Senate committee moves bill to raise property tax on windmills
SB 439 brings back to life a bill sponsored last year byt then-Energy chair Randy Smith, R-Tucker. Smith is now Senate president and SB 439 is sponsored by current Energy chair Chris Rose, R-Monongalia.
Wind turbines and towers are currently considered pollution control facilities and taxed as personal property at salvage value — 5 % of the original cost based on 79 % of the full value of the property. That 5 % figure depreciates annually. The legislation originated in 2001 and was updated in 2007.
SB 439 would change that to tax wind turbines and towers and the attached components as real property. A fiscal note with last year's bill said it would produce $6.1 million in additional annual revenue: $1.8 million for the General Fund, $2.5 million to the county schools and $1.8 million to the county commissions.
Chris Hall representing Clear Way Energy — a developer and owner of wind, solar, battery and natural gas projects — stood to oppose the bill. He noted that Clear Way has ongoing contracts with such companies as Toyota and Google to supply green power.
Clear Way has 1 gigawatt of wind power in operation and development, he said, with three wind farms in Mineral and Grant Counties, with a total $2.2 billion in current and planned investments, generating $8 million in state and local tax and lease payments.
The company, he said, is planning an $800 million repowering project at its Mount Storm facility in Grant Counti, that will produce $60 million in county taxes over the life of project. The tear-down and rebuild plan will result in 54 fewer turbines. It has received wide community support.
Another $400 million investment is planned for 2026 in Grant and Tucker counties, he said.
"This legislation here would endanger both of those projects, " he said, and undercut the state's reputation for being a stable, reliable business partner.
Hall cautioned bill supporters about changing state policies to react to changes in federal policy that fluctuate form administration to administration.
Sen. Rupie Phillips, R-Logan, noted that many windmill components come from foreign sources. "The bulk of it's not made in America, we know it."
He also said that the tax break isn't offered for coal projects. "In energy, we need to be fair and this isn't fair." Why not put money toward reliable clean coal technology instead of intermittent wind projects ?
Sen. Craig Hart, R-Mingo, raised the issue of companies using wind power to meet their green ESG — environmental, social and governance — requirements.
Hall responded that the motivation isn't the real issue. "We're providing a type of energy that's in demand." These project provide job and tax revenue.
Hart countered that coal makes more jobs. But Hall responded that green companies are investing in current and former coal communities and both types of power can co-exist. "We need every job we can get in West Virginia." They can't stop renewables but they can drive the investment to other states.
Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, the sole Democrat on the committee, opposed the bill, citing jobs. Coal provides many jobs, but, "when those jobs have left, who else is coming ?"
Sen. Glenn Jeffries, R-Putnam, also opposed it, saing West Virginia has touted itself as an all-of-the-above energy state. This bill could drive out more than $1.2 billion in investment. Businesses look for stability.
Some of the conversation hovered around the proportion of wind power in West Virginia and the PJM regional grid. PJM has public policy and fuel economics are driving a capacity shift. Its current fuel mix is 48.4 % natural gas, 22.1 % coal and 18.1 % nuclear. In ht elast half of 2024, wind made up just 3.14 % of its fuel mix.
But new PJM interconnection requests reflect the new greener consciousness: 40 % are solar — 2, 200 projects in queue, totaling 109, 397 megawatts. There are 180 wind projects in queue, totaling 22, 012.6 MW. And there are 50 natural gas projects in queue, totaling 7, 566 MW.
The committee approved the bill in a voice vote. It heads next to Finance, where it died last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Booker's criticism of Democrats highlights deep divide on fighting Trump
Senate Democrats are battling each other over how far to go in opposing President Trump's agenda, a dispute that spilled out into the open earlier this week when Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) slammed his fellow Democratic senators for 'willing to be complicit' with Trump. Booker's tirade against fellow Democrats came after Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) attempted to advance a bipartisan package of policing bills. Booker argued Democrats wanted to 'look the other way' from Trump's attempt to bully Democratic states, elite universities and media companies. 'This, to me, is a problem with Democrats in America right now,' Booker declared on the floor. 'We're willing to be complicit with Donald Trump.' It's part of a broader fight within the Democratic Party over when it's acceptable, if at all, to work with Trump and his GOP allies. Senate Democrats are at odds over whether to expedite the confirmation of dozens of lower-level and relatively noncontroversial Trump nominees so that lawmakers can go back to their home states for the August recess after a long seven months of legislative session. Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.), a centrist, is asking whether it makes sense for his fellow Democrats to drag out the floor proceedings for every single Trump nominee, even for noncontroversial picks to fill under-the-radar positions in the executive branch. 'In the past, there was a large number of UCs and that wasn't controversial. I'm not [sure] why it's controversial right now,' Fetterman said, referring to what had been a long-standing practice of approving noncontroversial or lower-level nominees by unanimous consent and skipping time-consuming votes. Fetterman questioned the point of making Republicans jump through procedural hoops, forcing late-evening votes and burning up weeks of floor time, when Trump's nominees are going to be inevitably confirmed. 'They have more votes than we do and that's inevitable,' he said. 'Have we blocked or stopped any? No. And that's the reality. 'If it happens today, if it happens tomorrow, does that really mean anything? Is that resistance?' he asked. 'It hasn't blocked or stopped anything.' Most Senate Democrats have sought to drag out consideration of Trump's nominees as long as possible, creating a backlog of 161 nominees as of Thursday morning. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and his colleagues have required cloture votes — the procedural votes needed to limit debate — on 120 straight nominees. Democrats only allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to come straight to a confirmation vote on Jan. 20, Trump's first day in office. And Democrats have not allowed a single civilian Trump nominee to pass by unanimous consent or voice vote. A spokesperson for Schumer said Trump's 'historically bad nominees deserve historic levels of scrutiny.' Polls show the Democratic Party with a low job approval rating — between 33 percent and 40 percent, according to recent polls — and some Democrats think part of the problem is that their base doesn't think they're fighting hard enough against Trump's agenda. A recent Wall Street Journal poll of 1,500 registered voters found that Democrats had their highest unfavorable rating in 35 years. Booker on Tuesday said 'the Democratic Party needs a wake-up call,' channeling the frustration of many rank-and-file Democratic voters and donors. 'I see law firms bending a knee to this president, not caring about the larger principles that free speech rights [say] that you can take on any client. … I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending the knee to the president,' he said, referring to settlements that several prominent law firms and elite universities reached with the president. Some Democratic senators privately agree they need to put up more of a fight when Trump runs roughshod over Congress and Democratic priorities by shuttering or reorganizing federal departments and agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development without approval from Congress. 'There is a deep, deep interest among folks for us to try to find somewhat to better dramatize the authoritarian takeover. I hear this all the time from folks back home,' said a Democratic senator, who requested anonymity to discuss internal discussions. The senator said Democratic constituents have pressed lawmakers to force Republicans to use every hour of debate time on nominees and to force late-night votes and debates — something Democrats in Washington have done to put up a fight. But it still hasn't satisfied the desire within the Democratic base to inflict pain on Trump and his allies. 'None of these things really quite meet the thirst, the desire for more drama about this moment in history where our Constitution is being savaged,' the lawmaker said. Other Democrats insist they are fighting hard, even if some members of their party think they're lying down. 'We're fighting, no, we're fighting,' said Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Democrats on Capitol Hill are now quarreling over how hard a line they want Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) to hold ahead of the Sept. 30 government funding deadline. Some Democrats are insisting that their leaders demand that Trump and Republican leaders in Congress promise not to make additional attempts to rescind congressionally approved funding in exchange for Democratic votes to keep the government funded past September. 'If the Republicans are not willing to put in writing that they will not roll the deal back after it's been agreed to, then they're signaling loud and clear that any deal with them right now isn't worth the paper it's printed on,' said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has urged a tougher approach toward Republicans on spending bills. Warren was one of eight Democrats who voted against a motion to proceed to the military construction and Department of Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, which passed out of committee with a 26-3 vote. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) says Democrats should use their leverage on bipartisan policy priorities to curb Trump's executive actions. 'If the Trump administration wants the benefit of bipartisan legislation on things like infrastructure, permitting reform and appropriations, they're going to have to convince Democrats that a deal's a deal and they will honor the deal,' he said. 'Otherwise, we're just wasting our time so that Russ Vought can run the government on behalf of his creepy billionaire benefactors,' he added, referring to the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Other Democrats are eager to get the spending bills passed, even without ironclad commitments from Republicans to not advance another rescissions package on Capitol Hill or from the administration to stop unilateral efforts to dismantle or reorder federal agencies. Booker, for his part, was unapologetic in arguing that Democrats should use their leverage to get Trump to back off his efforts to punish blue states. 'We have seen a consistent erosion of the Article I branch of government ceding authority to the executive in ways that violate the founders' intention and the Constitution of the United States. We are in a crisis right now,' Booker told reporters, referring to Congress's failure to defend its power of the purse, power to set tariffs and power to declare war against Trump's efforts to rescind federal funding, reorganize federal agencies, impose sweeping tariffs and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities with little advance notice to congressional leaders. 'We are watching our democracy, democratic norms, traditions and rules, being violated by a president who has authoritarian tendencies. That's why I'm saying, fundamentally, we must fight and fight harder,' said Booker, a past and potentially future Democratic presidential candidate.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump trains his fire on GOP allies, and worries Republicans
President Trump is increasingly directing his frustrations at individual Senate Republicans, and turning his fire in recent days on key allies. The president this week publicly excoriated Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) over upholding the 'blue slip' tradition and pushing a congressional stock trading ban, respectively. While Trump has long had a tendency of airing his grievances out in public — especially toward those he views as disloyal — the latest barbs about staunch backers are raising eyebrows, and drawing questions about whether the strategy will continue to be effective in advancing his agenda. President Trump is increasingly directing his ire at individual Senate Republicans, turning his fire in recent days on key allies. The president this week publicly excoriated Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) over upholding the 'blue slip' tradition and pushing a congressional stock trading ban, respectively. While Trump has long had a tendency of airing his grievances out in public — especially toward those he views as disloyal — the latest barbs about staunch backers are raising eyebrows, and drawing questions about whether the strategy will continue to be effective in advancing his agenda. 'I don't think it's helpful for the president … to get in a tit for tat with other Republican members,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( a member of GOP leadership. 'He needs every single one of us, and we need him.' Trump has repeatedly tangled with Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), a libertarian-minded Republican who is not shy about voting against the president's priorities, as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former Senate GOP leader who once spoke out against Trump, has voted against several of his nominees, and has become a leading voice in favor of the Ukraine aid Trump often rails against. Earlier this summer, he put off some Senate Republicans by attacking Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) over his opposition to Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' A number of Republicans indicated they were not big fans of the way the president went after a vulnerable incumbent seen as a team player, and one who had helped advance key Trump nominees. Tillis announced his retirement shortly after. But Trump seemingly crossed another line with Republican lawmakers this week by not only calling to eliminate the 'blue slip' process — which gives veto power to senators for district judge and U.S. attorney picks for their individual state — but by going after Grassley personally. The 91-year-old Iowa Republican is the most senior member of the Senate GOP conference and is both well-liked respected in the Capitol. Trump posted on Truth Social that he got Grassley reelected to the Senate 'when he was down by a lot,' then reposted other commenters who urged followers to 'light up Grassley's office' and called Grassley a 'RINO,' the acronym for Republican in name only, 'sneaky' and 'good at playing the good guy instead of being the good guy.' 'They're very angry about how Grassley was treated because he's one of the fairest people that's walked these halls,' one Senate GOP member told The Hill. 'It was the wrong fight to pick.' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the attack on Grassley surprised him. 'I think the president may have gotten some bad information from somebody,' he said. Trump also found a dearth of support in the Senate GOP conference for ending the 'blue slip' tradition, which hands the minority party some control over the process. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), an ardent Trump backer, noted that he used them to block judges in his home state during former President Biden's White House tenure. 'I know that Sen. Grassley has worked really hard to defend the president's nomination, and we all support the blue slip process,' Rounds said. 'That is one power and one authority that the Senate will give up. We are not going to turn that over to the Executive Branch alone.' Two days later, Trump went after Hawley personally on TruthSocial over him siding with Democrats to back a congressional stock trading ban that also extends to presidents and vice presidents. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats to block a Review, sponsored by Senator Rick Scott, and with the support of almost all other Republicans, of Nancy Pelosi's Stock Trading over the last 25 years. The information was inappropriately released just minutes before the Vote — Very much like SABOTAGE!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. Although Hawley's level of support in the conference isn't near Grassley's, he is still a fan favorite of the MAGA base. The Missouri Republican on Thursday said he spoke with Trump on Wednesday night after the social media broadside and made clear to him that he wasn't targeting him by siding with Democrats. While the stock ban he proposed would affect presidents, it wouldn't go into effect until 2029, meaning it wouldn't be imposed against Trump himself. Hawley added Trump was under the impression from other Senate Republicans that he would be affected. In total, Senate GOP sources believe the more Trump goes after individuals who are largely supportive of his legislative and nomination efforts, the less effective they get over time. 'It dilutes the threat of him criticizing people for actually opposing his agenda if he's criticizing people for Republican mainstream positions,' said one Senate GOP aide, specifically pointing to the Iowa Republican. The Senate Republican agreed. 'I think that he's dropping a couple of more proverbial straws and he probably needs to proceed with caution,' the Senate GOP member said. 'You reach a point where if you go after so many people, the people you haven't gone after start wondering if they're next — and that's when maybe institutional protection becomes a priority here.' Trump, however, has also shown restraint at times. He has notably not publicly attacked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) despite her vote against the 'big, beautiful bill' and the bill clawing back public media and foreign aid funding, along with a couple of his high-priority nominees. And some top allies believe that Trump's barbs are effective. 'That's his forte. … He is spreading the wealth,' Tuberville said with a laugh. 'He is holding back on nobody. He knows his gameplan and he's going to implement it and he thinks he needs more help.' Others believe it's yet another sign that it's time for the chamber to recess for the August break as members become increasingly cranky. Capito specifically pointed to the war of wards between Hawley and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) over the stock trading ban at the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Wednesday, and Sen. Cory Booker's (D-N.J.) diatribe against his Democratic colleagues —on top of Trump's attack on Grassley. 'Everybody's going after everybody,' Capito said. 'It's the hot summer. I think it's just indicative that it's time to take a breath.' 'It's the reason why August is a miserable time here in D.C.,' she added. 'We're exemplifying it.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress
The need for this legislation was shown by a Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up That backdrop made the Senate debate feel overdue. But to move further, Democrats needed to be on board. The legislation was originally dubbed the Advertisement The committee debate on Wednesday quickly turned combative with the main dispute rising between Republicans on the panel. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri quipped, 'I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee.' Fellow Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, one of the chamber's wealthiest members who was seated next to him, shot back: 'I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money. But somehow, if you've made money, you're supposedly — I think Senator Hawley suggests — you shouldn't be serving, because you might trade stocks. Advertisement 'Anybody want to be poor? I don't,' continued Scott. To many Americans, that's exactly the problem. Public service doesn't suffer from a shortage of wealthy members, it suffers from the perception that political access and information is being leveraged to enrich the already rich. Even in this moment of supposed reform, political calculation won out. To avoid a Trump veto, senators inserted a carve-out delaying the ban for presidents and vice presidents until after the 2028 election, effectively shielding Trump and JD Vance for now. The bill squeaked through committee on an 8‑7 vote, with Hawley the lone Republican supporting it along with Democrats. When Trump was asked about by reporters if he would sign it, he appeared open-minded. 'Well, I like it conceptually,' said Trump. 'I don't know about it. But I like it conceptually.' Hours later, Trump went on Truth Social to ridicule Hawley as a 'second-tier senator,' sending a clear signal that if it ended up on his desk the bill would end up in a veto. Advertisement What changed? Senate leadership is already signaling it's unlikely to ever bring the bill up for a floor vote. In the House, Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, says she'll try to force a vote in September, but she's facing the same entrenched resistance that has killed past attempts at reform. The backdrop of wealth disparity only makes the spectacle more glaring. According to OpenSecrets, the median net worth of US senators is about $1.7 million, with some far richer: Scott is worth closer to $200 million, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner is worth $248 million, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell has $34 million, North Dakota Republican John Hoeven is worth around $60 million. More locally, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's estimated net worth is roughly $10 million, and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has close to double that. Compare that to the rest of America: The That asymmetry may drive a reason the public supports a ban by overwhelming margins. It could also just be the basic premise that elected leaders shouldn't get rich in office using insider information. This shouldn't be a hard sell. Instead, they may well punt and mock the lone Senate Republican willing to side with public opinion. Advertisement For those who believe Washington operates for insiders, this episode offers no rebuttal. A common-sense ethics reform, years in the making, popular across party lines, even grudgingly backed by Pelosi, got watered down, politicized, and left to die. And for what? James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
