West Virginia Senate Bill SB 265

West Virginia 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/26
• Refer: 1/15/26

Caption

DEP rule relating to carbon dioxide sequestration fee schedule

Summary

SB 265 concerns a Department of Environmental Protection rule related to the fee schedule for carbon dioxide sequestration. Based on the caption, the bill appears to address administrative implementation of fees associated with carbon dioxide injection or storage activities, likely in connection with carbon capture and sequestration projects in West Virginia. The measure is a rule-related bill, suggesting it is intended to authorize, approve, amend, or otherwise give effect to a DEP regulatory framework rather than create a broad new statutory program on its own. Because the full bill text is not available in the provided materials, the precise fee amounts, affected facilities, and procedural details cannot be confirmed here. However, the bill likely affects entities involved in carbon dioxide sequestration, including project developers, operators, and potentially landowners or other parties involved in subsurface storage operations. Its practical effect would be to establish or adjust the cost structure for permitting or regulating sequestration activity under state environmental law.

Impact

SB 265 likely affects the state’s environmental regulatory framework by addressing the fee schedule tied to carbon dioxide sequestration under DEP authority. If enacted, it would influence how the DEP administers and finances oversight of sequestration-related activities, and it could affect the costs borne by regulated operators seeking permits or approvals for carbon storage projects. The bill may also interact with existing statutes governing air quality, underground injection, environmental permitting, and carbon capture infrastructure.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the materials supplied. The bill’s caption suggests a technical or administrative regulatory measure, which often receives limited public controversy unless the fee levels or underlying carbon sequestration policy are disputed. On the available record, sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond noting that the bill advanced at least to a reported committee substitute stage.

Contention

The main potential points of contention would likely involve the size and structure of the fee schedule, whether the fees are sufficient to cover regulatory oversight, and whether they impose undue costs on carbon capture and sequestration projects. Environmental regulators may favor a fee structure that supports monitoring and enforcement, while project developers and industry stakeholders may object if the fees are viewed as excessive or as a barrier to investment. Any broader policy disagreement over carbon sequestration itself—its safety, environmental risks, and role in energy policy—could also shape opposition, but no specific objections are documented in the provided materials.