to pass or report the bill was recorded in the transcript; discussion focused on definitions, term length, on-site storage requirements and whether the bill’s language should be clarified.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Energy, Industry, and Mining Committee Monday, Mar 24, 2025 13:53 - 15:09","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 763, addressing requirements for on-site power purchase agreements (PPAs) including term limits, pricing and on-site storage, was discussed at length. Committee laid the item over for further consideration; no final vote was recorded on the bill at this meeting.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature WV, West Virginia","taxId",77714,"location","West Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6111148,"Committee adopts substitute creating state forest carbon registry with amended penalties and filing deadlines",1775,1598000,3373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58&start=1598&end=3373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58/thumbnail_1598000.jpg","/articles/6111148/West-Virginia/Committee-adopts-substitute-creating-state-forest-carbon-registry-with-amended-penalties-and-filing-deadlines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111148-a050c39625bb85f2a892888bd9ad3d23/orig.mp4?Expires=1776001944&Signature=SqLwlB0WvJ2asc4mufg8NwyJ8iTbpC3LVpYz4LMTtOtquyi8arDo~l4q5OqvZs-4YOTm~VvWGyNghqBsH9-T-2N16FX-SItWQ9FgSJyGuTwF~261XcTBI0Xnm2GRn5hwgCqnLAYXVYP6jk5NRaDjb7NelRl8aag45fD~XlVL6X7Ck8~lWp0N~iuJVn2PAR31qusba41sfmmtXDLUCTnmXd2oajuEiODltgZS7e~vQn~IpNapKbUtZLNXtZLN4-aaoM~1upMk80gbKwnfPfYJZBe1TCZsV7emkPlgS~4oZi42al3KYW4kHdlHlwYi4oAR73PzSIUGLMhDx~NAkBNiZQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee adopted a substitute for Senate Bill 730, which would create a state forest carbon registry administered by the Division of Forestry, and voted to report the substitute to the full Senate with the recommendation that it pass; under the committee’s motion the bill will next go to the Committee on Finance.

Counsel explained that the proposed registry would collect a legal description and GIS shapefile for properties encumbered by carbon-offset agreements, the names/contact information of landowners and purchasers, the date of execution or project initiation, and the duration and terms of offset obligations. Counsel said failure to record an agreement or project would be subject to a civil penalty for the first offense and additional sanctions in the bill’s original language.

Jeremy McGill, assistant state forester with the Division of Forestry, told the committee the registry would improve the division’s currently “self-reported” data and that some landowners may not know they are in carbon agreements. McGill said the division preferred a penalty tied to acreage rather than a flat sum, saying a flat $5,000 penalty could be “prohibitive to smaller landowners.”

Dwayne O’Dell of the West Virginia Farm Bureau told the committee he was concerned about the bill’s use of the word “terms,” which could require disclosure of financial terms of agreements; he urged clearer definitions and said the bill could impose burdens on smaller private landowners. He also told the committee that about half of the state’s roughly 12 million forested acres are privately owned and that timber supply has not shown the shortages some have predicted.

Committee members debated the penalty and timing provisions. Senator Marion offered an amendment to reduce the civil penalty and to remove the provision that would suspend a business license for subsequent violations; the committee adopted an amendment that made the first-offense penalty $1,000 (and removed the business-license suspension language) and established that subsequent penalties could accrue after defined time windows so penalties would not be immediate repetition for every day. The vice chair later offered a reformed amendment changing the deadline for recording agreements that are in effect on the bill’s effective date: by the reformed amendment the purchaser — not the landowner — would be responsible for filing existing agreements with the registry by July 1, 2027 (the original draft had 2035 and included landowners). The committee adopted that amendment.

After the amendments were adopted, the vice chair moved that the committee substitute for Senate Bill 7 30 as amended be reported to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass, “but under the original double committee reference that it first be referred to the committee on finance.” The motion carried by voice vote.

Transcript records voice votes and adopted amendments; the transcript does not record roll-call tallies.","A substitute for Senate Bill 730 to establish a West Virginia forest carbon registry was agreed to by the committee after testimony and a series of amendments that lowered penalties, adjusted enforcement timing, and narrowed who must file existing agreements; the substitute was reported to the full Senate and referred to finance.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6111153,"Committee agrees to substitute protecting mineral interests from carbon sequestration projects",240,1304000,1544000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58&start=1304&end=1544","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58/thumbnail_1304000.jpg","/articles/6111153/West-Virginia/Committee-agrees-to-substitute-protecting-mineral-interests-from-carbon-sequestration-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111153-2c857b68ddcb71e212d62a2af03a56c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776001944&Signature=kpvLxV-Y4ro5Pc2Xb6Ck59Tr57sJWSzBtMw7k5yr1K1XdtPt1FL19S4ELyCr9xdZTNWQyzrn1RpTReDs7z4AIb-DJXBK8X4JjyPmXCkashgK1GK0lNKQgcWmdTIP8yrYC1ajTmK7fXHuXpVxf3slPGWDvPnGi0FG9o~gEWFYvaUyMbn~4bK0ol9RGRrZsGDeP-AzYKNmCS59U4TzfsDLj956tkkn867yR35HKOL-OkuKKyawc901~SbEJeVKG8HorCQuSuZl33~-nULyuxKdmso7~GcFLsdRgwE-~rKLk8QtbVVT4BQWR6G~0YEi4MnHEMfT7Q2BfUhuSTftbMkotQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee agreed to a committee substitute for Senate Bill 899 and voted to report it to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

Counsel explained the substitute would require carbon sequestration permit applicants to design projects to isolate commercially valuable minerals — including coal and oil-and-gas estates — from a carbon dioxide plume. The application must state whether the project area contains commercially valuable minerals and include evidence that the storage operator notified mineral owners and operators. The substitute allows mineral owners, lessees and operators to submit objections to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the storage operator must address those objections to the department’s satisfaction before the permit proceeds.

John Bain, director of government affairs for EQT Corporation, testified in support after being sworn. “When West Virginia passed the carbon capture legislation several years ago ... minerals really weren't protected in an aggressive manner,” Bain said. He told the committee that producers in neighboring Pennsylvania had raised concerns about existing language and that the substitute “is not so much focused on carbon capture. In my opinion, it's an oil, gas, coal bill that will protect from potential carbon capture issues.”

The committee agreed to the committee substitute by voice vote and the vice chair moved that the substitute be reported to the full Senate with the recommendation that it pass; the motion was adopted.

No detailed roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript; the substitute was agreed to by voice vote.","Committee adopted a substitute for Senate Bill 899 that requires carbon sequestration projects to demonstrate they will not harm commercially valuable mineral estates; EQT's government affairs director testified in support.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6111158,"Committee adopts substitute for bill that would factor grid reliability into utility rates",469,792000,1261000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58&start=792&end=1261","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2753218-564b92401865071330e644d62104aa58/thumbnail_792000.jpg","/articles/6111158/West-Virginia/Committee-adopts-substitute-for-bill-that-would-factor-grid-reliability-into-utility-rates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6111158-f178bf746fa191b78e950472a0bf83fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1776001944&Signature=UvM0szCl6NJjNDykCIgBlagCEiyVffkhQdNX6vcZsLRXHeK26CDvfiGxuYQuYk7jcBI6Q0gHcUBhisAm8utwOS2yoaUeKbxSHpuGVFl2XXwhQ5rLQDLq2UP617HNs6SbP4TU5nLOyN0sfbAc3mwLbIfhxY3jSZEGTcdKtRWSCJPpKs7PGMyfArLFJYKhX9mHv1rIbvBpDvSEu5VV5R-Xq9eVWcCorqHcnGsfkFMsxr0SCOOrRWOS3JcPP5ciZB2TrlWqYFIQlvToBdmWSvMAyyJpejJk58BZc5~EDPbDFd6dc0OyEjVQl7OrIc6YVamkhsWiDMRQr7rJVI89LEJTlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The West Virginia Senate committee approved a committee substitute for Senate Bill 505 on a voice vote and voted to report the substitute to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

The substitute would add “bulk power system reliability” and related capacity attributes as factors the Public Service Commission (PSC) must evaluate when deciding whether proposed rate increases for electric utilities are fair, just and reasonable. Counsel told the committee the PSC would be required to evaluate “bulk power system reliability, energy capacity, on demand dispatchability, useful life of relevant assets, intermittent operational nature, and overall operational costs including back end disposal costs and environmental compliance costs of all assets used for the production or transmission of electric energy.”

The committee heard from a remote witness identified as Mr. Orr, who described the bill’s intent. “We support a our senate bill 5 0 5 because we firmly believe that families and businesses should only pay for what they get,” Orr said. He told the committee the formula in the substitute would scale a utility’s rate of return for a given asset by that asset’s capacity value — citing PJM capacity-value examples he gave for coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar.

Counsel explained that the substitute would require any rate-application to demonstrate that proposed generation or transmission additions would meet the company’s capacity contributions during projected peak-demand periods; for retirements or scaling down of assets the PSC would need to find whether the proposed change would “negatively impact the company’s ability to meet its capacity contributions to power grid reliability during times of peak demand.” Counsel also said the PSC would need to include the dollar amount of any rate increase, the rate of return and its duration, and identify costs denied for recovery in approval orders.

After brief questions and discussion, the committee agreed to the substitute. The vice chair moved that the committee substitute for Senate Bill 505 be reported to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass, “but under the original double committee reference, first be referred to the committee on government organization,” and the motion was adopted.

No roll-call vote counts were recorded in the transcript; the committee adopted the substitute by voice vote.","The committee agreed to a substitute for Senate Bill 505 to require the Public Service Commission to consider bulk power system reliability and capacity value when approving utility rate increases; committee voted to report the substitute to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews provisions for on-site power purchase agreements; no final action recorded

Committee adopts substitute creating state forest carbon registry with amended penalties and filing deadlines

Committee agrees to substitute protecting mineral interests from carbon sequestration projects

Committee adopts substitute for bill that would factor grid reliability into utility rates