CHARLESTON, WV (LOOTPRESS) – A bill introduced this session by Delegate Evan Hansen, a Monongalia County Democrat and one of the Legislature’s most outspoken environmental advocates, would impose sweeping new mandates on how electric utilities operate in West Virginia—raising significant questions about costs, rate impacts, and the state’s long-term energy posture.
House Bill 4110, titled the “West Virginia Energy Efficiency Jobs Creation Act,” would require electric utilities to meet mandatory energy-efficiency and demand-response targets over the next decade and beyond. While framed as a jobs and cost-savings measure, critics note that the bill embeds a number of policy choices that could place upward pressure on electric rates, expand regulatory complexity, and further sideline coal-based generation in a state whose economy and grid have long relied on it.
What the bill does
At its core, HB 4110 directs the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) to require electric utilities to design, implement, and continuously expand energy-efficiency and demand-response programs. These programs would be measured against a fixed baseline year—2020—and utilities would be required to demonstrate cumulative reductions in both total electricity sales and peak demand.
The required savings targets escalate steadily through 2036, ultimately mandating reductions approaching nine percent compared to 2020 levels. Utilities would be required to file multi-year plans, submit to ongoing regulatory review, and demonstrate compliance through formal verification processes overseen by the PSC.
The bill also requires utilities to offer a demand-response program designed to reduce peak electricity usage, effectively shifting consumption away from high-load periods.
No appropriation — but real costs
HB 4110 does not appropriate state funds. Instead, it relies almost entirely on ratepayer-funded cost recovery. The bill explicitly authorizes utilities to recover the costs of efficiency programs through rates and, critically, instructs the PSC to consider mechanisms allowing utilities to recover lost revenues caused by reduced electricity sales.
In practical terms, this means customers could see higher electric bills even if overall electricity consumption declines. Program costs, administrative overhead, and “lost revenue” adjustments would be layered into rates through riders and tracking mechanisms.
For coal-state ratepayers, this structure is familiar—and controversial. It shifts the financial risk of policy-driven demand reduction away from utilities and onto customers, insulating utilities from sales declines while guaranteeing recovery of new program costs.
Rate impacts and regulatory expansion
Supporters of the bill argue that energy efficiency can reduce long-term system costs. Opponents counter that the bill front-loads costs and regulatory complexity while offering no guarantee that any long-term savings will ever reach customers’ monthly bills.
HB 4110 would significantly expand the PSC’s role in utility planning, program design, verification, and enforcement. Utilities would be required to file detailed plans every three years, submit annual updates, and comply with prescribed testing methodologies. Each layer of oversight carries compliance costs that are ultimately passed through to ratepayers.
Notably, the bill includes an internal inconsistency in its peak-demand reduction schedule, listing two different percentage targets for the same year. While likely a drafting error, it underscores concerns that the legislation is ambitious in scope but uneven in execution.
Effects on coal-based generation
Although HB 4110 does not explicitly ban or restrict coal-fired generation, its structure and policy assumptions implicitly work against it.
Coal-based plants excel at providing stable, dispatchable baseload power—exactly the kind of generation that becomes less economically efficient when utilities are required to reduce overall sales and peak demand by mandate rather than market forces. By prioritizing reduced consumption as a regulatory goal, the bill diminishes the value of reliable baseload generation without addressing grid resilience, fuel security, or local economic impacts.
The bill’s findings emphasize “clean” energy outcomes and efficiency as the preferred planning tool, language that aligns closely with national environmental advocacy frameworks but sits uneasily in a state where coal remains a cornerstone of both employment and grid reliability.
Large customer carve-outs — and hidden risk
HB 4110 includes a “self-direct” option allowing very large electric customers to divert up to 80 percent of certain efficiency charges into their own approved programs rather than utility-run programs. While framed as flexibility for industrial users, the provision raises equity concerns.
If large customers reduce their contribution to system-wide programs while residential and small business customers cannot, costs may shift disproportionately to households and smaller employers. Additionally, the bill gives the PSC broad discretion to penalize self-direct customers who fail to meet performance targets—adding regulatory uncertainty that could deter investment rather than encourage it.
A familiar policy pattern
To supporters, HB 4110 represents modern energy policy focused on efficiency, conservation, and emissions reduction. To critics, it reads like a collection of well-packaged policy preferences—efficiency mandates, revenue decoupling, and regulatory expansion—long promoted by national environmental groups, repainted for a coal-state audience.
The bill does not prohibit coal, but it does little to acknowledge coal’s role in affordability, reliability, and economic stability. Instead, it relies on regulatory mandates rather than market signals, shifting costs and risks to ratepayers while expanding the state’s energy bureaucracy.
As the Legislature considers HB 4110, lawmakers will have to decide whether the promised benefits justify the structural changes it would impose on West Virginia’s electric system—or whether the bill represents another step away from the state’s traditional energy strengths in favor of policies designed elsewhere.
