House committee approves seven Senate bills after crossover

SB1116, presented by Sen. Travis Hackworth, R-Tazewell, provides that the Southwest Virginia Energy Research and Development Authority has the power and duty to support energy development projects, including pump storage hydropower, energy storage, hydrogen production and uses, carbon capture and storage and expands the Authority’s ability to apply for federal funding. It is identical to HB1781, sponsored by Del. Israel O’Quinn, R-Bristol, which passed the House in a 99-0 vote.

The committee passed two amendments to the bill presented by Chris Nolen, an attorney representing CNX Resources. Nolen worked with Hackworth and O’Quinn on the bill, that cleaned up language to ensure consistent definitions between it and HB1643, sponsored by Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Scott. HB1643 directs the Department of Energy to evaluate policy options to encourage the capture and beneficial use of coal mine methane.

Del. Daniel Helmer, D-Fairfax, had concerns that the bill would create incentives for new coal mines in the state.

Nolen responded that the bill gives the Authority the charge to promote the capture of coal mine methane, whether from old or new mines. Currently, Nolen said, CNX is one of only a handful of companies that tries to capture the ventilated methane from coal mining and use that productively, either for manufacturing or electricity generation.

“What we’re trying to do is encourage more capture of that in the normal course of the coal mining activity because we believe it can be an economic catalyst for Southwest Virginia,” Nolen said. “We would like some assistance in spreading the word that this resource ought to be captured and utilized because methane is 25 times more potent than CO2.”

Helmer pushed further, asking if the ability to capture methane fundamentally changes the economics of the decision to build a new coal mine or start new digging.

Nolen reiterated that encouraging the creation of new coal mines was not the intent of the bill, and added that it is expensive to put in a capture system.

“I think what it says is that [methane] is a resource that could otherwise have economic value if you do capture it, and quite frankly, the incentives are not there currently to do much of this because in the carbon offset market, you’re not recognized for capturing and avoiding this emission that would otherwise occur,” Nolen said.

Del. Robert Orrock, R-Spotsylvania, asked clarifying questions in favor of the bill.

“If we’re worried about global warming and those kinds of things, this is actually helping to mitigate that problem, would I be correct?” Orrock asked.

Nolen affirmed that he was.

Del. Kathy Tran, D-Fairfax, questioned whether SB116 was appropriate, given the passage of HB1643 on the House floor two days previously, which she voted for.

“We just said we’re going to kind of further assess how we could do [methane capture] in an efficient and economically beneficial way in Virginia and now at the same time we’re looking at moving forward with giving the duties to this authority to conduct those activities,” Tran said. “So I feel like for me this is putting the cart before the horse a little bit.”

Nolen argued that the two bills work together, with HB1643 looking for policy options to incentivize methane capture on a broad scale, and SB1116 focusing on Southwest Virginia and the Authority currently in existence and the energy projects it is trying to bring to the area.

The bill was reported on a vote of 17-4, with delegates Helmer and Tran both voting no.

SB1438, presented by Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland, prevents any foreign adversary from acquiring or transferring any interest in agricultural land.

“This is a really important issue,” Stuart said, noting the sophisticated work of military bases in Virginia and food security issues. “This is a modest measure, I believe, to try to protect those resources and protect the citizens of the commonwealth.”

Stuart also referenced bipartisan efforts on this issue at the federal level, and the work of Senator Mark Warner, D-VA, and Representative Abigail Spanberger, D-VA to address the same concerns.

Tran asked the counsel whether the version before the committee was identical to the version that passed out of the House on Feb. 7, HB2325, sponsored by fellow committee member Del. Rob Bloxom, R-Accomack.

Counsel responded that the House version removed the definition of controlling interests, which states that “‘controlling interests’ means either possession of more than 50 percent of the ownership interests in an entity or a percentage ownership in an entity of 50 percent or less if such owner directs the business and affairs of such entity without the requirement or consent of any other party.”

Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, asked if the definition of controlling interests was needed.

“I would prefer that the definition stay in,” Stuart said. “We worked really hard on this bill and the substitute to get it in good shape. The definition certainly doesn’t hurt anything and we may need it at some point in time.”

Bloxom also voiced his support for keeping the definition.

The bill was reported on with a vote of 17-3, with Tran voting no and Bulova voting yes.