Virginia’s investor-owned utilities thought 2025 would be the year they put an end to net metering – and with it, rooftop solar installers’ modest competition with their monopoly.. The 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) removed many barriers that residents and businesses installing solar panels under the state’s net metering law had faced, but it also called for the State Corporation Commission to reevaluate the program, beginning right about now.
Not surprisingly, Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power are seizing this opportunity to push for changes that would undermine the economic calculus supporting customer-owned solar.
Since at least 2007, Virginia law has required that customers of Dominion and APCo who have solar panels on their property be credited for surplus electricity they supply to the grid at the same retail rate they pay for electricity. The credit is applied against the cost of the electricity the customer draws from the grid at times when the panels aren’t generating, reducing what they owe on their electric bill.
But now that they have the chance, both utilities have filed proposals to end net metering. Both essentially propose to charge new solar customers the full retail rate for the electricity they draw from the grid (with Dominion using a more complicated half-hour “netting”), but compensate them for electricity fed to the grid only at the utility’s “avoided cost,” or what it pays to buy electricity from other generators. By law, existing customers and new low-income customers with solar would be unaffected.
APCo calculates avoided cost as the wholesale cost of energy and capacity, plus transmission and ancillary services, for a total of less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Thus, a homeowner with solar panels would now pay the full retail rate of about 17 cents/kWh for electricity drawn from the grid, while being credited at less than one-third that amount for electricity put back on the grid.
Dominion’s approach instead pegs avoided cost to what it pays for solar generation and associated renewable energy certificates (RECs) bought from certain small producers under power purchase agreements, an average of about 9.5 cents/kWh. Dominion’s residential rate currently averages about 14 cents/kWh, but would go up to more than 16 cents if its latest rate increase request is granted.
The VCEA gave APCo the first swing at the piñata. APCo filed its proposal in September, and the SCC will hold an evidentiary hearing on May 20. Dominion only filed its petition last week, and no hearing date has been set yet.
Not surprisingly, APCo’s proposal generated fierce opposition from advocates and solar installers. They point out that it’s hard enough to make the economics of home solar work with net metering at the retail rate; slashing the compensation for electricity returned to the grid by more than one-third, as Dominion proposes, or two-thirds, as APCo wants, would make solar a losing proposition for most homeowners. Maybe economies of scale and other factors would allow the market for commercial solar to survive under Dominion’s program, though Dominion’s insistence on confiscating customers’ RECs won’t make anyone happy.
If solar owners definitely lose under APCo’s plan, advocates say other ratepayers don’t necessarily win. A homeowner’s surplus generation travels only the short distance to the nearest neighbor, lessening the need for the utility to generate and transmit power to meet the neighbor’s demand. Since the utility charges that neighbor the regular retail rate for the electricity, without having to bring it from somewhere else, the utility saves on transmission costs. On top of that, the surplus solar comes in during the day, when demand is typically higher than at night and electricity is more costly, making solar more valuable to the utility. Plus, it is clean and renewable, and the customer bears all the cost and risk of the investment.
Utilities do not share this rosy view. By their way of thinking, solar customers use the grid as free energy storage and backup power, without paying their fair share of grid costs. Not only does this deprive the utility of revenue, but those grid costs now have to be spread out among the remaining customers. This, they say, creates a cost shift from solar owners to everyone else.
More than a decade ago, Virginia took tentative steps towards resolving the dispute, with the Department of Environmental Quality setting up a stakeholder group to work towards a “value of solar” analysis. The process was never completed — the utilities walked away from the table when it appeared the results weren’t going to be what they wanted, and the group’s work product did not include numeric values or policy recommendations.
Virginia is hardly alone in navigating these clashing narratives.
Other states and regulators have arrived at very different conclusions as to the “correct” value of distributed solar to utilities, ratepayers, and society as a whole. States like Maryland kept net metering after a value of solar analysis concluded the benefits outweighed the costs. On the other hand, California famously ended its net metering program in 2022 when solar comprised almost 20% of electricity generated in the state and created a mid-day surplus without enough storage to absorb it; at the time, 45% of that solar was distributed. That same year, however, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an unpopular bill that would have phased out net metering in the state.
The experience of other states, combined with an abundance of research and analysis conducted over the years, gives the SCC a lot to work with as it considers the fate of net metering for APCo’s customers this year, and later for Dominion’s.
Countering the arguments of the utility’s hired witnesses, solar industry and environmental organizations have weighed in on the APCo docket with testimony from experts with nationwide experience. The experts pointed out a range of errors and omissions in the utility’s work product. They also presented their own benefit-cost analyses demonstrating a value for distributed solar in excess of the retail price of electricity, using tests often applied to energy efficiency and demand-response programs.
Perhaps even more significantly, SCC staff also filed an analysis that found many of the same problems with APCo’s proposal, including failures to comply with statutory requirements. The staff report did not include a quantitative analysis, but it urged the importance of considering benefits that APCo had ignored. Like the intervenors, staff recommended the commission reject APCo’s plan and retain its net metering program as it is, at least for now.
Although the staff report would seem likely to carry weight with the commissioners, it’s never easy to predict what the SCC will do in any case before it. But in Virginia, unlike California, distributed solar makes up vanishingly little of total electric generation. Even taking the utilities’ arguments at face value, it seems foolish to upend this small but important market to remedy a perceived harm that is, at least for now, more theoretical than real.
This article originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury on May 8, 2025.
A data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Photo by Hugh Kenny, Piedmont Environmental Council.
For the past few years, observers have been warning that the huge surge in demand for electricity to serve data centers will mean higher electricity bills. In its December 2024 report on data centers in Virginia, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) confirmed projections that the increased demand for power and the need for new infrastructure to serve data centers would raise rates for everyone, not just the data centers.
Right on cue, on March 31 Dominion Energy Virginia filed a request with the State Corporation Commission to increase the rates it charges to all customers. If granted, the increase would amount to an additional $10.50 on the monthly bill of an average resident. In a separate filing on the same day, Dominion asked to increase residents’ bills by another $10.92 per month to pay for higher fuel costs.
Either out of a monumental failure to read the room, or because Dominion executives feel they might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, the rate filing also asks for an increase in the company’s authorized rate of return, from 9.7% currently to 10.4%.
But it’s not all bad news. Along with the rate increase request, Dominion filed a proposal to create a new rate class for large-load customers like data centers. The move coincides with enactment of new legislation requiringthe SCC to examine whether electric utilities should separate data centers into their own rate class to protect other customers, something the SCC was in fact already doing.
And Dominion is not alone. Virginia’s other major investor-owned utility, Appalachian Power, filed a similar proposal on March 24, following onefrom Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (REC) on March 12. The proposals reflect a growing consensus that ordinary residents should not be forced to bear the cost of building new infrastructure needed only because of data centers. Moreover, if data centers close up shop before the costs of the new infrastructure are fully paid for, residents should not get stuck paying off these now-stranded assets.
In Dominion’s case, there is good reason to worry. In the first day of testimony at the SCC regarding the company’s 2024 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), a Dominion witness admitted that of the $7.6 billion worth of planned new transmission infrastructure listed in the IRP, residential customers will pay 55%, including for infrastructure that serves only data centers.
It’s not immediately clear how much setting up a new rate class for data centers will change that outcome. Dominion proposes creating a new large-load class for customers using at least 25 MW at capacities of 75% or more (meaning that they have a consistently high level of electricity use, as data centers do). These customers would be subject to a number of new requirements, including posting collateral and paying for the substation equipment that supplies them. They would also have to sign 14-year contracts (including an optional 4-year ramp-up period) obligating them to pay for the greater of actual electricity use or 60% of the generation and 85% of the transmission and distribution capacity they sign up for, even if they use less.
Dominion says the proposed generation demand charge is much lower than that for transmission because transmission and distribution assets must be designed for 100% of capacity, while generation is only planned for 85% actual metered load. Based on that, though, you might think the correct demand charges would be set at 100% for transmission and 85% for generation. It’s also not clear whether 14 years is long enough to recover all the costs incurred to build new infrastructure, or whether that’s even the outcome Dominion is striving for.
There are sure to be a lot more of these kinds of questions when the SCC takes up Dominion’s rate case. The SCC will have to evaluate Dominion’s proposed large-load tariff against a worst-case scenario: an industry-wide disruption that suddenly and dramatically reduces data center demand across the state, leaving a utility with excess generation and transmission capacity that can’t be backfilled and that other customers will be stuck paying for.
Fortunately, Dominion’s proposal doesn’t have to be considered in isolation, since the SCC will be able to compare it to those from APCo, REC and utilities in other states. According to APCo’s filing, its new rate class would be limited to the largest new customers (those with at least 150 MW in total or 100 MW at a single site). These customers would be required to pay a minimum of 80% of contracted demand even if they use less, which the company says is a significant increase from the demand charge of 60% that applies to existing customers. (You’ll notice it’s also a lot more than the 60% demand charge Dominion is proposing for data centers.)
APCo’s filing notes that its proposal is consistent with a data center tariff it recently agreed to in settling a case in West Virginia; in both cases, customers would have to sign 12-year contracts, following an optional ramping-up term of up to 4 years, with requirements for posting collateral and stiff exit terms.
APCo has other experience to go on as well. Its parent company, American Electric Power (AEP), made news when its subsidiary in central Ohio proposed to charge data center customers at least 90% of contracted demand or 90% of their highest demand over the preceding 11 months, whichever is higher, and committing them to contract terms of at least 10 years, after a ramp-up period of up to four years. Data centers pushed back hard on these terms, and the Ohio Public Utilities Commission is considering different settlement proposals with somewhat lower demand charges.
REC’s filing takes an entirely different approach. REC is the largest of Virginia’s co-ops, serving a territory that stretches from Frederick County in northwest Virginia down through Spotsylvania and as far east as King William County. As data center development pushes outward from Northern Virginia, REC finds itself overwhelmed with new demand. It now expects up to 17 gigawatts of data center demand by 2040, up from near zero in 2023, dwarfing all other customers’ loads.
Like other utilities, electric cooperatives have an obligation to serve all comers in their territory, so if a new data center moves in, they have to provide the power. But unlike Dominion and other investor-owned utilities, co-ops are customer-owned nonprofits. They are highly motivated to protect their existing customers from the costs – and risks – involved in serving new ones.
REC is a distribution cooperative only, with no generation of its own. Today, REC gets all its electricity from Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC), a sort of umbrella organization that owns generating plants and supplements those with power purchased on the PJM wholesale market. But when ODEC learned how much new data center load REC was expecting, it told REC to look elsewhere for the power.
REC’s solution is to silo off big data centers and other customers with more than 25 megawatts in demand, and keep all the costs and risks involved within that space. According to the proposal the co-op filed with the SCC, data centers that want to get power from REC will have to post collateral, contribute to the cost of new infrastructure and sign two agreements, one for the power supply and one for its delivery. REC (or an affiliate it plans to create for this purpose) will buy electricity from PJM on the open market and pass through the cost. Alternatively, the data centers will be able to buy electricity from competitive service providers, allowing them, for example, to procure renewable energy.
REC’s proposed delivery contract is similarly designed to ensure the data centers pay all the grid costs the utility will incur in serving them. In addition to contributing to the cost of new infrastructure, data centers will have to sign contracts with terms that must “be structured to recover the full cost of distribution and/or sub-transmission plant investment, maintenance and operation.” This includes payment of a demand charge that isn’t specified but appears to be as high as 100% of peak demand – meaning, there would be no risk that these grid costs would end up on the tab of residents and other customers outside the class.
REC’s approach might be seen as a sort of gold standard for protecting other ratepayers from the costs and risks involved in providing energy to data centers. It’s not a perfect antidote for rate increases, because the tight supply of generating capacity within PJM is already pushing up costs of electricity even for existing customers. And buying electricity on the open market may cost data center customers more than buying it from a utility that owns its own generation, as Dominion and APCo do. But that isn’t a concern that will keep REC’s other customers up at night.
The very different approaches proposed by REC, on the one hand, and Dominion and APCo, on the other, reflect the difference between a nonprofit distribution cooperative and investor-owned utilities that build and own generation. Building stuff is how investor-owned utilities earn a profit. The bigger their customer base and the more electricity those customers demand, the more the profit. The data center industry looks to them like a big, fat golden goose.
It isn’t surprising, then, that neither Dominion nor APCo are proposing solutions that put all the risks involved with serving data centers onto the industry, the way REC’s proposal does. As a new Harvard Law School reportdetails, the utility profit motive and the political muscle of Big Tech inevitably lead to a cost shift onto other customers.
Maybe there is something different about data centers in Virginia that justifies involving ordinary residential customers in this risk. Dominion will surely make that pitch when the SCC takes up the case.
It will be interesting to observe, but color me skeptical.
This year’s General Assembly session notably failed to produce legislation addressing the widening gap between electricity demand and supply in Virginia. Legislators shied away from measures that would address the growing demand from data centers, but they also couldn’t bring themselves to improve the supply picture by supporting landowners who want to host solar facilities. By the time the session ended, a mere handful of bills had passed that could improve our ability to meet demand.
Still, the initiatives that did pass offered positive steps forward on energy efficiency, distributed generation, interconnection of rooftop solar, energy storage, EV charging and utility planning. In addition, two data center-related bills passed requiring more planning and transparency during the local permitting process and tasking utilities with developing a demand response program to relieve some of the added burden on the grid.
Sadly, however, Republican Gov. Glen Youngkin decided to use his powers of veto and amendment to water down or scuttle the limited (and mostly bipartisan) progress legislators made. The only two data center bills were effectively killed, as were most energy bills – some by veto, others by amendments that made them worse than no action at all.
There’s nothing very subtle going on here. The governor loves data centers and isn’t about to limit their growth, regardless of the consequences to residential ratepayers and communities. He’s also stuck in a rut of attacking the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which prioritizes low-cost renewable energy over legacy fossil fuels. He won’t be in office when the chickens come home to roost in the form of an electricity shortfall and skyrocketing rates, but he’s setting up his party to cast blame on the liberal climate agenda.
Data centers
The General Assembly failed to pass legislation that would have shifted responsibility for sourcing clean energy onto the data center operators. The only bill to pass that even makes energy a consideration in the siting of data centers is HB 1601, sponsored by Del. Josh Thomas, D-Gainesville. In addition to site assessment provisions at the permitting stage, it requires the utility serving the facility to describe any new electric generating units, substations and transmission voltage that would be required.
Limited as these provisions are, the governor proposed amendments to further weaken the bill, then added a clause requiring that for the bill to take effect, it has to be passed all over again in 2026. That’s a veto by another name.
SB 1047 from Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas, requires utilities to implement demand-response programs for customers with a power demand of more than 25 MW, a way of relieving grid constraints during times of high demand. The governor vetoed the bill, deeming it unnecessary.
The only data center-related bill that did get the governor’s approval is one of questionable utility. HB 2084 from Del. Irene Shin, D-Herndon, merely requires the SCC to use its existing authority during a regular proceeding sometime in the next couple of years to determine whether Dominion and Appalachian Power are using reasonable customer classifications in setting rates, and if not, whether new classifications are reasonable. The SCC seems to be doing this already anyway, but maybe this lets our leaders claim they are doing something to protect residential ratepayers. Plus, they can now call it a bipartisan effort!
Utility reform
With Virginia fixed on a collision course between growing demand for energy from data centers and our leaders’ refusal to support low-cost solar to provide the power, it is more important than ever that our utilities engage in transparent and comprehensive planning through the integrated resource plans (IRPs) filed with the State Corporation Commission. Over the course of last fall, the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation hammered out what I think is truly good legislation to ensure Dominion and APCo present the information the SCC and the public need to be sure our utilities are making the decisions that will improve our energy position and put the needs of ratepayers ahead of corporate profits.
In vetoing SB 1021 from Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, and HB 2413 from Del. Candi Mundon King, D-Dumfries, the governor offered this muddled statement: “The State Corporation Commission has the expertise and the authority to make requirements and changes to the integrated resource plan process. The Virginia Clean Economy Act is failing Virginia and those that champion it should stop trying to buttress this failing policy. But rather should be focused on procuring the dependable power needed to meet our growing demand through optimizing for reliability, affordability, and increasingly clean power generation.”
We get it: Johnny One-Note doesn’t like the VCEA. He said that already. But right now, APCo isn’t filing IRPs at all, and the SCC has been so frustrated with Dominion’s filings that it didn’t approve the last one, and demanded a supplement to the most recent one even before it was filed. Clearly the SCC could use a little help here.
Distributed energy sources
Advocates for small-scale solar were more successful this year than their colleagues who focus on utility-scale projects. Bipartisan majorities seemed to agree that if we can’t or won’t site large solar farms, at least we should make it easier to put solar on rooftops and other small sites close to users.
Sadly, however, only one bill survived the governor’s scrutiny relatively unscathed, though it’s an important one for customer-sited solar. HB 2266 from Del. Kathy Tran, D-Springfield, resolves the interconnection dispute that has stalled commercial solar projects in the 250 kW to 3 MW size range, which includes most rooftop solar on schools. Tran’s bill requires the SCC to approve upgrades to the distribution system that utilities say are needed to accommodate grid-connected solar, a safeguard that will prevent the utility from larding on costs. The utility must then spread the costs across all projects that benefit from the expanded capacity.
Youngkin’s proposed amendment rearranges the language a bit and places it into a new section of code, but does not otherwise change it. He then adds a provision in the tax code to make grid upgrades tax-deductible. I would have thought they would be anyway, as business expenses, but it can only be helpful to spell it out.
Unfortunately, that’s it for the good news.
HB 1883 from Del. Katrina Callsen, D-Charlottesville, and SB 1040 from Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Richmond, contain several provisions aimed at increasing the amount of distributed solar in Virginia. Among other things, the legislation increases the percentage of Dominion’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) obligation that must be met with renewable energy certificates (RECs) from behind-the-meter small solar projects, a change that would make rooftop and other distributed solar more profitable for homeowners and businesses.
HB 1883 also increases to 3 MW from 1 MW the size of solar projects that could qualify for this favored category. Additionally, for the first time it would give all residential ratepayers the right to use power purchase agreements (PPAs) to install solar with no money down, and would increase the amount of electricity Dominion would build or buy from solar facilities on previously developed project sites. To give the market a chance to ramp up, Callsen’s bill excuses Dominion from having to meet its REC obligations from Virginia projects for an additional two years, pushing that date from this year to 2027.
Among all those changes, the only one the governor liked is the idea of softening the requirements around REC purchases. His proposed amendment would make all REC compliance voluntary for four years. Effectively, Virginia would have no renewable energy requirements until 2028, undercutting solar development of any size. His preferred version scraps all of the provisions of Callsen’s bill, leaving no provisions to support solar development and replacing them with an open attack on the VCEA.
I checked in with Callsen by email to get her reaction. She responded, “We sent the administration bipartisan legislation that protects ratepayers, gives Virginians more options for solar on our homes and businesses, and saves rural land. Rather than sign HB 1883 into law,” Callsen wrote, “the governor used this opportunity to attack the Clean Economy Act from 2020. Instead of looking at the past, our Administration should look around; we have a developing energy crisis and are reliant on importing energy to meet our needs.”
The governor also offered a destructive amendment to HB 2346 from Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, and SB 1100 from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, legislation establishing a pilot program in Dominion territory for virtual power plants (VPPs), which aggregate customer solar and storage resources and demand response capabilities. Although VPPs don’t by themselves add electricity on the grid, they allow time-shifting and other efficiencies that make it easier for utilities to meet peak demand without having to build new generation. The payments utilities make to customers for this service can justify customers’ investments in things like solar, battery storage and smart appliances.
Instead of improving on the pilot program, however, the governor’s amendment scraps it and calls for the SCC to convene a proceeding to talk about VPPs. On the plus side, Youngkin suggests that the conversation include Appalachian Power as well as Dominion, and consider allowing the service to be provided by either the utilities or third-party aggregators, the latter being the favored approach of many industry members. Still, the amendment pushes off any hope of a program for at least another year, until the SCC has made its recommendations. Since it would have been feasible to both start a pilot program this year and have the SCC consider parameters for a broader program in the future, it’s hard to see the governor’s amendment as a step forward.
When I asked her for a comment, Hashmi did not mince words, saying it was “incredibly disappointing” that Youngkin chose to offer a substitute instead of signing the legislation.
“This legislation was the result of several months of conversation among a variety of stakeholders, including our utility companies, energy partners, and environmental groups. The Virtual Power Plant has the promise of helping Virginia meet the goals of our increasing energy demands. The Governor’s substitute shows that he is not serious about responding to the growth of Virginia’s energy needs,” Hashmi wrote.
Other solar bills drew outright vetoes, including Mundon King’s HB 2356, establishing an apprenticeship program to help develop a clean energy workforce. The bill requires participants to be paid prevailing wages, a provision that was a certain veto magnet for Youngkin, whose veto statement reads, “This bill will increase the construction costs which will ultimately be passed along to ratepayers, raising costs for consumers.”
Another bill that drew an outright veto was HB 2037 from Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax. His bill would allow local governments to include in their land development ordinances a requirement that certain non-residential applicants install solar on a portion of a parking lot.
The governor vetoed it because, he said, it would be expensive for developers, and if it weren’t, they would do it without having to be told. (It’s a strange objection. Does he not understand the whole concept of government acting in the public good? Well, maybe not; see the veto.)
Also vetoed was Shin’s HB 2090, changing the rules around multifamily solar. Admittedly I was not crazy about this bill; although it allows solar facilities to be placed on nearby commercial buildings instead of being restricted to the multifamily building itself, it also imports the requirement for minimum bills that has made other shared solar programs in Virginia unworkable for all but the low-income customers who are excused from the minimum bills.
Maybe the trade-off would have opened new opportunities for apartment buildings serving low-income households, which would make it a plus on balance. But among his objections to HB2090, the governor noted that excusing low-income customers from high minimum bills would shift costs onto other customers.
Energy efficiency
The governor vetoed SB 1342 from Sen. Lamont Bagby, D-Richmond, and HB 2744 from Del. Mark Sickles, D-Franconia, that would have pushed Dominion and APCo harder to provide energy efficiency upgrades to low-income homes, setting a target of 30% of qualifying households.
He also vetoed SB 777 from Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, and HB 1935from Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling, D-Richmond, which would have established a task force to address the needs of low-income customers for weatherization and efficiency upgrades. The governor said it isn’t needed.
If you notice a pattern here when it comes to helping low-income households with their energy burden, you are not alone.
Reached on maternity leave, LeVere Bolling had this to say: “Across our Commonwealth, high utility bills are forcing Virginians to choose between essentials like groceries and medication and keeping their home at a safe temperature during hot summers and cold winters. Virginia has the 10th least affordable residential energy bills in the country. Over 75% of Virginia households have an energy burden higher than the 6% affordability threshold.” She added that the governor’s veto represents a “missed opportunity to address the pressing energy needs of Virginia’s most vulnerable communities.”
Electric vehicles
The governor offered a substitute for a bill intended to support electric vehicle charging. As passed by the General Assembly, Shin’s HB 2087requires Dominion and APCo to file detailed plans to “accelerate transportation electrification,” including for rural areas and economically disadvantaged communities. It also allows the utilities to file proposed tariffs with the SCC to supply the distribution infrastructure necessary for EV charging stations.
The utilities are also authorized to develop their own fast-charging stations, but only at a distance from privately-owned charging stations, with the SCC determining the proper distance. This provision responds to the request of gas station chains like Sheetz that say they want to expand their EV charging options, but don’t want to face unfair competition from utilities that can rate-base their investments.
The governor’s amendment would prohibit Dominion and APCo from owning EV charging stations at all; in addition, it would allow retail providers of EV charging stations to buy electricity from any competitive service provider. However, the amendment repeals the section of code that allows the utilities to recover costs of investments in transportation electrification.
According to Steve Banashek, EV legislative lead with the Virginia Sierra Club, that “negates the purpose of the enrolled bill.” The amendment, he told me in an email, “removes the requirement for utilities to file for tariffs to support implementation of EV charging and to plan for transportation electrification growth via the IRP process, which is critical for speeding up the transition to electric transportation.”
As for the prohibition on the utilities owning charging stations, Banashek noted that there are areas of the state where private businesses aren’t likely to do it, including in those economically disadvantaged and rural communities. If we don’t want these areas left behind, either the utilities have to step up, or the state does.
Apparently, however, Youngkin doesn’t intend for the state to do it either. Along with his amendments to Shin’s bill, the governor also vetoed HB 1791 from Sullivan, creating a fund to support EV charging in rural areas of the state.
Energy storage
The need for more energy storage seems like it would be one area of bipartisan consensus. Batteries and other forms of energy storage are critical to filling in the generation gaps for low-cost, intermittent forms of energy like wind and solar.
But storage is also required to make full use of baseload sources like nuclear that either can’t be ramped down at times when there is a surplus of energy being produced, or where doing so makes it harder to recover the cost of building the generation. (The already-high projected cost of electricity from small modular nuclear reactors becomes even higher if you assume they don’t run when the power isn’t needed.)
Sullivan’s HB 2537 increases the energy storage targets for Dominion and APCo, and includes new targets for long-duration energy storage. Unfortunately, Youngkin’s substitute language repeals the entire section of code that includes Virginia’s renewable portfolio standard as well as even the existing storage targets. It’s another bit of anti-VCEA flag-waving that won’t help anyone.
Just in case you thought Youngkin might be adhering to conservative free market principles with some kind of consistency, I note that he signed HB 2540 and SB 1207 from two Republicans, Del. Danny Marshall of Danville and Sen. Tammy Brankley Mulchi of Clarksville, which provides a $60 million grant to a manufacturer of lithium-ion battery separators.
I asked Sullivan for a comment on the governor’s action on his bill. He replied, “The Governor’s ridiculous ‘recommendation’ on HB 2537 was disappointing, but hardly surprising. This was not an amendment; he deleted everything – everything – having to do with energy storage, and turned it into a one-sentence bill which would repeal the entire Clean Economy Act.”
Moreover, wrote Sullivan, “HB 2537 was the most closely and extensively negotiated bill among stakeholders that I’ve been involved with since the VCEA. It had broad support – including from Dominion – and should have easily fit into the Governor’s ‘all of the above’ energy strategy and his economic development goals, since it would have brought all sorts of business, jobs, and companies to the Commonwealth.”
Sullivan concluded, “Needless to say, we cannot agree to the amendment. We’ll easily pass this bill next session, and I suspect Governor Spanberger will sign it.”
Sullivan may be right that it will take a new administration before Virginia gets serious about meeting its energy challenges – if it does even then – but this session needn’t have ended in a partisan stalemate and near-zero progress. Most of the bills the governor vetoed or gutted were passed with the help of Republicans, making Youngkin’s actions less of a rebuke to Democrats than to the members of his own party who were simply trying to do their job. The results, sadly, are bad for everyone.
This article originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury on April 1, 2025.
UPDATE May 8: As expected, the General Assembly rejected the governor’s destructive amendments to the bills described. The governor then vetoed all but one. The exception is HB2346 from Hernandez and SB1100 from Hashmi, establishing a pilot program in Dominion territory for virtual power plants (VPPs). That one has been signed into law, along with Tran’s HB2266.
People line up in front of a Tesla Service Center to protest Elon Musk. Rockville, Maryland. Photo by G. Edward Johnson via Wikimedia
It was only a decade ago that a governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, was embroiled in a corruption scandal resulting from his acceptance of $177,000 in gifts and loans from a businessman in exchange for promoting the company’s diet supplement. The quid pro quo struck many people at the time as more tacky than corrupt; and indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually overturned his conviction on the grounds that using the governor’s mansion as a promotion venue wasn’t a sufficiently “official” act.
These days, the kerfuffle raised by the exposure of McDonnell’s little side hustle feels almost quaint. It also feels like foreshadowing, anticipating President Donald Trump’s use of the White House lawn as a Tesla showroom to thank Elon Musk for his hard work in destroying American government.
In the present-day version, though, it does not appear the carmaker’s $290 million in election spending played a role beyond instilling a warm fuzzy feeling in the bosom of the president. So while ordinary people may be appalled, and Democratic leaders like Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia are demanding an investigation, it’s hard to see the Supreme Court batting an eye. Is it so different from Justice Clarence Thomas accepting a luxury RV from a wealthy businessman?
Trading favors among the rich and powerful seems to be how it works in Trump’s America. Anyone who isn’t using his public position for his own gain is a chump. And while the laws prohibiting corruption are still on the books, Trump has ensured there are no federal prosecutors left with the independence to go after his allies.
Besides which, in the unlikely event your cupidity actually gets you convicted of a crime, the president has a history going back to his first term of handing out pardons to MAGA loyalists regardless of their crimes. Sufficiently demonstrating fealty to the president may be enough to secure your place in his No Grifter Left Behind program. Frankly, the judge who sentences you has more to fear from the president than you do.
By design, Trump’s attacks on American government, civil society and the world order have been so various and extreme as to leave opponents breathless. The resistance looks like a team of firefighters trying to deal with a large and very determined pack of juvenile arsonists.
Yet, of all the fires now burning, Trump’s attacks on the rule of law might pose the single greatest threat to the country’s stability and prosperity. Trump’s firing of government watchdogs, blacklisting a law firm that represented his enemies, and defying judges who rule against him are unprecedented in modern U.S. history. Our economy as well as our democracy was built on a system of checks and balances that made corruption the newsworthy exception rather than the dismal norm.
This was brought home to me in a conversation I had recently with a rancher in, of all places, Patagonia, at the far tip of South America. (When the going gets tough, the not-very-tough go hiking.) The owner of an 8,000-acre estancia turned out to have been involved in Chilean politics for 30 years, representing his region in the Chilean Congress. He didn’t know much about what was going on in the U.S., he admitted, but he felt encouraged by the news that Trump was cutting waste and fraud.
Okay, yes, I guffawed, but I was also struck that, with all the turmoil and crises going on in Washington, the only thing that survived a distance of 6,000 miles was Trump’s spin on his actions. Still, you hardly need to go to Chile to find people who accept Trump’s through-the-looking-glass framing of his dismantling of government institutions.
A pro-Trump family member, as big-hearted a guy as you will ever meet, told me he was sad that people in developing countries would go without food and medicine as a result of Trump shutting down foreign aid, but it had to be done “because of all the fraud.” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin is also an ardent supporter of Trump’s ever-expanding trims, last week defending the slashing of thousands of federal workers’ jobs as “dislocation” necessary to “gain efficiencies and reduce costs in the federal government.”
That’s the power of language. What Trump calls fraud and corruption turns out to be grants for things he doesn’t like, but his choice of words makes it seem he is fighting for the kind of honest government he is actually working to undermine.
It’s not wrong for people to worry about corruption, though, whether it is the imaginary kind Trump invokes or the real kind we will face when no watchdogs are left to hold his appointees accountable. Whether conservative or socialist, corruption in government leads to a siphoning off of public dollars, the erosion of social cohesion and trust, economic distortion and lower levels of investment in education and health care. Sure, some businesses are going to prosper when they can evade laws with just a well-placed application of palm grease, but economists find that overall, official corruption is a drag on a country’s economic performance. Not to mention, most of us see it as fundamentally unAmerican.
But has Trump actually launched the U.S. on a slippery slide down the corruption index? I talked over my concerns with a fellow Mercury contributor, Michael O’Grady. O’Grady is a research economist and Ph.D. candidate at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies public policy and administration, and he thinks the situation is even worse than I suggest.
Like many scholars, he feels the face-off between Trump and the courts has brought the U.S. to what he calls “the biggest inflection point since at least U.S. v. Nixon, and maybe since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.” And, he points out, if Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was really uncovering fraud in government contracts, we should have seen cases being referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
Meanwhile, he says, the firing of government watchdogs and the politicization of the federal government will have real consequences on people’s lives, affecting everything from housing costs to the stock market. When government oversight lapses, corporations tend to engage in market manipulation and tax evasion. To take one example, last summer the DOJ sued a company called RealPage for allowing competing landlords to collude in setting apartment rents. We aren’t likely to see that kind of action from the Trump administration.
O’Grady doesn’t see how this can end well, and neither do I. I’d like to think that in the U.S., our fifty state governments could provide some kind of pushback against malfeasance at the federal level. But I’m aware that’s delusional. For one thing, my own experience is that federal bureaucrats are saints compared to state and local officials, who have much more motivation to swap favors with people and businesses in their communities. And for another, Republican fealty to Trump is so strong that it’s hard to imagine a state attorney general from his own party taking action even if state laws were implicated. Recall that it wasn’t a state prosecutor who indicted Bob McDonnell; it was the U.S. Department of Justice.
I’d have much less concern over Democrats rallying around a party leader if roles were reversed. Loyalty is a conservative value, not a liberal one. Recall how Democratic governor Ralph Northam was called on to resign by members of his own party over a blackface incident. Democrats eat their own.
For now, at least, one bulwark against Trumpism remains: an independent, non-partisan press committed to reporting the facts and holding government officials accountable. There has never been as great a need for unbiased journalism as there is today, or more need for ordinary Americans to support it.
O’Grady reminded me of the (probably apocryphal) story of Benjamin Franklin describing the young United States as “a republic, if you can keep it.” Whether we keep it now depends on us.
This article was published in the Virginia Mercury on March 25, 2025.
This was supposed to be the year the General Assembly did something about data centers. Two years ago, it crushed the first tentative efforts to regulate construction, choosing instead to goose the pace. Last year it again killed all attempts at regulation, punting in favor of a study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC).
JLARC’s report was released in December to a soundtrack of alarm bells ringing. Unconstrained data center growth is projected to triple electricity demand in Virginia over just the next 15 years, outstripping the state’s ability to build new generation and driving up utility bills for everyone. On top of the energy problem, the industry’s growth is taxing water supplies and spawning billions of dollars’ worth of transmission infrastructure projects needed to serve the industry.
Yet the most popular strategy for addressing the biggest energy crisis ever to face Virginia is to continue the status quo – that is to say, to keep the data center sprawl sprawling. Of the two dozen or so bills introduced this year that would put restrictions on growth, manage its consequences, or impose transparency requirements, barely a handful have survived to the session’s halfway point this week.
The surviving initiatives address important aspects of local siting, ratepayer protection and energy, though they will face efforts to further weaken them in the second half of the session. Even if the strongest bills pass, though, they will not rein in the industry, provide comprehensive oversight or address serious resource adequacy problems.
HB1601 from Del. Josh Thomas, D-Gainesville, is the most meaningful bill to address the siting of data centers. It requires site assessments for facilities over 100 MW to examine the sound profile of facilities near residential communities and schools. It also allows localities to require site assessments to examine effects on water and agricultural resources, parks, historic sites or forests. In addition, before approving a rezoning, special exception or special use permit, the locality must require the utility that is serving the facility to describe any new electric generating units, substations and transmission voltage that will be required. Existing sites that are seeking to expand by less than 100 MW are excluded. HB1601 passed the House 57-40, with several Republicans joining all Democrats in favor.
SB1449 from Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, is similar to HB1601 but does not include the language on electricity and transmission lines. SB1449 passed the Senate 33-6.
Typically, when the House and the Senate each pass similar but different bills, they each try to make the other chamber’s bill look like theirs, then work out the differences in a conference committee. If that happens here, the House will amend SB1449 to conform it to HB1601 before passing it. The Senate might amend the House bill to match its own. In this case, however, Ebbin’s bill never had the language on electricity and transmission. It’s possible the Senate will recognize that HB1601 is better and pass it as is rather than watering it down to match SB1449; otherwise, the bills will have to go to conference.
Only two ratepayer protection bills passed. SB960 from Sen. Russet Perry, D-Leesburg, is the better of the two. It requires the SCC to determine if non-data center customers are subsidizing data centers or incurring costs for new infrastructure that is needed only because of data center demand; if so, the SCC is to take steps to eliminate or minimize the cross-subsidy. The bill incorporates a similar measure from Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland. It passed the Senate by a healthy 26-13, but leaves the question of why those 13 Republicans voted against a bill designed to protect residential customers from higher rates.
Over in the House, HB2084 from Del. Irene Shin, D-Herndon, started out similar to Perry’s bill but was weakened in committee to the point that its usefulness is questionable. It now merely requires the SCC to use its existing authority during a regular proceeding sometime in the next couple of years to determine whether Dominion and Appalachian Power are using reasonable customer classifications in setting rates, and if not, whether new classifications are reasonable. It passed the House 61-35. Hopefully the House will see the wisdom of adopting SB960 as the better bill, but again, these could end up going to conference.
The only data center legislation related to energy use to have made it this far is SB1047 from Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas. It requires utilities to implement demand-response programs for customers with a power demand of more than 25 MW, which could help relieve grid constraints. It passed the Senate 21-17.
The data center industry and its labor allies were successful in killing all other data center initiatives, including the only bills that dealt with the energy issues head-on. This included legislation that basically called on the industry to live up to its sustainability claims. SB1196, Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville and HB2578, Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, would have conditioned state tax subsidies on data centers meeting conditions for energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy and cleaner back-up generators. Sullivan’s bill also set up pathways for data center developers to meet the energy requirements and work towards cleaner operations.
None of this mattered. Republicans were united in their determination not to put anything in the way of continued data center sprawl, and they were joined by a number of Democrats who were persuaded that requiring corporations to act responsibly threatens construction jobs. HB2578 died in subcommittee, with Democrats Charniele Herring and Alfonso Lopez joining Republicans in voting to table the bill. SB1196 was never even granted a committee hearing.
Yet the idea of adding conditions to the tax subsidies is not dead. Senator Deeds put in a budget amendment to secure the efficiency requirements that had been in his bill. His amendment takes on a House budget amendment requested by Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, that extends the tax subsidies out to 2050 from their current sunset date of 2035, with no new conditions whatsoever.
It seems like a reasonable ask for the tech industry to meet some efficiency requirements in exchange for billions of dollars in subsidies and the raiding of Virginia’s water and energy supplies. Indeed, the industry could have had it worse. Senator Stuart had introduced a bill to end the tax subsidies Virginia provides to data centers altogether. Alas, like several other more ambitious bills intended to bring accountability to the data center industry, it failed to even get a hearing in committee.
Now, maybe Virginia will get lucky – or unlucky, depending on how you look at it – and the data center boom will go bust. The flurry of excitement around China’s bid to provide artificial intelligence at a fraction of the cost of American tech joins other news items about efficiency breakthroughs that could mean the tech industry needs far fewer data centers, using far less energy and water. That would be good for the planet, not to mention Virginia ratepayers, but it would leave a lot of empty buildings, upend local budgets, and strand potentially billions of dollars in new generation and transmission infrastructure. A little preparation and contingency planning would seem to have been the wiser course.
Failed bills.
Most bills to regulate data centers never made it out of committee, but the problems of data center sprawl and resource consumption will only increase in coming years. In addition to the energy legislation from Senator Deeds and Delegate Sullivan, here are other bills we may see come back again in another form.
SB1448 from Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland, would have required any new resource-intensive facility (defined as drawing more than 100 MW or requiring more than 500,000 gallons of water per day) to get a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ is to permit the facility only “upon a finding that such facility will have no material adverse impact on the public health or environment.” The impacts are broadly defined and include transmission lines and cumulative impacts from multiple facilities in the same area. The bill reported from Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources but was then sent to Finance and Appropriations, never to be heard from again.
A bill from Del. Thomas would have required localities to change their zoning ordinances to designate data centers as industrial uses and to consider changes in how they evaluate data center siting, especially around noise impacts. HB2026 was tabled unanimously in subcommittee.
HB2712 from Del. Ian Lovejoy, D-Manassas, would have authorized a locality that is weighing a permit application for a data center to consider factors like water use, noise and power usage, and to require the applicant to provide studies and other information. It lost on a bipartisan subcommittee vote.
Lovejoy’s HB1984 would have required data centers to be located at least one-quarter mile from parks, schools and residential neighborhoods. It was killed on an 8-0 subcommittee vote.
A third Lovejoy bill, HB2684, would have required Dominion to file a plan with the SCC every two years to address the risk that infrastructure built to serve data centers might become stranded assets that other customers would be left paying for. It was never docketed.
A bill that did not mention data centers but originated with local fights over the siting of transmission lines needed to serve them was Roem’s SB1049. It would have prohibited new overhead transmission lines unless the SCC determined that putting them underground was not in the public interest. It lost in a 4-11 vote in committee.
This article (minus the section on failed bills) was published in the Virginia Mercury on February 10, 2025.
Virginia’s desire to be a leader on clean energy has faced numerous challenges over the past few years, coming from many different directions. Landowners who want utility-scale solar on their rural property face increasingly hostile county boards, with no provisions for relief.
School systems, local governments and commercial customers that want solar on their buildings have been blocked by expensive new interconnection requirements imposed by Dominion Energy. And the clock is ticking on net metering, the program that gives customers with solar panels a one-for-one credit on surplus electricity they feed back into the grid.
The solar industry is used to struggling for every foothold it gets in Virginia, but these new challenges come at a particularly bad time. With data center growth creating huge pressures on our electricity supply, Virginia needs more clean energy in every size range, and needs it now. Any coherent approach to meeting demand has to include removing unnecessary barriers to both utility-scale and distributed solar. That both are facing more barriers, rather than less, suggests the state still hasn’t figured out what it takes to be an energy leader.
None of the legislation at the General Assembly this year addresses this fundamental failing head-on, but several bills took on some of the barriers. In particular, bills focused on rooftop solar and other distributed generation have made it to halftime in decent shape.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of bills designed to bring more utility-scale solar to Virginia, including siting legislation developed by the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation (CEUR) and carried by Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, and Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville. The legislation sought to tackle the biggest obstacle to unleashing gigawatts of clean, low-cost energy across Virginia: local governments that deny permits to solar and energy storage facilities, acceding to neighbors who don’t want to have to look at solar panels where they once saw fields and forests. (Anti-solar fossil fuel front groups don’t help matters either.)
On the House side, Sullivan’s HB2126 was killed in a subcommittee vote. Senate Bill 1190 made it to the Senate Floor but was defeated when two Democrats, Senators Russet Perry and Lashrecse Aird, joined with all Republicans in siding with localities that did not want to cede any part of their authority over land use. The bill would have pressured local governments, but it did not strip them of authority. They would have been required to include in their comprehensive plans targets for energy production and energy efficiency (the latter an interesting addition). In evaluating specific projects, localities would have had to consider advisory opinions that would be issued by a new interagency panel of experts recruited from Virginia universities. Perhaps of greatest import, localities would no longer have been allowed to adopt ordinances that ban all projects outright or place unreasonable restrictions on them, or deny permits “without a reasonable basis.”
The Senate bill “incorporated” (by which is meant, it jettisoned the provisions of) another solar siting bill from Sen. Jeremy McPike, D-Woodbridge, and a separate piece of legislation from Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, D-Richmond, that would have prescribed rigorous best practices for utility solar projects.
Over in the House, however, a companion to VanValkenburg’s bill from Del. Candi Munyon King, D-Dumfries, HB2438, passed the chamber 48-46. The bill came from the solar industry itself, proposing to adopt the highest standards for itself. So why wasn’t the vote unanimous? Go figure.
Bills advancing small-scale solar move forward
Legislation promoting distributed generation did not go through the CEUR pipe, but these bills show some wear and tear of their own. A loose-knit group of advocates under the banner of the Equitable Solar Alliance came in with a package of three bills, all of which remain alive after favorable committee votes.
HB1883, from Del. Katrina Callsen, D-Charlottesville, increases the tiny carve-out for distributed solar that is part of Dominion’s obligation to buy renewable energy certificates in compliance with Virginia’s renewable portfolio standard. The bill has been pared down since it was introduced but still makes several changes benefiting behind-the-meter solar and battery storage systems under 3 MW. The distributed generation carve-out, currently 1% of the renewable standard target, will get bumped to 3% in 2026 and 5% in 2028, with further changes possible later if the the State Corporation Commission (SCC) decides on it. Third-party power purchase agreements, which had been restricted to commercial projects, will now be available to residential customers. And whereas currently only projects smaller than 1 MW can earn up to $75 per renewable energy certificate, the bill now makes that amount available for projects up to 3 MW. (Certificates for larger solar projects are effectively capped at $45 per certificate.)
Callsen’s bill also raises to 600 MW, from 200 MW currently, the target for solar on previously developed sites. It also specifies that 65% of distributed projects qualifying for the Virginia Clean Economy Act’s 1,100 MW target for solar under 3 MW should be developed by non-utility providers.
HB1883 passed the House unanimously. Its Senate companion, SB1040from Valkenburg, made it through committee without Republican support but passed the Senate 26-14.
Two other bills, HB2346 from Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, and SB1100 from Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, establish a pilot program for virtual power plants (VPPs), which aggregate customer solar and storage resources and demand response capabilities. In concept, a VPP allows a utility to pay customers to let it make use of these capabilities, enabling it to meet peak demand without having to increase generation. (If you are familiar with programs in which your utility pays you to let it cycle your air conditioner off for a few minutes at a time on hot summer days, you have the idea.) VPPs are becoming popular in other states as a way to subsidize customers’ investments in things like battery storage, while reducing utility costs and saving money for all ratepayers.
The original hope for this legislation was ambitious: a vision of energy democracy that would reshape the way utilities interact with residential and commercial customers and make the most efficient use of new technologies like electric vehicle charging and smart appliances. The financial benefits to customers could even be enough to offset the costs of investments like home batteries, potentially offering a way for rooftop solar to remain affordable even if the SCC guts Virginia’s net metering program.
But, this being Virginia, the legislation making its way through committee calls only for pilot programs that utilities design and largely control, although they will be voluntary for participants. After 2028, however, the SCC may create permanent programs. SB1100 passed the Senate 22-18. HB2346 passed the House 71-27.
The third bill in the package, HB2356 from Del. Candi Munyon King, establishes an apprenticeship program to help develop a clean energy workforce, and requires participants to be paid prevailing wages. This bill is more politically divisive than the first two, and it passed the House only on a party-line vote. A companion bill passed the Senate on a party-line vote as well. With Republicans unified in opposition, we are likely to see amendments or a veto from the governor.
A couple of other bills seek to address the costs of interconnecting small-scale solar facilities, including those on schools and government buildings. After Dominion Energy changed its rules in late 2022, customers found the cost of connecting solar facilities to the distribution grid was suddenly so high as to make it impossible to pursue projects in the affected size range.
HB2266 from Del. Kathy Tran, D-Springfield, requires the SCC to approve upgrades to the distribution system that are needed to accommodate grid-connected solar — a safeguard designed to prevent the utility from larding on costs. The utility must then spread the costs across all projects that benefit from the expanded capacity. This strikes me as a pretty elegant solution to the interconnection muddle. HB2266 passed the House 57-41.
SB1058 from Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, originally would have simply exempted public schools from interconnection costs. It was amended to look like Tran’s bill and then passed the Senate 21-18.
Finally, a bill from Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, would allow local governments to include in their land development ordinances a requirement that certain non-residential applicants install solar on a portion of a parking lot. HB2037 passed the House on a 64-32 vote and will now go to the Senate Committee on Local Government.
This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on February 3, 2025. It has been updated to reflect the most recent General Assembly votes.
For low-cost electricity, Virginia needs renewable energy — not gas plants
Photo credit Stiller Beobachter via Wikimedia.
Southwest Virginia leaders are up in arms over electricity rate hikes. It’s understandable: Appalachian Power, which serves residents in 34 counties, has raised rates by over 46% since July 2021, and its rates now rank among the state’s highest. Last March, it sought another increase that would have resulted in residents paying $10.22 more per month on average. Although the State Corporation Commission’s November ruling granted APCo a much smaller rate hike, customers are raising a ruckus about the high bills.
Complaints have reached such a fever pitch that Del. James Morefield, a Republican who represents parts of five southwest Virginia counties, filed legislation this month to cap the rates APCo can charge. Over in the Senate, another southwest Virginia Republican, Travis Hackworth, has launched a direct attack on APCo’s monopoly: His legislation would allow any residential customer of APCo whose monthly bill exceeds 125% of the statewide average to buy electricity from another provider.
These bills might be more performative than serious. But in this case, legislators themselves are at least partly to blame. In 2023, another Southwest Virginia Republican, Israel O’Quinn, drove legislation that excused APCo from having to write integrated resource plans (IRPs) – those pesky documents that tell regulators how a utility plans to comply with state laws and meet the needs of customers at least cost. Both Hackworth and Morefield voted for the bill.
In 2024, O’Quinn also championed legislation that allows APCo to charge customers for costs of developing a small modular nuclear reactor. Hackworth also supported this new burden on ratepayers, though Morefield did not.
This year, the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation is promoting legislation to reform the IRP process, including making APCo file plans again. That may help. Fundamentally, though, the primary reason APCo’s customers are paying so much is that the utility remains so dependent on fossil fuels. As of the date of its 2022 IRP, APCo relied on coal and fracked gas for 85% of its electricity. Prices for both fuels spiked so high in 2021 and 2022 that utilities were left with huge bills to pay.
In 2022, APCo told the SCC it had spent an extra $361 million over budget on gas and coal. Virginia law allows fuel costs to be passed through to customers, so the SCC couldn’t prevent bills from rising to cover the outlay. Instead, the SCC allowed the company to recover the excess fuel costs from its customers over two years by charging roughly $20 more per month to residents, spreading out the pain but also extending it. O’Quinn’s 2023 legislation let the company finance the costs, which meant customers pay interest on top of the fuel costs.
APCo was not the only utility passing along high gas costs. Dominion Energy Virginia also got caught off guard and asked to spread its excess fuel costs out over three years, adding an average of $15 to residential customer bills. Dominion customers are not happy either.
Gas prices have since dropped, and the remarkably short memories of legislators have led them to think they will now stay low forever. Having learned precisely nothing, they also insist that the only way to ensure an adequate supply of reliable, low-cost energy to serve the data center boom is for Virginia to increase its reliance on gas instead of transitioning away from it.
The evidence does not support this fantasy. Contrary to Republican orthodoxy, new renewable energy is cheaper than new fossil fuel generation. That’s why in 2024, 94% of all new power capacity in the U.S. came from solar, batteries and wind energy. Fossil gas made up just 4% of new generating capacity. Yes, many states are now proposing to build new gas plants, so the trend could reverse, but that’s only because the rush of data centers and new manufacturing has made large users desperate for more energy at any cost.
It’s true that solar, Virginia’s least-cost resource, only produces electricity when the sun shines. But even adding battery storage to solar energy, allowing it to serve as baseload power or a peak power resource, still results in lower electricity costs than the gas combustion plants that are used to produce electricity at peak times. (In Virginia, Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, has introduced legislation to expand storage targets for Dominion and APco, including for long-duration storage.)
The era of low-cost renewable energy is fairly new, but it is already impacting utility bills across the country. Virginia used to boast of its low rates; now there are 22 states with lower residential electricity rates than Virginia. And of those, U.S. Energy Information data shows that all but five generate a higher percentage of their electricity from renewable energy.
With data centers proliferating across Virginia unchecked, utility rates are under even more pressure now. The Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission data center study, released last month, warns that ratepayer costs will inevitably rise under an “unrestrained growth” scenario that reflects current policy.
It’s too early to tell whether any of the many bills to protect residential ratepayers and put guardrails on data center development will pass. For now, the governor and many Republicans seem to prefer to use the crisis to crush the transition to renewable energy. As in past years, Republicans have introduced bills to repeal the Virginia Clean Economy Act or undermine it in variousways.
Making solar more difficult and expensive to build is also part of the strategy. The party that used to stand for individual liberty and personal property rights now instead champions local governments that deny farmers the ability to put solar on their land.
Talking up fossil fuels and dumping on solar may make for good politics with the folks in rural districts. That doesn’t mean it’s in their interests. If high utility bills are what really matter, legislators should be pushing renewable energy and storage, not expensive gas plants.
This article appeared in the Virginia Mercury on January 20, 2025. Interestingly, today writers at two other publications, Cardinal News and Bacon’s Rebellion, took up one aspect of this topic that I only alluded to, the fact that Virginia “imports” more electricity than any other state. Virginia politicians have been exercised on this topic for as long as I’ve been writing, and it has always struck me as strange. It’s not like we need to worry about the political ramifications of a trade imbalance with Pennsylvania.
But as Duane Yancey noted, those electrons coming into Virginia from elsewhere in PJM do tend to be dirty. That’s especially the case for APCo, which operates coal plants in West Virginia and has been ordered by the West Virginia Public Utilities Commission to run those plants at a 69% capacity factor, regardless of the economics. I have not been able to find out anywhere the percentage of APCo’s generation that comes from coal as opposed to gas, but the West Virginia PUC order unquestionably means APCo’s Virginia customers are paying too much.
One other thing to note on the topic of imports: when I wrote that APCo’s resource mix is 85% fossil fuels, that did not mean the other 15% is renewable. In fact, most of the rest is purchased power, meaning mostly fossil fuels also.
By the way, readers may notice a few discrepancies among the articles, which is worth explaining. Both Yancey and James Bacon cite figures for Virginia electricity rates and how they compare to other states that are different from my numbers. The reason is that they are working from combined rates for residential, commercial and industrial, where I’m using residential only. Virginia’s combined rate compares more favorably to those of other states than does its residential rate because our commercial and industrial rates are lower.
Virginia’s low commercial rates have been a major draw for data centers. But if you’re a residential customer right now, maybe that’s pretty cold comfort.
A data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Photo by Hugh Kenny, Piedmont Environmental Council.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a politician in possession of elected office must be in want of large economic development projects.
It does not seem to matter that in the case of Virginia, this compulsion is catapulting us into a costly energy crisis that will raise utility bills for residents; that the public shows no love for this industry; and that the benefits to be gained (mostly in the form of construction jobs) will continue only as long as new projects follow one another in perpetuity until the landscape is consumed by concrete and transmission wires.
To the credit of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), however, it has tried to sound the alarm. JLARC’s report, “Data Centers in Virginia,” released December 9, describes the challenges facing the state as a result of the massive, ongoing buildout of this astoundingly resource-intensive industry. Many of JLARC’s conclusions seem way too sanguine to me, especially around risks to regional water supplies and air pollution from diesel generators, and the policy options it offers don’t always hit the mark.
But on the threat to Virginia’s energy supply, JLARC is blunt: Building enough infrastructure to provide electricity for even just half the data centers projected for development across the state will be difficult, requiring far more generating facilities than are under development today.
As for the current policy of allowing completely unconstrained data center growth – indeed, subsidizing it as we do now with tax exemptions to the tune of nearly a billion dollars per year – JLARC notes we are headed for a tripling of the state’s electricity usage over just the next decade and a half. Meeting that much demand, says the report, would be “very difficult to achieve,” even if the state jettisoned the carbon emission limits imposed by the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA).
For those of you unfamiliar with the vocabulary of bureaucrats, “very difficult to achieve” is a term of art that translates roughly as, “This is nuts.”
It might have been better if JLARC had employed the vernacular, because as it is, Virginia’s elected leaders will probably take “very difficult” to be a sort of heroic challenge, like beating the Russians to the moon, when what JLARC means is more like achieving lasting peace in the Middle East.
One problem is cost. The law of supply and demand dictates that a massive increase in energy demand that isn’t matched by an equally massive increase in energy supply will lead to higher prices for all customers. Yet new energy projects cost money, and under traditional ratemaking principles that also means higher rates for everyone. The result is that it will be impossible to protect residents from higher utility bills, unless changes are made to the way costs get allocated.
(Figuring out how to protect residents and other non-data center customers is currently a focus of the State Corporation Commission, which held a technical conference on data centers on December 16th. Judging by what the experts it convened had to say, the SCC has its work cut out for it.)
Even if ordinary residents could be protected, the bigger problem is that increasing the supply of energy to keep up with soaring data center demand will not be easy, fast or cheap. JLARC warns that providing enough low-cost energy requires that gas plants, solar facilities, battery projects and transmission lines all be built at a pace Virginia has never achieved before, along with onshore wind farms that have never found takers here (though that may be changing), offshore wind projects that currently lack a pathway to development, and starting ten years from now, new nuclear plants in the form of small modular reactors (SMRs) that haven’t yet achieved commercial viability.
Moreover, most of that new generation and transmission will have to overcome local opposition. On the gas side, Dominion Energy’s plans for a new plant in Chesterfield County face fierce resistance from the local community, which argues it has been burdened by fossil fuel pollution for too many years already. Why should residents suffer to benefit Big Tech?
Clean energy also struggles at the local level. Industry representatives told members of the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation (CEUR) on December 17 that more than 30 localities have effectively banned utility solar projects within their borders. Rural leaders openly take pride in their prejudice against solar. Yet legislators are squeamish about overriding local siting authority, even when counties that welcome data centers turn down the solar facilities needed to power them.
And of course, generation projects involve willing landowners. When it comes to transmission lines that are forced on property owners through eminent domain – many of which will be needed only to carry power to data centers – the public backlash is typically even greater.
Given so much local resistance to new generation and transmission, the fact that so many legislators nonetheless remain wedded to the data center buildout testifies to the ability of the human mind to compartmentalize.
For legislators who care about climate, JLARC has more bad news: Fully half the new data center growth coming to Virginia is slated to occur in the territories of rural electric cooperatives, which are largely unaffected by VCEA limits. In addition, very large customers of Dominion and APCo have their own VCEA loophole: if they meet certain requirements, they can leave their utility to buy power from competitive service providers. Thus, if Virginia is serious about decarbonization, it will have to tighten, not loosen, the VCEA.
The report comes with some caveats. JLARC used a team of consultants to model approaches to meeting the supply gaps, and a lot of assumptions go into the consultant’s report without a lot of details. The consultant group says it chose its mix of resources with a view to least cost, but it acknowledges that different assumptions would change the results. It may not have accounted for the fact that renewable energy and storage prices continue to drop; meanwhile, fossil gas prices are so volatile that the one certain thing you can say about any price forecast is that it will be wrong. Moreover, it appears the effects of re-entering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative were not modeled; nor were the social costs of carbon, both of which favor zero-emission sources over fossil fuel plants.
Where there are details, some beg to be questioned. Both the consultants and JLARC take for granted that a shortage of generation in Virginia can be made up by importing electricity from other states. An easy way out, sure, but it works only if other states are producing a surplus. Unless tech companies are required to secure their own carbon-free energy supply, there is no way to guarantee imports will be available. Contrary to one of JLARC’s suggestions, then, retail choice should not be curtailed. The better move is to expand shopping options for large customers, so long as the electricity they buy is zero-carbon.
Even more suspect is the idea that, in order to comply with the VCEA, all gas plants will convert to burning green hydrogen in 2045. The report might as well say, “and then a miracle occurs.” A miracle would be more likely.
However unserious, hydrogen as a placeholder for any hoped-for technology that isn’t available today demonstrates the fundamental problem confronting Virginia’s damn-the-torpedoes approach to data centers. A refusal to put constraints on the buildout means taking a leap into the unknown and hoping something will happen to save us from the consequences of our profligacy.
And sure, maybe it will work out. Legislators tend to be optimists, and they are already betting on bright, shiny objects like SMRs, fusion, and anything else not close enough for its costs and drawbacks to be fully evident. (Not that I’m immune, but personally I’m betting on advanced geothermal, which is not just bright and shiny but already here.) And hey, for all we know, artificial intelligence, the technology most culpable for today’s energy crisis, might even produce some unexpected new energy source.
Or it might not. Given that most of the data center buildout will happen in just the next five years, we might need an actual miracle.
On the flip side, maybe new technology will reduce the energy demand of data centers by orders of magnitude. That would be a fantastic outcome from the standpoint of climate, water and energy — though it would end the construction gravy train in Virginia and leave a wasteland of empty concrete warehouses and stranded energy infrastructure.
Either way, the unconstrained buildout of data centers has handed Virginia leaders a problem that is, in the parlance of JLARC, “very difficult” indeed.
A version of this article originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury on December 24, 2024.
If Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly are aligned on one thing, it’s their enthusiasm for bringing more data centers to the commonwealth. Where they part ways is in how to provide enough electricity to power them. Youngkin and most Republican legislators advocate for an “all of the above” approach that includes fossil gas as well as renewables; Democrats are committed to staying the course on the transition to zero-carbon energy, with a near-term emphasis on low-cost solar.
Data centers are making the transition harder, but so is local resistance to building solar. General Assembly members mostly understand the connection, leading to a lively debate in last year’s legislative session over whether to override some local permit denials for solar projects – and if so, how to ensure the localities still have some say. Though none of the legislative proposals moved forward last year, the topic has become a central one for the recently revamped Commission on Electric Utility Regulation (CEUR).
In January, the General Assembly is likely to consider legislation to override local solar permit denials in some cases, such as last year’s HB636 from Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, or another approach that would break the solar logjam. It remains to be seen, however, whether legislators will take any action on data centers.
The problem has grown only more urgent as localities have continued to approve new data center proposals with little thought given to where and how they will get the power to serve them.
Ann Bennett, Sierra Club Virginia’s data center chair, has been tracking data center permit applications across the state. She counts at least two dozen Virginia counties with data centers under development, including rural areas far outside the industry’s stronghold in suburban Northern Virginia. By Bennett’s calculation, data centers existing and under development in Virginia will consume at least 100,000 acres.
Even as local governments woo data centers, many have become hostile to solar development. A presentation from the Weldon Cooper Center at the University of Virginia, which tracks solar permitting across Virginia, shows that far more local permits for solar facilities have been denied or withdrawn than were approved this year.
In some cases, county boards that approve data center development also reject permits for solar farms. Sometimes, it happens even at the same meeting.
In an effort to understand this paradox, I watched footage from two county board meetings in Hanover County, one in March of this year and the other in September. At the March meeting, county supervisors approved a 1,200-acre data center complex for an area north of Ashland. Later the same night, they denied a permit for a utility-scale solar project.
The parcels of land slated to be developed for the data center complex “included wooded areas, recently-logged areas, open fields, wetlands, ponds and stream corridors.” The developer plans to build about 30 data centers on the property, each 110 feet tall (about 10 stories), with setbacks from the property line ranging from 150 to 250 feet. The complex will require 700,000 gallons per day of cooling water. When fully developed, the data centers are expected to total a staggering 2,400 megawatts (MW) of power capacity, not far short of what all of Loudoun County had in 2022. There was no discussion of where so much electricity would come from.
Public testimony was overwhelmingly negative. The objections echoed those that have been widely reported in response to projects such as the Prince William Digital Gateway: noise, light, a massive increase in truck traffic, secrecy surrounding the project, air pollution from diesel back-up generators.
Yet the Hanover supervisors voted unanimously in favor of the project. It came down to money: the developer promised a tax benefit to the county over 20 years of $1.8 billion, plus upfront cash for road improvements and a $100,000 donation to a park. Supervisor Jeff Stoneman, who represents the Beaverdam district where the complex will be located, acknowledged his constituents’ concerns but noted that the revenue would be a “game-changer for this community.”
Even for me, as thoroughly aware as I am of all the downsides of data center sprawl, the negative impacts on communities, the risks to our water and energy security, the possibility that folks will be left with nothing but regrets – well, I just have to say: It’s really hard to argue with $1.8 billion. Rural leaders see Loudoun County raking in revenue from data centers, letting it cut taxes for everyone else. Why wouldn’t they want in on that?
As I noted before, though, there was no discussion of how or where the enormous amount of electricity needed to power the data centers would be generated. This disconnect was underscored later in the same meeting when the supervisors voted to reject a 20 MW solar project on 100 acres of a 315-acre site, in the same district as the data center complex they had just approved.
It was especially hard to understand the denial of this particular permit. Supervisors agreed the project met all the terms of the county’s solar ordinance, including provisions for the use of native grasses and pollinator plants. Most of the property would remain untouched. The county would receive an upfront cash contribution of $438,600, in addition to the increased tax revenue from the project. The planning commission had recommended approval. No one testified against it; a number of people, including the farmer across the street, testified in its favor.
Most of the discussion of the project focused on screening the solar panels from view. Supervisors fussed that the trees to be planted at the entrance were too small, and worried that some of the existing mature trees along the road might die off over time and not be replaced. The developer agreed to put larger trees at the entrance, and even to walk the perimeter annually to monitor the health of the trees, and replace any if they needed to.
It was no use. Two of the supervisors wanted to approve the project, but they were outvoted. Stoneman, the Beaverdam supervisor who had led the way in supporting the data center complex, said he worried that erosion might impair the creek on the property, in spite of ample natural buffers, and said he did not have a “comfort level” with the project.
Evidently, the county’s solar ordinance, adopted in 2023, was irrelevant, or at least, misleading. Such objective standards make a developer think it will be worth their while to put in months of planning, public outreach, and working with county staff. But then it turns out that what actually matters is whether a supervisor can achieve a certain undefined “comfort level.”
Six months after the approval of the 2,400 MW data center complex and the denial of the 20 MW solar facility, another solar project met the same fate, again with Stoneman making the motion to deny the permit.
This time the project would take up 250 acres of a 1,500-acre site and produce 72 MW of electricity, achieved through stacking the panels to a double height. Again, the project more than met the requirements of the county solar ordinance. The land was described as currently consisting of managed pine forest, already subject to being cut over at any time, and fully 70% of the property would be preserved for conservation. Native grasses would be planted, and sheep would do most of the vegetation management. The shepherd, Marcus Gray of Gray’s Lambscaping, attended the hearing to describe the sheep operations he runs successfully at other solar sites.
Approval of the project would earn the county roughly $1.7 million upfront, and $300,000 in annual tax revenue.
Supervisors praised the developer for “a really good application” that “respected” the ordinance and the environment, for the company’s willingness to listen and respond to concerns, and for agreeing to build stormwater basins and sacrifice buildable space in favor of conservation.
Several members of the public testified in favor of the project, but this time there were also opponents. Some of them repeated common myths about solar panel toxicity and the risk of fires. One woman stated flatly, and obviously incorrectly, that it was not possible to raise sheep at a solar farm because they would die from the heat.
The supervisors themselves did not appear ill-informed or misinformed, though one expressed surprise that Gray could successfully sell his lamb at farmers markets when buyers knew where they had been raised. (Watching, I could only laugh, because I’ve always thought of the solar-sheep synergy as a great selling point for climate-conscious carnivores.)
The concern raised most often was the risk of impacts to the nearby North Anna River, though the developer had agreed to shrink the project to accommodate a much greater setback from the river than required.
Ultimately, however, Supervisor Stoneman’s argument for denying the permit rested on a different argument. He praised the developer for doing a good job, and noted the project was in accordance with all requirements. But, he said, “Beaverdam is just a different place.” People take pride in the rural character and forest and farmland. Our job, he noted, is to protect the trees that are harvested on the site currently, something “that is as important as the power.”
“Money is not the most important thing,” concluded the man who led the cheering squad for a data center complex in his district six months earlier.
The two supervisors who had supported the smaller solar facility that had been rejected in March made their best arguments for this project as well, though they ultimately voted with Stoneman as the home supervisor. One said she supported solar “because I’m pro-farm,” and solar is a way to preserve farmland from development. The other noted that the land would certainly be developed one way or another, and the results would almost certainly be worse. Maintaining rural culture is important, he noted, but “we are approving residential development and seeing by-right development that people don’t want either.”
He also warned his colleagues, as he had in the spring, that rejecting good solar projects was going to result in legislation that would take away local authority and give it to the unelected State Corporation Commission. He said he would go along with Stoneman’s motion to deny the permit because “I assume he knows something,” but he made it clear he considered it the wrong decision, and a dangerous one for local autonomy.
Evidently, he had been paying attention to the conversation at the General Assembly.
To be clear, my sympathies lie wholeheartedly with people whose instincts are to protect the woods and fields around them. I share the one Hanover supervisor’s belief that solar is a means to preserve land from permanent development and even improve soil health and wildlife habitat, but I also understand it may be years before some people see sheep grazing under solar panels as a welcome feature in their landscape.
So I get how a rural county, having sold a little bit of its soul for $1.8 billion, might then slam the door to other development, even after applicants had worked with the county for months in good faith and done everything asked for.
It’s not a choice I’d make – I’d take solar over data centers every time – but then, no one made it the county’s responsibility to contribute electricity to the grid that serves it, much less to produce the electricity needed to run the data centers it embraced.
This article originally appeared in the Virginia Mercury on December 3, 2024.
New filing shows electricity demand would be flat without the industry
A data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Photo by Hugh Kenny, Piedmont Environmental Council.
Ever since data centers started spreading across the Virginia landscape like an invasive pest, one important question has remained unanswered: How much does the industry’s insatiable demand for energy impact other utility customers? Under pressure from the SCC, this month Dominion Energy Virginia finally provided the answer we feared: Ordinary Virginia customers are subsidizing Big Tech with both their money and their health.
Dominion previously hid data centers among the rest of its customer base, making it impossible to figure out if residents were paying more than their fair share of the costs of building new generation and transmission lines. Worse, if data centers are the reason for burning more fossil fuels, then they are also responsible for residents being subjected to pollution that is supposed to be eliminated under the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The VCEA calls for most coal plants in the state to be closed by the end of this year – which is not happening – and sets rigorous conditions before utilities can build any new fossil fuel plants.
Dominion’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), filed a year and a half ago, projected steep increases in energy demand and the cost of electricity. The utility asserted that for reliability purposes it needed to keep coal plants operating, build new methane gas generating units without meeting the VCEA’s conditions, and add small nuclear reactors beginning in 2034.
Dominion’s failure to file a plan that complied with the VCEA led to an unusual stalemate at the SCC, with the IRP neither approved nor rejected. Ignoring the foul-weather warning, Dominion filed a similarly-flawed 2024 IRP in October. None of the modeled scenarios showed coal plants closing, none met the energy efficiency requirements set by law, and all proposed building new gas and nuclear reactors, with the first small nuclear plant now pushed off to 2035.
Neither of the two filings separated out the role of data centers in driving the changes.
Even before the 2024 IRP was filed, though, the SCC directed the utility to file a supplement. It was obvious the IRP would project higher costs and increased use of fossil fuels. How much of that, the SCC demanded to know, is attributable to data centers?
A lot, as it turns out. Though Dominion continues to obfuscate key facts, the document it filed on November 15 shows future data center growth will drive up utility spending by about 20%. Dominion did not take the analysis further to show the effect on residential rates.
The filing also shows that but for new data centers, peak demand would actually decrease slightly over the next few years, from 17,353 MW this year to 17,280 MW in 2027, before beginning a gentle rise to 17,818 MW in 2034 and 18,608 MW in 2039.
In other words, without data centers, electricity use in Dominion territory would scarcely budge over the next decade. Indeed, the slight decrease over the next three years is especially interesting because near-term numbers tend to be the most reliable, with projections getting more speculative the further out you look.
Surprised? You’re not alone. We’ve heard for years that electric vehicles and building electrification will drive large increases in energy demand. When Dominion talks about the challenges of load growth, it cites these factors along with data centers, suggesting that ordinary people are part of the problem. We’re not.
Decreasing demand is a testament to the profound effect of energy efficiency, as advances in things like lighting, heat pumps and other appliances allow consumers to do more with less. Presumably, the electrification of transportation and buildings will eventually outpace gains in efficiency – no doubt reflected in the projections for slightly increasing demand over the 2030s – but the effect is still modest. Electrification is not to blame for demand growth; data centers are.
In a future without new data centers, there should be no reason for Virginia’s energy transition to get off track. Solar, offshore wind and battery storage could increasingly displace fossil fuels, clean our air and bring down greenhouse gas emissions at an orderly pace.
At least, that’s the intuitive result, though Dominion fights hard to counter it. The new filing is supposed to show what a VCEA-compliant plan would look like without data centers, but it retains assumptions from its IRPs that skew the results in favor of fossil fuels. These include limiting energy efficiency and artificially capping the amounts of solar and storage that its computer model could select. Obviously, if you won’t invest in low-cost energy efficiency and solar, you need more of something else.
Dominion’s computer model also doesn’t choose offshore wind in spite of the fact that the 2,600-MW Virginia Coastal Offshore Wind project is under construction. No doubt the higher cost of offshore wind is responsible for this counter-factual omission, but again, leaving it out requires that something else be selected. Nuclear similarly doesn’t make the cut due to cost.
By limiting or eliminating all zero-carbon options, Dominion would like you to conclude that, with or without data centers, it “needs” more gas plants.
There are other reasons to be skeptical of this manufactured result. As with the 2024 IRP itself, Dominion does not appear to have incorporated the social cost of carbon in its supposedly-VCEA-compliant plan, a mandatory consideration for any new fossil fuel generation. It’s also worth noting that Dominion will once again have to buy carbon emission allowances to run its coal and gas plants now that a court has nullified Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s illegal withdrawal of Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). (Youngkin has vowed to appeal.)
On the other hand, President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress seem likely to overturn new EPA regulations tightening pollution standards for fossil fuel plants. That would make fossil fuels appear cheaper by shifting costs onto residents in the form of worse health outcomes and climate-related weather disasters.
In addition to showing what the energy mix might look like without data centers, the SCC directed Dominion to identify which of its approximately 200 planned transmission projects were needed solely because of data centers. The 4-page table in Dominion’s supplemental filing reveals that about half of the projects are solely data center-driven, with two or three dozen more serving a mix of customers that includes data centers. I tried to add up the numbers but lost track at a billion dollars’ worth of projects needed solely for data centers – and I was still on the second page.
There is one more caveat to keep in mind. Since the SCC’s order applied only to future growth, Dominion’s new numbers don’t show the cost and energy impact of data centers in operation today. Data centers already make up a quarter of Dominion’s sales, and that growth was the main reason the utility pivoted back to fossil fuels in its 2023 IRP.
Still, most of the data center growth lies ahead of us, as does Dominion’s plans for new fossil fuel and nuclear generation. With state leaders avidly chasing more data centers in the name of economic development, ordinary Virginians are left to watch the assault on their energy supply, their water, and their environment and wonder: Is anyone going to fix this?
This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on November 26, 2024.
Power for the People VA 