Carbon-free energy or clean energy; definition of fusion energy.
Summary
SB1338 amends Virginia Code § 1-208.1 to update the statutory definition of “carbon-free energy” or “clean energy.” The bill specifies that clean energy includes electric energy generated from sources that do not emit carbon dioxide during the generation process, and it expressly lists sunlight, wind, falling water, wave motion, tides, geothermal, fusion energy, and nuclear energy as qualifying sources.
The bill also adds a new definition of “fusion energy,” defining it as energy generated through the process of fusing together atomic nuclei. In practical terms, the measure clarifies that fusion power is to be treated as a form of carbon-free or clean energy under Virginia law, alongside other established renewable and non-emitting generation sources.
Impact
The bill’s primary legal effect is to broaden and clarify Virginia’s statutory clean-energy definition by expressly including fusion energy. This can affect how state agencies, policymakers, utilities, and energy programs classify generation resources for purposes that rely on the “carbon-free energy” or “clean energy” definition, including planning, incentives, reporting, procurement, or regulatory references tied to that term. It does not create a new program or mandate, but it updates the Code of Virginia to reflect emerging energy technology and to ensure fusion is treated consistently with other non-emitting sources.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition in either chamber. The bill passed the Senate committee and floor unanimously or near-unanimously, and it also passed the House unanimously, indicating broad agreement that the definition should be updated to include fusion energy. There is no committee transcript provided, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical, noncontroversial clarification rather than a policy dispute.
Contention
No notable substantive contention is reflected in the available record. Because the bill is narrowly focused on statutory definitions, any potential debate would likely center on whether fusion should be explicitly named now rather than later, or whether the clean-energy definition should remain technology-neutral. The voting record, however, shows no recorded dissent, suggesting that any such concerns were minimal or absent in the legislative process.