When the State Corporation Commission approved Dominion Energy Virginia’s proposal to build a new, 944 MW gas peaker plant on November 25, it looked like the end of a long, drawn-out battle over the future of fossil fuels in Virginia.
The approval seemed to signal that for now, at least, the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) would not stand in the way of new gas-burning turbines in spite of their high greenhouse gas emissions. According to the SCC’s order, the surge in power demand from data centers had triggered a reliability exception to the VCEA’s ban on new fossil fuel construction.
Then suddenly, on December 16, the SCC granted the Southern Environmental Law Center’s (SELC) motion to reconsider the decision the commission had rendered just weeks before, suspending approval of Dominion’s plan. What the heck?
The SCC did not limit what it intends to reconsider, suggesting it will look anew at each of the four issues SELC raised. Since those issues cover pretty much everything about the gas plant’s approval, it’s impossible to guess what is going on.
Certainly, there are many reasons to criticize the initial approval of the Chesterfield Energy Reliability Center (CERC), beyond its climate impacts. The majority-Black community where the plant would be located suffered for decades from exposure to toxic air pollution spewing from the huge coal plant on the site. Closure of the coal plant had brought a welcome respite. Residents fear they will once again serve as a sacrifice zone for decades to come, in spite of environmental justice protections written into the VCEA.
In addition, Dominion had gamed the planning process so thoroughly that this alone might have caused the SCC to reject the proposal. Dominion had gone ahead and put in an order for the gas turbine even before soliciting proposals from third parties to address reliability concerns, as the law requires. On top of that, the company told the SCC that an independent third party had reviewed the options, which was false.
Dominion, it turned out, never had any intention of awarding the project to anyone but itself or of considering alternatives that didn’t involve fossil gas. How could the SCC reward such malfeasance?
The VCEA prioritizes the security and reliability of the power supply even over its carbon-cutting and cost-saving goals, but there are conditions attached to approving new power plants, intended to make new fossil fuel generation something of a last resort. SELC and other environmental groups had made a strong case both that Dominion failed to meet those conditions, and that there were non-fossil fuel alternatives that could provide reliability at less cost.
But if Dominion’s gaming of the process should have sparked outrage at the SCC, it also succeeded in putting the regulators in a difficult position. The mere suggestion of a future with rolling blackouts if a power company doesn’t get its way would cow any public utility commission, let alone one in a state facing an unprecedented surge in demand.
That explains the SCC’s order approving a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the gas plant Dominion swears is its only viable option. What, then, explains the about face on December 16, less than 24 hours after receiving the motion to reconsider?
Four possible errors
In its motion, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), representing Appalachian Voices, the NAACP and Mothers Out Front, argued that the SCC erred on four points around environmental justice, the cost of the gas plant compared to alternatives, the burden of proof on reliability and the legal mechanism for cost recovery.
If the SCC were to agree with any of the first three arguments, the result would require new analysis, and might even send Dominion back to the drawing board. Agreement on the fourth point, however, would only change how Dominion charges ratepayers for the cost of the project. It would require the company to put the cost into base rates instead of a new rider, making CERC potentially less profitable for the company.
This last point looks like something of a legal slam-dunk. A provision in the VCEA allows rate recovery through a rider only when a utility has met its energy efficiency targets – something all parties agree Dominion has not done.
SELC also alleged that the commission failed to ensure the development of CERC “does not have a disproportionate adverse impact on historically economically disadvantaged communities,” another statutory requirement. The SCC’s original order addressed the point but appears to have misread this section of the law. That fact alone would justify a reconsideration of the November 25 order, though it would not alter the core of the decision to approve a CPCN for the gas plant.
SELC’s other three points put CERC in greater jeopardy, if the SCC agrees.
The commission’s environmental justice analysis consisted mainly of a judgment that a gas plant would be less harmful to the surrounding Black and Hispanic community than the coal plant that was formerly on the site. This may or may not be true, but that’s not the standard. On the contrary, a minority community that has suffered decades of pollution shouldn’t be first in line for the next polluting project to come along. That “disproportionate” impact is precisely what the VCEA and the Environmental Justice Act prohibit.
If the SCC were to side with the local community on this point, it wouldn’t stop Dominion from building a gas plant, but it would require the company to find a new location.
The two final arguments attack the decision that a large gas peaker plant is the right remedy for a looming energy crisis. SELC contends that Dominion didn’t prove the cost of the gas plant is reasonable, citing the company’s deeply flawed process for considering alternatives and its failure to include fuel cost data. SELC also complains the SCC didn’t require Dominion to prove that its claimed threat to reliability could only be satisfied with a fossil fuel plant, but had merely taken the company’s word for it.
These are accurate complaints about Dominion’s flawed process and strained analysis, and compelling reasons to reject Dominion’s plan — but they were just as compelling on November 25, when the SCC issued its order granting the CPCN.
Indeed, the SCC had to both close its eyes and grasp at straws to reach the conclusions it did. For example, a footnote in the SCC’s order cites a Dominion witness’ testimony for the proposition that a Sierra Club witness had agreed a gas plant would be needed eventually. The commissioners did not take the time to find and review the Sierra Club’s testimony, which would have shown the Dominion witness had mischaracterized the evidence. Indeed, the Sierra Club’s modeling showed an alternative portfolio of clean resources would provide more energy than CERC at less cost.
But apparently, gaming the process, ignoring the law and mischaracterizing the evidence are all things Dominion is willing to do to get an expensive fossil fuel plant approved in the face of the rigorous conditions set by the VCEA.
On December 29, the SCC set a date of January 23 for Dominion to reply to the issues raised by SELC in its motion for reconsideration; presumably the commission will then set a date for a new hearing on those issues. The timeline could push a final decision on CERC out beyond the end of this year’s legislative session, making the interplay of politics and policy all the more interesting.
An aggressive legislative agenda this year will demonstrate national leadership on managing the data center buildout while delivering climate, health and economic benefits to all Virginians
Solar on schools and other public buildings reduce pressure on the grid while saving money for taxpayers. Photo courtesy of Secure Solar Futures LLC
If Virginia’s election last month was more than an unleashing of anti-Trump sentiment (and it definitely was that), it was about affordability. Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger made the cost of living the focus of her campaign, frequently mentioning high energy bills. House Democrats, whose majority has been boosted by the addition of 13 new members of their party, are also expected to focus on these bread-and-butter issues.
In Virginia, the cause of these high bills is not hard to identify: Data centers are driving up demand well beyond the available supply, and high fossil fuel prices are pinching a state that relies on natural gas for most of its electricity. Spanberger has committed to making data centers “pay their fair share,” and both she and legislators will be looking for other opportunities to lower costs.
The bad news is that adding ever more data centers across Virginia means the upward pressure on electricity prices will continue. If the governor and legislators don’t want to kick tech companies to states with spare capacity, and if the administration of President Donald Trump continues to throttle the energy supply with its war on wind and solar, lowering energy costs in the near term likely isn’t possible.
Even so, there is a lot that Spanberger and the General Assembly can do to protect residential consumers from these higher prices.
Making data centers pay their fair share means more than tweaking rate structures. Several Virginia utilities have created special rate classes for large load users like data centers. The utilities will require data center operators to sign long-term contracts committing them to paying for a large percentage of the electricity and transmission they say they need, even if they don’t end up using that much or leave the Virginia market prematurely.
These new tariffs can help protect other customers from some – though not all – of the risk involved in serving data centers, but they don’t address the “fair share” issue. The current allocation of transmission costs, with residential ratepayers picking up most of the tab for new lines that don’t benefit them, needs to change. If the SCC determines it doesn’t have authority to do that on its own, the General Assembly and Spanberger should pass legislation to make it happen.
The harder problem is how to make residents whole for rate increases that result from data centers gobbling up all available power. The supply and demand problem has been compounded by a lot of bad decisions, with plenty of blame to go around. The federal government has driven up fossil fuel prices by allowing the export of increasing amounts of natural gas, while hindering and even blocking solar and offshore wind projects that could make up the deficit.
Outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin is to blame for illegally pulling Virginia out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), removing the market incentive for Virginia utilities to increase investments in low-cost renewable energy instead of burning expensive fossil fuels. (His promotion of the false narrative that gas is “cheap” doesn’t help.)
Virginia utilities share the blame for relying too much on natural gas and high-priced electricity imported from other PJM states. And grid operator PJM is to blame for failing to approve enough new generation, including wind and solar facilities that make up the vast majority of projects waiting for approval to interconnect.
This history leaves Spanberger with a fine mess. Keeping prices in check now requires two things that can actually be accomplished during the next four years: a greater buildout of solar generation and energy storage to get more capacity on the grid; and investments in energy efficiency and rooftop solar to take pressure off the demand side.
Solve utility solar siting with agrivoltaics. Virginia needs more energy, and solar is the only source that can be built quickly. Yet one of the knottiest problems confronting the General Assembly in the past few years has been the rise of anti-solar sentiment in rural counties.
Landowners who want to lease their property for solar, or even to install arrays for their own use, find themselves stymied by opposition from neighbors who don’t like the look and are able to persuade county boards to deny permits. As we’ve seen, sometimes denial of a solar permit even follows approval of an energy-sucking data center.
Last year the General Assembly came close to passing a bill that would require solar developers to implement industry best practices. Passing legislation like that this year will address the legitimate concerns of localities around controlling erosion and maintaining native plant buffers. But more can be done to make solar look and function like a normal part of Virginia’s agricultural economy.
Already, solar facilities have become integrated with agriculture, as sheep and sometimes cattle take over vegetation management and farmers learn which crops do well growing between rows of solar arrays. It’s a trend that offers benefits to the land and the community alike. Farmers are struggling; solar can provide a stable income while protecting land from permanent development and putting much-needed energy on the grid.
Businesses are ahead of public policy on this. Virginia-based Gray’s Lambscaping manages vegetation with over 800 sheep at solar farms across the state, and the company plans to grow to over 5,000 sheep by the end of this year. Meanwhile, solar panels have proven compatible with a wide range of food crops.
Virginia should take a leading role in expanding agrivoltaics. Virginia law already recognizes the right to farm as an exception to localities’ authority over land use decisions, and this should be extended to farmers who put solar on their land, as long as they are also using the same land for traditional agricultural practices like grazing and crops.
Install solar on new public buildings and schools. Heck, put it everywhere. In the past ten years or so, Virginia’s commercial solar sector has blossomed while saving taxpayers money. To date, an estimated 150 Virginia schools have installed solar panels, saving schools about 25% on their energy bills. Solar on every sunny school rooftop would add up to more than 1,000 MW of carbon-free generation. Extend the effort to the roofs of all suitable public buildings across the state, and that number can go much higher.
Dominion and APCo have long tried to squelch competition from rooftop solar, a war that looks increasingly foolish as Virginia finds itself short on energy for all customers. Earlier this year Congress drastically accelerated the phase-out of solar tax incentives, but the savings remain available for commercial and utility-scale projects for the next two years. There is no shortage of good ideas out there to be acted upon. Spanberger and legislators should take full advantage of that opportunity to install as much solar as possible.
Battery storage at data centers does triple duty. While solar is the cheapest, cleanest, and fastest way to generate power, it needs batteries or other forms of energy storage to make it into a 24/7 resource, and storage remains relatively expensive. For tech companies, however, the calculus makes more sense.
Data centers need backup power anyway; they typically have three layers of redundancy so that they never risk losing power when the grid goes down. Today the backup power is mostly provided by massive diesel generators, sometimes three times as many as they might actually need. Most of these have no pollution controls and are therefore not supposed to run except in emergencies and for testing and maintenance. That’s sill a lot of run time — and DEQ is proposing to make matters worse by expanding the definition of “emergency” to include scheduled outages.
Some tech companies are now installing generators with selective catalytic converters that produce fewer emissions. The catch is that these can legally be used in non-emergency situations, raising the possibility that they might be used for demand-response or peak shaving. In effect, data centers would be solving the peak demand problem with one of the dirtiest forms of energy. The cumulative effect on air quality could be worrisome, and Virginia’s carbon footprint would grow at a time when the law says it should be shrinking.
What if, instead of diesel generators, data centers installed storage as their first line of defense against power outages, leaving diesel generators to be used only in the rare case of extended grid outages? Air quality would benefit, carbon emissions would decrease, and the data centers would have the backup power they need. The tech companies would pay more upfront but could be compensated by utilities for using their storage capability for grid services and demand response, lowering their draw from the grid at peak demand times.
All the data centers in Virginia today use 6 gigawatts of power. That much storage would exceed the targets set in the VCEA for Dominion and APCo combined. Even limiting the requirement to two hours of storage at new data centers would bring enough storage online quickly to eliminate the expensive demand peaks that drive the high price of energy.
Require data center operators to source their own zero-carbon electricity. Most of the tech companies have sustainability commitments that they aren’t meeting, so it isn’t asking too much of them to put them in charge of this effort. Legislation to require this as a condition of accepting Virginia’s generous tax subsidies has been defeated for the past two years. The difference this year is that rising energy prices are now affecting everyone.
Under this proposal, the zero-carbon electricity doesn’t have to come from Virginia, as long as it is available to customers here. Maybe the tech companies could even tap into their considerable influence with the Trump administration to make electricity more plentiful and affordable by reversing its war on solar and wind energy.
Why, after all, should Virginia residents sacrifice for the richest corporations in the world? If “paying their fair share” means anything, it should mean that data centers, not residents, bear the costs of making enough energy available to Virginia, and complying with our clean energy mandate.
Lower demand with energy efficiency and distributed solar. The gap between energy supply and demand does not have to be filled entirely through supply-side solutions. Lowering demand should also be part of the solution. Virginia utilities, Dominion in particular, have done a poor job of running energy efficiency programs. Looking on the bright side, though, that means plenty of opportunities remain.
House Democrats have already started work on this issue, with a focus on lowering winter heating costs for lower-income households. As reported in the Mercury last week, HB 2, from Farifax Del. Mark Sickles, requires Dominion and APCo to make their “best, reasonable efforts” to provide energy efficiency and weatherization to 30% of income-qualified customers by the end of 2031. HB 3, from Del. Destiny Levere Bolling, D-Henrico, sets up a task force to study income-qualified energy efficiency and weatherization.
These steps are okay for starters, and they would be juiced by the influx of money from RGGI carbon auctions (see next section), earmarked for low-income energy efficiency. But Dominion has repeatedly failed to meet the energy efficiency targets the legislature sets for it, and after all, why stop with 30% of low-income customers when all households could benefit from more comprehensive programs? Virginia can do much better.
My last column discussed Rewiring America’s proposal to have tech companies pay for heat pumps, solar and batteries in the residential sector, saving money for households and freeing up capacity for data centers to come online sooner. An independent provider could run the program and verify the energy savings.
(If the tech companies complain that an awful lot of the solutions I’m proposing come at their expense, it’s true. But the industry benefits from a state tax subsidy that has reached nearly a billion dollars per year, and will only grow further as the number of data centers doubles and triples. They can afford to give back.)
Use RGGI for long-term affordability. Gov.-elect Spanberger has committed to seeing Virginia rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the compact of northeastern states working to lower carbon emissions by 30% by 2030. RGGI works by requiring owners of carbon-emitting generating plants to buy carbon allowances at auction, penalizing carbon-intensive generation and rewarding investments in zero-carbon facilities like wind, solar and nuclear. States collect the auction proceeds, which in Virginia are dedicated to low-income energy efficiency and climate adaptation measures.
Republicans have already renewed their attacks on RGGI, calling it a tax on energy consumers. To the extent that’s true, it’s a tax mostly paid by the largest consumers (including data centers) for the benefit of low-income residents and people most vulnerable to storms and sea level rise. Moreover, all energy consumers benefit over the longer term as low-cost clean energy increasingly replaces expensive fossil fuels.
Beef up efficiency standards in the residential building code. Most people who buy a new home assume that modern building codes incorporate the latest standards for insulation and efficient technology. In Virginia, they do not. Buyers would be dismayed to learn that their homes are costing them more on their utility bills than they saved on a purchase price supposedly made more affordable by poorer-quality insulation and appliances. Buyers are rarely consulted on these trade-offs, and few have the expertise to question a builder’s choices. Building codes are supposed to do that job.
Unfortunately, Virginia’s Board of Housing and Community Development, which writes the code, is dominated by the homebuilding industry. The industry wants to build homes as cheaply as possible to ensure the highest profit possible on the homes it sells. Even as national model code standards have become more rigorous, homebuilders have protected their own interests by keeping weak energy efficiency requirements in Virginia’s residential building code.
In 2021, Virginia adopted legislation requiring the board to consider and adopt energy standards “at least as stringent as” the latest national model code standards when the benefits over time to residents and the public exceed the incremental costs of construction. But the board simply didn’t do it. Will this be the year legislators realize that a board dominated by the industry it regulates won’t act in the public interest without explicit directions?
This is Virginia’s moment. Since the passage of the Virginia Clean Economy Act in 2020, renewable energy and storage have only gotten cheaper, while energy efficiency opportunities remain plentiful. Coal has solidified its place as the most expensive baseload source, and fossil gas remains stubbornly expensive compared to solar. Spanberger and the Democratic majority have an opening this year to go big on clean energy. An aggressive legislative agenda this year will demonstrate national leadership on managing the data center buildout while delivering climate, health and economic benefits to all Virginians.
This column was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on December3, 2025.
Rooftop solar panels are helping generate electricity after Hurricane Maria destroyed much of the island electrical infrastructure. (Photo by Aaron Sutch/Solar United Neighbors)
Back in 2017, a hurricane destroyed Puerto Rico’s power grid. The island struggled to rebuild it, with limited success, and continues to experience a severe electricity shortage and frequent power outages. Customers and nonprofits have stepped into the void, installing solar panels on rooftops all over the island and backing them up with batteries. Today, 175,000 households have solar — about 1 in 7 – and at least 160,000 of those also have battery backup. Thousands of new installations go in every month.
The solar and batteries don’t just secure electricity for the customers who install them. Through programs like one managed by the solar company Sunrun, Puerto Rico’s grid can draw on the batteries to provide power in times of emergency, reducing the frequency and duration of power outages for everyone.
Last month, as hurricane season got underway again, Puerto Rico’s grid operator announced it had reached a “major energy milestone.” In a statement posted on X, LUMA Energy said it “successfully dispatched approximately 70,000 batteries, contributing around 48 MW of energy to the grid.” That’s about as much as a gas peaker plant, with no need for fuel.
Puerto Rico’s experience shows how residents and businesses no longer need to be passive energy consumers. With a well-designed program they can play an active role in keeping the lights on in their communities, and get paid for it.
This customer participation creates what is called a “virtual power plant” (VPP), sometimes also called a community power plant. The VPP may use battery aggregation, as in Puerto Rico, or demand reduction measures like temporary adjustments to smart thermostats or shifting electric vehicle charging to off-peak times. The more these measures are combined, the bigger the benefit to the grid, and the less a utility needs to invest in new generation to meet peaks in demand.
VPPs offer such promise that this year Virginia’s General Assembly directed Dominion Energy to develop a pilot program for its customers, to be overseen by the State Corporation Commission.
HB2346, from Del. Phil Hernandez, D-Norfolk, calls for a program of up to 450 MW to “optimize demand” with distributed energy resources, mainly batteries but also smart thermostats, electric vehicle charging and non-battery storage (e.g., electric hot water heaters). The proposal, due to be filed with the SCC by December 1, must include incentives for at least 15 MW of residential batteries. The legislation calls for stakeholder participation in the development of the VPP, with opportunities for public input.
Dominion is also tasked with expanding the electric school bus program it began in 2019, which allows the utility to make use of school bus batteries at times of the day when the buses are not needed to transport children. As of March of 2024, Dominion had 135 electric buses in the program, spread across 25 school districts in Virginia.
The impact of VPPs can be significant. This summer, California’s grid operator conducted an experiment to determine how much customer batteries could contribute to the needs of the grid. More than 100,000 residential batteries across California delivered an average of 535 MW of power from 7 to 9 p.m. on July 29, an output equivalent to that of a coal plant.
Many other states are also using VPPs. Some are limited to solar-powered battery aggregation, like Xcel’s Colorado program and a new Texas program, while others involve demand response programs using smart appliances – anything that can be turned off and on remotely for short periods. In Michigan, DTE pays electric vehicle owners to charge at off-peak times, while Arizona Public Service’s VPP pays customers for the ability to access their smart thermostats to reduce peak demand.
Vermont’s Green Mountain Power runs two popular battery programs, one for people who own their own batteries and the other that leases batteries to customers. Both allow the utility to draw on the batteries when the power grid requires more capacity.
While Virginia has not had a VPP program before, appliance-based demand response will be familiar to residents who opted into Dominion Energy’s “Smart Cooling Rewards” program. Participants allowed the utility to remotely turn their air conditioners on and off for a few minutes at a time on hot days in exchange for an annual $40 payment. This helped the utility shave peak demand without affecting residents’ comfort.
Dominion ended the cooling rewards program in 2022 and now offers a “Peak Time Rebate” program that rewards customers for reducing energy use during certain times of high energy demand. This program, however, requires residents to take affirmative measures themselves, like adjusting thermostats and delaying laundry. A well-designed VPP program, by contrast, takes the burden off the individual.
Josephus Allmond, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center who helped to craft the Virginia VPP legislation, told me in an email that he expects school buses and smart thermostats will make up most of Dominion’s program initially, but he’d like to see the residential battery component grow significantly from the initial 15 MW. Even 100,000 aggregated residential batteries would be a minor share of Dominion’s 2.8 million residential accounts, he pointed out.
I emailed Nathan Frost, Dominion’s general manager for new business and customer solutions, to ask for more information about the VPP program. Frost replied only that Dominion is “actively developing our VPP framework and will be engaging stakeholders soon.”
Stakeholders, including customers themselves, are likely to have a lot to say. Clean energy advocates have long urged that VPPs, distributed generation sources and microgrids can contribute to a more efficient, secure and resilient grid, at less cost to everyone.
No doubt recentering the grid around customers is too tall an order for a monopoly utility with a profit model based on centralized generation. But from what we’ve seen in Puerto Rico, California and elsewhere, harnessing even some of the power of customer-owned resources is a worthwhile project whose time has finally come.
This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on September 2, 2025.
Update: on September 15, Dominion sent this note:
Dominion Energy Virginia is preparing to file a virtual power plant (“VPP”) pilot proposal by December 1, 2025, pursuant to House Bill 2346 and Senate Bill 1100. As part of this effort, Dominion Energy Virginia is seeking stakeholder input. Please visit our website at https://www.dominionenergy.com/vpp. The website contains an overview of the legislation, a timeline, an informational webinar about VPPs and the Company’s plan, and additional information. We encourage all interested stakeholders to review the materials posted on the website and provide feedback through the link on the website by October 6, 2025.
When Dominion Energy Virginia filed its latest integrated resource plan (IRP) last fall, critics (including me) complained that the company failed to lay out a cost-effective approach that would meet soaring energy demand from data centers while complying with Virginia’s decarbonization mandate. We hoped regulators at the State Corporation Commission would reject the IRP and demand better of our largest utility.
Instead, they chickened out.
The SCC’s final order, issued July 15, is short but not really to the point. The order finds Dominion’s IRP “legally sufficient,” while citing previous SCC orders for the proposition that “acceptance” doesn’t mean approval “of the magnitude or specifics of Dominion’s future spending plans.” It would be hard to imagine a less enthusiastic endorsement, and the lack of analysis leaves advocates wondering, where’s the meat?
It’s true that an IRP is “only” a planning document; it doesn’t commit a utility to carrying out the plan, and the SCC still has to approve any project the utility decides to move forward with. But the point of the exercise is to ensure utilities are on the right track; that their demand projections are on target and their plans for meeting demand are realistic, cost-effective and comply with all relevant laws. This needs discussion and analysis, not merely an up-or-down vote.
Admittedly, the SCC has a long history of approving lousy IRPs while directing Dominion to do a better job the next time. That was the case here, too, with the order directing Dominion to do a few things differently in its next IRP, due in the fall of 2026.
First, the SCC wants to see a 20-year timeline instead of the 15-year period that Dominion used this year, which is all the law requires. It’s an obvious ask, even apart from the fact the SCC cites that the regional grid operator PJM uses a 20-year planning window. A better reason is that we are just 20 years away from Dominion’s 2045 deadline for full decarbonization under the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), and anything the utility does now will have consequences extending out to that deadline.
The SCC also neglected to mention that using just a 15-year window, and omitting the 25-year planning period that Dominion included in previous IRPs, allowed the company to avoid showing the economic consequences to consumers of spending money for fossil fuel generation that either will shut down or may become economically obsolete by 2045, long before the plants are paid off. If Dominion thinks it can justify sinking customers’ money into assets it knows will become stranded, we all deserve to see the rationale.
The order also directs Dominion to include in its modeling at least one pathway that complies with the requirement of the VCEA that carbon-emitting facilities (including any new gas plants) be retired by 2045. This goes beyond obvious: the lack of a VCEA-compliant plan should have prompted the SCC to reject the IRP outright.
But of course, Dominion claims new gas plants are needed for reliability, which would make them legal under the VCEA in spite of their carbon emissions and questionable long-term viability. Reliability is a red herring, as I’ve argued, and other parties to the IRP case modeled how Dominion can meet demand without building new fossil fuels. Dominion should have been required to prove its case.
But here again, the SCC chose not to engage on the issue. Requiring Dominion to do better next time is as far as it is willing to go. This is unfortunate, but the silence can’t last: in March, Dominion filed for approval of the first of its planned new gas plants. The SCC will have to address need and reliability to make a decision in that case, and it would have been better for all concerned if it had grappled with these questions now.
The order falls short in other ways, as well. While the SCC expresses concern about forecasted rate increases, it doesn’t even mention the data centers that are driving the problem.
This is astonishing; even before Dominion filed its IRP last fall, the commission ordered the company to supplement the record with an analysis of data center impacts. When Dominion did so, it became clear that all of the load growth (and likely, much of the projected rate increases) results from this one industry. It’s beyond strange that the SCC does not even mention the supplement it ordered, or discuss whether Dominion’s duty to serve truly prevents it from protecting existing customers.
The order also accepts Dominion’s argument that it had to artificially limit the amount of low-cost solar it could include in its modeling, due to the increased difficulty of siting solar projects in Virginia. It’s true that many rural counties have been denying permits to solar projects, even as they approve data centers. But I’ve also heard a Dominion lobbyist tell legislators that permit denials have not been a problem for the company, an assertion that may have persuaded some legislators to vote against bills that would make solar siting easier. It appears Dominion tells legislators one thing and the SCC another.
The SCC’s order contains a few other requirements for the next IRP, mostly things that really should have been included in this one. The IRP should model Virginia’s return to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, reflecting a Virginia court’s ruling that Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s withdrawal was unlawful. The IRP should assume Dominion achieves the energy efficiency targets that the SCC itself established for the company. Dominion should include an analysis of impacts on base rates and should share its modeling with utility watchdog Clean Virginia, as well as run modeling based on SCC staff inputs. Long-duration storage, a maturing technology that can replace gas combustion turbines, should be included in the next modeling.
“Do better next time” is a well-worn directive from the SCC to Dominion, but it is deeply disappointing at a time when Virginia is facing an unprecedented surge in demand from data centers and accompanying increases in utility rates.
It’s disappointing in another way, too: this is the first major ruling from the SCC since two new judges were added to the three-member commission, and all three were appointed by a Democratically-controlled Senate. If there was ever a time for the SCC to get tough with Dominion on its climate obligations, this should have been it.
No doubt, the problem lies in Dominion’s influence over the entire process. The utility doles out exceedingly generous campaign donations to members of both parties, so the company retains influence no matter who is in power. Not only does this give Dominion sway over who is appointed to the SCC, but commissioners have to be mindful that getting reappointed at the end of their six-year terms depends on how satisfied these Dominion-backed senators are with their rulings.
As long as Dominion is allowed to shower senators with unlimited campaign cash, the SCC will never be free of the utility’s pernicious influence.
Meanwhile, though, Dominion’s poor performance, and the SCC’s unwillingness to call it out, demonstrate the necessity of the comprehensive IRP reform legislation that the governor vetoed this spring. The Commission on Electric Utility Regulation is already working on similar legislation for the next session.
Passing the IRP reform bill may not inject the SCC with greater courage, but it will ensure the commission, and the public, get a fuller look at the facts.
This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on July 21, 2025.
I’ve been thinking a lot about language lately, and the strange way words that used to mean good things are now attacked as bad, and vice-versa. Diversity, equity and inclusion are radioactive. Mentioning environmental justice or climate change will get your federal program canceled. Coal is clean, even beautiful, and pointing out the connection to global warming makes you an alarmist, because speaking up when your government steers you towards disaster is now a bad thing to do.
Recently I received an email excoriating “woke” energy policy, which seemed especially curious. I can see how awareness of historic racial injustice against Black people might nudge policy makers into greater support for renewable energy, given that pollution from fossil fuels tends to have a disparate impact on communities of color. But judging from the hostile tone of the email, I believe we may have different understandings of wokeness.
Sometimes, though, words mean different things to different people without anyone realizing they aren’t using the same definition. That may be the case when Virginia leaders talk about the reliability of the electricity supply. Everyone agrees reliability is critical – but they may not be talking about the same thing.
Virginia’s need for power is growing at a terrific pace. Data centers consume so much electricity that our utilities can’t keep up, causing them to increase imports from out of state. That’s okay for now; West Virginia is not a hostile foreign nation. Also, Virginia is a member of a larger grid, the 13-state (plus D.C.) PJM Interconnection, which manages thousands of generating facilities to ensure output matches demand across the region. But even across this wider area, demand is increasing faster than supply, pushing up prices and threatening a shortfall. Unless we tell data centers to go elsewhere, we need more generation, and fast.
Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to increase the power supply. Democrats remain committed to the Virginia Clean Economy Act, which requires Virginia’s electricity to decarbonize by 2050. Meeting the VCEA’s milestones requires investments in renewable energy and storage, both to address climate change and to save ratepayers from the high costs of coal and fracked gas.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin and members of his party counter that fossil fuels are tried-and-true, baseload sources of energy. They advocate abandoning the VCEA and building more gas plants, arguing that renewable energy just isn’t reliable.
Note that these Republicans are not alarmists, so they ignore climate change. If they were the proverbial frog in a pot of water on the stove, they would consider it a point of pride that they boiled to death without acknowledging the reason.
Youngkin takes every chance he gets to slam the VCEA. As I’ve previously described, the governor sought to amend various energy-related legislation to become VCEA repeal bills, regardless of the original subject matter or how much good it could do.
Last month, Youngkin’s Director of the Department of Energy sent a report on performance-based utility regulation to the State Corporation Commission. With it was a cover letter that had nothing to say about performance-based regulation, but a lot to say about the big, bad VCEA. The letter insists that “By all models, VCEA is unable to meet Virginia’s growing energy demand” and urges the SCC to “prioritize ratepayer affordability and grid reliability over long-term VCEA compliance.”
Unfortunately for the Youngkin administration, affordability hasn’t been an argument in favor of fossil fuels for many years now. A new solar farm generates a megawatt of electricity more cheaply than a new fossil gas plant, and that will still be true even if Congress revokes renewable energy subsidies – though doing so will make electricity less affordable.
The argument from fossil fuel defenders then becomes that the cheapest megawatt is not a reliable megawatt. And that’s where meaning matters.
Reliability is so important that even the decarbonization mandate of the VCEA contains an important exception: a utility can build fossil fuel generation under certain circumstances, if it is the only way to keep the lights on.
Dominion Energy is relying on this escape clause as it seeks regulatory approval to build new fossil gas combustion turbines on the site of an old coal plant in Chesterfield. The move is opposed by local residents, environmental justice advocates and climate activists. (No word on whether they are alarmists or simply alarmed.) They argue Dominion hasn’t met the conditions set out in the VCEA to trigger the escape clause, including achieving energy efficiency targets and proving it can’t meet its needs with renewable energy, energy storage and demand response programs.
Virginia Republicans not only side with Dominion on this, they increasingly favor building gas plants over renewables as a general matter, urging the reliability point. It’s an argument that never made much sense for me, given that renewables make up only 5% of PJM’s electricity. That’s way less than the national average of over 21%, and other grids aren’t crashing right and left.
The light bulb went off for me while I was watching the May meeting of the Commission on Electric Utility Regulation. A PJM representative showed a chart of how the grid operator assigns numbers to different resources according to how they contribute to the electricity supply. Nuclear plants get the highest score because they run constantly, intermittent wind and solar sources get lower scores, with fossil fuel plants in the middle. PJM calls that a reliability score.
For some Republicans, that’s a slam-dunk: the chart proves renewable energy is unreliable. But in spite of its label, the chart doesn’t actually measure reliability; it gives points for availability, which is not the same thing.
As I once heard a solar installer testify, few things are as reliable as the sun rising every morning (or rather, the earth rotating). With modern weather forecasting, grid operators can predict with great precision how much electricity from solar they can count on at any given time from solar facilities arrayed across the region. Solar energy is highly reliable, even though it is not always available. Add storage, and the availability issue is also resolved.
Obviously, the grid would not be reliable if solar were the only resource operators had to work with. But it isn’t. PJM calls on a mix of different sources, plus storage facilities and demand response, to ensure generation precisely matches the peaks and valleys of demand. Reliability is a matter of keeping resources in sync and ensuring a robust transmission and distribution system.
The threat to reliability today comes from the mad rush to connect new data centers. PJM has been roundly criticized for not approving new generating and storage facilities’ connection to the grid at a fast enough pace to keep up with the increase in demand and retirements of old, money-losing fossil fuel plants. Scrambling to recover, recently it decided to prioritize a smaller number of big, new gas plants over the thousands of megawatts of renewable energy and storage still languishing on its waiting list.
Meanwhile, PJM wants utilities to keep operating coal plants even though it will make electricity less affordable and violate state climate laws. In this it is joined by the Trump administration, which wants to require utilities to keep running coal plants explicitly to support the coal industry.
Analysts say this is the wrong way to achieve reliability. A recent report from the consulting firm Synapse estimates that PJM’s approach will raise residential electricity bills by 60% by 2036-2040. By contrast, reforming its interconnection process and enabling more renewable energy and storage to come online would lower bills by 7%. By Synapse’s calculation, Virginia would see the most savings of any state.
In other words, Virginia Republicans are pursuing reliability the wrong way. Instead of pressuring Democrats to back away from the VCEA, they ought to be pressuring PJM to reform its approach. Reliable power doesn’t have to be expensive, if you take the politics out of it.
This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on June 3, 2025.
On May 5, attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia — not including Virginia, regrettably — sued the Trump administration over its attacks on the wind industry. The lawsuit challenges an executive order, signed by President Donald J. Trump on his first day in office, stopping all approvals, permits and funding for wind projects across the country and offshore.
Since the order was signed, the administration hasn’t just blocked new projects, it’s issued a stop-work order for one project under construction in New York and revoked a permit for another. The actions inflict enormous damage on the wind industry and on the economies of states that need the energy and jobs this industry could deliver.
One state that will lose big under Trump’s order is Virginia, which has positioned itself to be a national leader in offshore wind deployment, supply chain and manufacturing. On top of that, Virginia badly needs the electricity from offshore wind to help meet the demand from data centers; it can’t afford to have a major new source of energy strangled in its infancy. Yet Attorney General Jason Miyares did not join the lawsuit.
Sure, Miyares wants to be a good soldier in the Trump putsch. And no doubt he wouldn’t feel at home among all those Democratic AGs (there were no Republicans signing the complaint). But he could at least speak up in his state’s interest. Some well-timed advocacy would go a long way in showing the administration that wind energy is not a partisan matter.
It doesn’t have to be just our attorney general, either. The silence from Gov. Glen Youngkin has been equally deafening. What are they afraid of? Youngkin can’t run for reelection, and Miyares has already secured his party’s nomination in his bid for reelection this fall.
Any politician who styles himself as pro-business ought to be pushing back on the Trump administration’s interference with contracts, destruction of American jobs and infliction of billions of dollars in damage to a growing domestic industry. Especially when it is happening to their own state, the big risk is in not speaking out.
And let’s face it, attacking wind energy is Trump’s own peculiar hobbyhorse, not his party’s. Though Republican support for wind energy has dropped a bit in recent years, it remains above 50%. Onshore wind is the largest source of electricity in Iowa and South Dakota and a major source in several other Republican strongholds. Wind power is responsible for billions of dollars in economic investment while keeping utility rates low in states that rely on it.
Offshore wind is more expensive, but states have embraced it for its potential to lower electricity bills over time while relieving grid congestion, creating well-paying jobs and providing clean, zero-carbon power to East Coast cities. Thirteen states have established offshore wind development goals, totaling over 112 gigawatts (GW) by 2050.
In Virginia, Republican leaders have been among the biggest boosters of offshore wind for more than 15 years. Legislators from both parties supported the creation of the Virginia Offshore Wind Development Authority. With a boost from then-Gov. Bob McDonnell, the Virginia Department of Energy partnered with Dominion Energy on a research project that produced the nation’s first offshore wind turbines in federal waters. Republican support also paved the way for Dominion’s development of the 2.6 GW Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project, now more than halfway to completion and expected to begin delivering electricity next year.
Nor is CVOW a one-off; the Virginia Clean Economy Act declares twice as much offshore wind power to be “in the public interest.” At the offshore wind International Partnering Forum held in Virginia Beach last month, Dominion displayed a poster of the projects it has in the works. These include a project off Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, which Dominion acquired last October, as well as a huge lease area east of CVOW, which Dominion secured in a lease auction from the federal government last August. All told, Dominion’s projects could deliver a total of 9 GW of clean, renewable power.
A poster displaying Dominion Energy’s planned offshore wind projects.
As important as the energy itself is, Virginia leaders believe offshore wind can be a driver of economic development and job creation for the Hampton Roads area. The Virginia Economic Development Partnership touts Virginia’s strategic location, strong maritime industry and ready workforce as draws for businesses up and down the offshore wind supply chain.
Some businesses have already set up shop in Virginia to serve the industry. These include most recently a Korean subsea cable manufacturer that is investing almost $700 million for a facility in Chesapeake. Gov. Glen Youngkin was on hand for the groundbreaking last month, calling it “a proud moment for Virginia.” Attracting the company was only possible because of Virginia’s commitment to the wind industry – as well as the availability of federal tax credits that Trump also intends to eliminate.
CVOW will likely survive Trump’s attacks (albeit at a higher cost due to his tariffs), but Virginia’s ability to develop an offshore wind workforce and supply chain are very much at risk. The Trump administration’s war on wind power already threatens developers with losses in the billions of dollars. With permitting at a halt, companies are headed for the exits instead of creating the project pipeline necessary for offshore wind to become the powerhouse industry that it is in Europe and Asia.
Trump may have planned his economic sabotage to hurt northeastern states with Democratic governors, but the collateral damage to Virginia is considerable. As it is, our economy has taken a hit from Trump’s mass firings of federal workers, thousands of whom live here. We can’t afford to lose four years of offshore wind progress for no better reason than that Trump wills it.
Silence is not an acceptable response. Miyares and Youngkin must speak up for Virginia.
Update: On May 20 we learned Trump’s Department of the Interior rescinded its order to shut down the $5 billion Empire Wind project in New York, reportedly after Gov. Kathy Hochul agreed to reverse a decision five years ago denying a permit to a natural gas pipeline. This is being billed as a “compromise,” which is apparently what extortion is called when the Trump administration does it.
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.
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.
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 