Tag Archives: environment

Unknown's avatar

Trump’s attack on offshore wind is hurting Virginia. Why aren’t Republican leaders fighting for us?

by

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.

Originally published in the Virginia Mercury on May 19, 2025.

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.

Unknown's avatar

Utility efforts to undermine rooftop solar meet stiff opposition from Virginia customers

by
Photo courtesy of Solarize Blacksburg

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.

Unknown's avatar

Facing data center sprawl and an energy crisis, Virginia legislators leap into action. Nah, just kidding.

by

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.

Unknown's avatar

Distributed solar bills move forward, while progress on siting utility solar stalls out

by
Photo credit Norfolk Solar.

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.

Unknown's avatar

It’s the fossil fuels, stupid

by

For low-cost electricity, Virginia needs renewable energy — not gas plants

smokestack
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 various ways.

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.

Unknown's avatar

The data center energy crisis is now official

by
Data center between housing community and a bike path
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.

Unknown's avatar

Data centers approved, solar farms rejected: What is going on in rural Virginia?

by


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. 

https://virginiamercury.com/2024/11/26/under-pressure-from-the-scc-dominion-reveals-the-true-cost-of-data-centers/embed/#?secret=jfq5xtYiIk#?secret=eWAcqNFGWg

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.

Unknown's avatar

The clean energy revolution will continue

by
Photo credit iid.com

Eight years ago last week, I wrote a column titled, “Why Trump won’t stop the clean energy revolution.” Calling global warming a hoax, businessman and reality TV star Donald J. Trump had just been elected with a promise to save coal jobs and pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. 

Climate activists were deeply distraught then, as now. I wrote in 2016, “Reading the news Wednesday morning was like waking up from a nightmare to discover that there really is a guy coming after you with a meat cleaver.”

But as I also wrote, there is only so much damage a president can do when technology, popular opinion and – especially – economics don’t support his agenda. Trump couldn’t save the coal industry (though he tried). Instead, his administration oversaw a 24% decline in coal employment. And where coal supplied 30% of U.S. electricity in 2016, by the time Trump left office it had fallen to 20%. 

In the intervening years, Trump seems to have lost interest in coal mining, even as he continues to embrace fossil gas production. His enthusiasm for gas fracking fits with his drill-baby-drill approach to energy, but it was also intended to win over voters in Pennsylvania, a major producer of shale gas. Ironically, the gas industry insists on calling methane “clean” precisely because burning it emits less CO2 than coal. 

While coal was dying, wind and solar were well on their upswing when Trump took office in 2017, and they continued to advance through his first administration. By 2020, wind and solar had become the cheapest forms of new electric generation. Today, renewable energy supplies more than 21% of the nation’s electricity, while coal’s share has dropped further, to just 16%. Trump or no Trump, technological advances and a thirst for cleaner energy continue to drive new wind and solar generation.

Indeed, the offshore wind industry – famously reviled by Trump – wasted no time last week in congratulating its erstwhile foe on his victory and insisting, hilariously, that his election is a big win for the industry. The first Trump administration, they noted hopefully, “laid out the fundamental framework for our modern offshore wind industry.”

Well, okay. From their lips to Trump’s ears. Trump is hardly known for consistency, and it is not impossible to imagine him softening his position on an industry that is creating well-paying jobs for the blue-collar workers who make up a portion of his base. His Virginia acolyte, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, boasts of overseeing the building of the nation’s largest offshore wind farm. Why shouldn’t Trump pivot? 

Early in the Republican primaries, one candidate opined that all the solar panels and batteries sold in the U.S. are made in China. That wasn’t actually true. For years one U.S. company, First Solar, has ranked among the world’s top ten solar panel manufacturers. Among the domestic manufacturers of both EVs and batteries, one of the largest is Tesla, whose CEO Elon Musk is now a Trump darling. It is going to be fascinating to find out whether Musk uses his influence to benefit the clean energy transition generally, or only himself. 

Yet the notion that China dominates solar and battery production is also not wrong. China is eating our lunch on clean energy. Chinese companies produce 80% of the world’s solar panels and more than half of its electric vehicles. Sadly, perhaps, these are not cheap imitations of superior American products. They are world-leading technology. 

Chinese dominance of the world market was a major reason that President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), put so much emphasis on supporting domestic manufacturing. Tariffs on Chinese goods, Trump’s preferred approach, help U.S. companies compete for American consumers, but they don’t support an export market when other countries produce better goods for less money. Even at home, critics note, tariffs mostly just raise prices.

Yet Trump has vowed to repeal the IRA, and given that Congress passed it without Republican support, there is certainly a danger that a Republican Congress will comply. On the other hand, observers note that 80% of the manufacturing tax credits have gone to red states, and this August, 18 House Republicans signed a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson asking to keep the credits. 

I don’t want to sound too optimistic. Wait, let me rephrase that: I don’t feel optimistic at all. We are facing headwinds today that weren’t around in 2016. At that time, gains in energy efficiency meant electricity demand was not increasing, in spite of a growing population. With wind and solar displacing coal, there was a clear pathway for CO2 emissions from the electric sector to continue falling. 

Today, however, the skyrocketing demand for electricity from data centers threatens the progress we’ve made on clean energy. It remains to be seen whether artificial intelligence will unleash efficiency gains and novel technologies that can put carbon reductions back on track. Right now, though, tech companies are so desperate for power that they will take it from wherever they can get it, and regardless of carbon content.  (I notice, though, that they still want it to be cheap and are happy to greenwash it to meet their sustainability goals). 

Perhaps the biggest change from eight years ago is simply that we are that much closer to reaching catastrophic climate tipping points. 2023 was the warmest year on record, and 2024 is on track to surpass it. The effects are evident in the number and costliness of severe weather and wildfires made worse by global warming. (Just ask insurance companies.) It is frustrating, to say the least, to contemplate losing the next four years to an administration that thinks climate change wouldn’t be an issue if we would just stop talking about it.  

Yet Americans of all political stripes continue to support renewable energy by wide margins. And apart from a small minority of vocal climate deniers, most Americans want the U.S. to take stronger action on climate. 

This election revealed deep fault lines among the American public, but one thing we all have in common is the faith that our ability to solve intractable problems is stronger even than our tendency to wish the problems away. 

That’s why, even in the face of such serious headwinds, the clean energy revolution will continue. 

This column was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on November 12, 2024.

Unknown's avatar

Is sewage sludge laced with ‘forever chemicals’ contaminating Va. farmland?

by

It’s out of sight and out of mind, and it might just be killing people.

For decades, American factories have been sending their wastewater to municipal sewage treatment plants across the country, which handle it along with the effluent from other industries, homes and businesses. At the other end of the process, the separated and dried-out solids are often delivered to farmers as free fertilizer. The land application of this “sewage sludge” has long been encouraged by environmental regulators as a way to deal with what would otherwise be a vexing waste disposal problem. 

Yet not all of that wastewater, or the sludge that becomes fertilizer, is benign. An increasing number of industries discharge effluent laced with toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which most treatment plants aren’t equipped to remove. PFAS are notoriously long-lasting, so much so that they are nicknamed “forever chemicals.” And now some states are finding that PFAS-laced sewage sludge is contaminating farmland and poisoning consumers. 

PFAS are a relatively new class of synthetic chemical, emerging commercially in the 1950s to find their way into a wide range of useful products, including non-stick pans (most notoriouslyTeflon), waterproof clothing, stain-resistant fabrics and firefighting chemicals. Unfortunately, exposure to PFAS has been shown to cause an almost equally-wide range of environmental and human health harms, including cancer, kidney disease, thyroid disease, reproductive problems and obesity. 

After years of foot-dragging, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally took action against two early types of PFAS that had already fallen out of use, setting drinking water standards for those and a few others. At the same time, however, chemical companies have been turning out literally thousands of new iterations that have been little studied and remain largely unregulated. PFAS have become so ubiquitous in the environment that scientists estimate 98% of Americans — and even some newborns — have detectable levels in their blood.  

In recent years, public health advocates have started to worry that PFAS may also be entering our food supply via the sewage sludge applied to farmland. According to the New York Times, five states – Texas, Michigan, New York, Maine and Tennessee – have detected PFAS on farmland treated with sewage sludge, sometimes in high levels. Crops grown in contaminated soil absorb the chemicals and pass them up the food chain. 

In Maine and Michigan, officials shut down farms after finding high concentrations of PFAS in the soil and in the meat of grazing animals. Maine officials found contamination on 56 farms and in 23% of more than 1,500 groundwater samples taken from farms and residences. 

In 2022, Maine banned the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land and prohibited most uses of PFAS in consumer products starting in 2030. The state is now working with affected farmers to compensate them or find alternative uses for contaminated land. Officials note that the testing programs are just beginning and fear that they may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg. 

The New York Times did not include Virginia among the states known to have PFAS-contaminated farmland. That’s not because we don’t have a problem. Rather, it’s because the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which issues permits to municipal wastewater treatment plants, doesn’t require sludge to be tested.  

What little we do know is cause for concern. The conservation group Wild Virginia analyzed data submitted to DEQ in 2022 by a small number of drinking water and wastewater treatment plants that voluntarily tested their effluent. Limited and incomplete as it was, the information revealed that 20 of the 21 wastewater treatment plants that tested for PFAS found significant concentrations in their effluent. Only 8 of the plants also tested their sludge, but all 8 reported significant concentrations of PFAS. 

I talked by phone with David Sligh, Wild Virginia’s conservation director and a former DEQ employee, who told me the group plans to publish a report on this problem in the coming week. DEQ, he said, has the authority to regulate PFAS in treatment plants’ effluent and sludge and should be doing so to protect the public. His group has joined other members of the Virginia Conservation Network in calling on DEQ “to place the responsibility and cost of cleaning up PFAS on the industries that use and manufacture PFAS by requiring PFAS disclosure, monitoring, and limits in pollution discharge permits.”

DEQ, however, seems to be in no hurry. Neil Zahradka, manager of the land applications program at DEQ, wrote in an email to Tyla Matteson, a Sierra Club volunteer who works on sewage sludge issues, “To date, DEQ has relied upon the EPA biennial reviews to determine if additional regulation of biosolids is necessary beyond that contained in current permits, and no additional limits or criteria for PFAS have been set. … [A]ccording to the EPA PFAS Strategic Roadmap, they plan to complete the risk assessment for PFAS in biosolids this year.  We do plan to update the DEQ biosolids fact sheet once we have additional substantive information to offer landowners.”

Waiting for EPA to act first is convenient, but it does a grave disservice to Virginians. EPA itself has stalled for so long that Potomac Riverkeeper, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and other groups finally sued the agency this year for its failure to regulate PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer. According to PEER, EPA identified 10 different types of PFAS among some 250 pollutants contaminating sewage sludge, yet insists it is only obligated to identify the toxics in sewage sludge, not do anything about it.  

I suspect EPA and DEQ’s hesitance is due to the fear of what they would find in any extensive testing program. If testing confirmed widespread contamination in sewage sludge, DEQ would – one hopes – feel obligated to stop the practice of spreading it across the farms that produce our food. After all, if you identify a poison in your product, the answer is probably not to spread it among as many people as possible. 

Annoying as it would be for DEQ, industry and even farmers to learn the truth, though, the alternative is worse. PFAS can be removed, either in the wastewater treatment process or, ideally, before it leaves its industrial source. Not testing and treating means needlessly exposing farmers, their families and their animals – and ultimately all the rest of us – to chemicals that have no safe level of exposure. 

Given what we know about the harms PFAS causes, DEQ’s inaction is inexcusable. If Maine can tackle this threat to its land and people, surely Virginia can do it as well. We should expect no less.

This article was originally published in the Virginia Mercury on September 26, 2024.

Unknown's avatar

The strange obsession with low birth rates

by


The human population of the Earth passed 8 billion in 2022, up from 7 billion in 2011 and less than 2 billion just a century ago. The United Nations projects that by 2050, the world will hit 9.7 billion people and continue rising to 10.9 billion in 2100. The average number of children women have in their lifetimes remains above the replacement rate of 2.1. 

So why is there so much hand-wringing about a population bust? 

It is true that population trends are uneven across the world, and some European and East Asian countries are struggling to address a decline in numbers. This is not the case in the U.S., however. Although our birth rate has been below the replacement rate for years, the Census projects our population increasing by another 33 million before it peaks in 2080. By 2100, the Census expects there will still be almost 10% more people in the U.S. than there are today. 

Frankly, it’s more than a little odd to worry about something that won’t happen for at least three-quarters of a century, while ignoring that in the meantime, an ever-growing population using too many resources is pushing the planet to the brink of ecological collapse. You would think we could worry about that now, and save the hysterics over population decline for the next century. 

Yet conservatives see the sky falling. The fear is most palpable among white supremacists spouting replacement theory, the notion that pale-skinned people, who are having fewer children, will be swamped by brown people, who are having more. They are pretty sure this is, in fact, a nefarious plan concocted by Jewish people, who apparently don’t count as white, with a goal of destroying Western civilization and all the great things that America stands for — by which they definitely do not mean democracy and civil rights. 

Even some liberal Americans say they’re worried about the birth rate, and argue we need child tax credits, mandatory parental leave and publicly-subsidized daycare to reverse the decline. Of course, progressives support these policies anyway, so it’s hard to know how sincere their concern over birth rates really is. 

I’m not sure about the sincerity on the right, either. Most of the people who express alarm about a declining birth rate are red-state Republicans who celebrate rural living and the small-town lifestyle. They hate traffic and the plethora of rules necessary to make life tolerable in crowded communities. 

Meanwhile, I guarantee you no one in New York or LA looks around and says, “You know what would make this place better? More people!”  

Of course, the pro-population-growth crowd absolutely rejects the one sure way to increase the US population: allowing more immigrants in. 

They say it’s not racism. Theirs is just a preference for people who look like them, sound like them and do things the way they do them. 

Yet immigration does all the things that the population alarmists say we need. It fills schools with children, bolsters the workforce, and keeps contributions flowing to Social Security and Medicare, extending the solvency of these programs. 

Vastly more would-be immigrants are knocking at our doors than we are willing to allow in, and the numbers will only increase as climate change and the collapse of ecosystems spark further conflict and make it harder to eke out a living in more parts of the world. Countries that are able and willing to absorb the outflow of migrants from devastated areas will not be challenged by depopulation. 

The U.S. is home to more migrants than any other country. Clearly many Americans, themselves descended from immigrants, are ready to shut the door behind them, but economists agree immigration is the secret sauce of our economic strength. That doesn’t mean the doors need to be wide open, with no one managing the flow, or that we shouldn’t try to help solve the crises that drive people to leave their home countries in the first place. And we still urgently need to work on transforming our consumption-based economy into a sustainable one.

But it does mean we needn’t fear a population bust in our lifetimes. While other advanced countries are figuring out how to retool their economies for a shrinking population, we will always have the numbers we desire, so long as we remain a society committed to equal opportunity, democracy and the striving for justice.    

Obviously, this is not what the nativist right wants. But what they want — more American-born babies and limitless population growth, achieved by controlling women’s bodies rather than by strengthening the welfare state — is a fantasy served up with a helping of bad policy. 

This article was previously published in the Virginia Mercury on August 20, 2024.