SB 842 would substantially rewrite West Virginia’s air pollution control article by repealing most of the existing statutory provisions in §22-5-1 et seq. and replacing them with a new “Fueling Modern Life Act.” The bill restates the state’s air-quality policy in broad terms, but its new findings and policy section take a sharply different approach to carbon dioxide. It declares carbon dioxide to be a “foundational nutrient” necessary for life, asserts that it should not be treated as a pollutant or contaminant, and states that West Virginia should not pursue carbon-reduction or net-zero targets.
The bill also directs state policy to encourage and fully support the use of carbon-based fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas, for electricity generation, motor fuels, and other uses associated with “modern life.” In effect, the measure would shift the statutory framing of air regulation away from carbon-dioxide reduction and toward explicit support for fossil fuel use and economic activity. The bill text indicates that many existing sections of the air pollution control article would be repealed, leaving the new policy statement as the core operative language.
Impact
If enacted, SB 842 would alter West Virginia’s environmental code by repealing numerous provisions in the existing air pollution control article and replacing them with a new policy framework centered on carbon dioxide and fossil fuel support. The bill would likely affect how state agencies interpret air-quality policy, permitting, and regulatory priorities, especially to the extent current law or agency practice treats carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant or aligns with emissions-reduction goals. It could also create tension with federal Clean Air Act implementation and any state programs tied to emissions reduction, climate targets, or greenhouse-gas regulation.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears ideologically driven and strongly pro-fossil-fuel, with a clear intent to reject carbon-reduction policy. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means sentiment cannot be measured from legislative proceedings, but the bill’s framing suggests it would be welcomed by opponents of climate regulation and criticized by environmental and public-health advocates.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of carbon dioxide: it explicitly rejects the view that CO2 is a pollutant and bars state pursuit of net-zero or similar reduction targets. Supporters would likely argue the bill protects energy production, economic competitiveness, and the use of coal, oil, and natural gas; opponents would likely argue it conflicts with established environmental science, undermines air-quality regulation, and could complicate compliance with federal law. Another likely flashpoint is the bill’s sweeping repeal of existing air-pollution-control provisions, which could be seen as weakening regulatory authority and public-health protections.
Supplementing and amending appropriations to the Higher Education Policy Commission, Higher Education Policy Commission – Administration – Control Account