Data centers fuel energy debates as lawmakers seek ratepayer protections
Data centers in Ashburn. (Photo by Getty Images)
With data centers placing an ever-growing strain on the grid, Virginia legislators are introducing measures to ensure residents don't bear the brunt of rising energy costs caused by the booming industry. However, the proposals are facing stiff resistance.
One bill targeting large electric load businesses has been tabled, while another initially singling out data centers was amended. Lobbyists for the data center industry have pushed back, warning that these measures could hinder economic growth and unfairly single out a sector that, according to Gov. Glenn Youngkin, contributes $9.1 billion to Virginia's gross domestic product.
Legislators also renewed, but once again failed in a push to shed some light on the proceedings of PJM — the nation's largest regional power transmission organization. Utility companies, such as Dominion, are voting members of the organization, whose decisions on major transmission projects directly impact costs passed on to customers.
Lawmakers are faced with balancing the economic opportunities brought by data centers with protecting consumers and meeting clean energy mandates, in the face of rising energy production and transmission costs, says Del. Irene Shin, D-Fairfax.
'Virginia has enjoyed relatively flat load growth, and I think right now we're in that moment of hockey sticking, primarily driven by the data center industry,' Shin says. 'We're looking out for our constituents and making sure they're paying their fair share and not more than that. It is up to industry to pay their fair share of what we know are the incredibly exorbitant costs to service data centers.'
Shin introduced House Bill 2084, which directs the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to review the rate classifications of phase I and phase II public utilities to ensure fairness to all ratepayers. The bill's original version, which explicitly required Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to establish separate rate classifications for data centers, was met with fierce opposition in subcommittee.
The revised bill now leaves the decision about reclassifying customers entirely to the SCC, with no specific mention of data centers.
While data centers are currently paying their fair share under existing utility rate structures, their rapidly growing energy demand 'will likely increase system costs for all customers,' according to a report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC). The report suggests that creating separate rates for data centers could shield other customers from rising costs.
Without such measures, the JLARC study projects that utility bills for the average residential customer could increase by as much as $444 annually by 2040, excluding inflation.
Virginia leads the nation in the number of operational data centers. The industry is rapidly expanding in neighboring states. Last year, Duke Energy in North Carolina introduced new rate structures for data centers to address rising power demands.
Before references to data centers were removed from House Bill 2084 last week, Kate Smiley, a spokesperson for the Data Center Coalition, argued that decisions on raising rates for data centers should begin with the SCC, not legislators. She also contended that creating separate rates for data centers would be discriminatory.
'Rate classes should ultimately be established based on load characteristics rather than the business in which the customer is engaged,' Smiley said. 'These costs caused by a rate class are driven by its aggregate load shape, the volume of power it consumes, the number of customers served — not the business end use.'
Del. Candi Mundon-King, D-Prince William, pushed back on the notion of discrimination against data centers.
'This idea of poor data centers being discriminated against is really something we should shy away from,' she said. 'We have a responsibility to be great partners with people who are investing in the commonwealth, but our first responsibility is to the safety and wellbeing of citizens of the commonwealth.'
House Bill 2027, which failed in a subcommittee vote earlier this month, sought to require new facilities with power loads of 100 megawatts or more — amended from the original threshold of 25 megawatts — to obtain a certificate to operate.
Glenn Davis, director of the Virginia Department of Energy and a former Republican state senator from Virginia Beach, opposed the legislation, arguing it would unnecessarily slow the permitting process handled by the SCC and create unfair competition among businesses for power capacity.
'[The SCC is] going to be picking winners and losers,' Davis said. 'How do they decide between two 100 megawatt facilities when only 100 megawatts are available?'
Del. Joshua Thomas, D-Prince William, who sponsored the legislation, cited the JLARC report to emphasize the urgency of placing limits on power consumption. He warned that without constraints, Virginia faces 'an unconstrained load environment where we have an 183% increase of load over the next few decades, which is unsustainable.'
House Bill 2003, which aimed to increase transparency in the voting process for PJM, the regional organization coordinating power transmission and generation for Virginia and much of the eastern U.S., failed in committee last week on a 10-12 vote.
The legislation would have required PJM to publish an annual report detailing the committee votes of its public utility members and to provide a statement explaining how each vote served the public interest.
These votes have significant implications, including determining market rules and the approval of large-scale transmission projects — factors that directly impact electric bills. For example, in 2022, a PJM committee rejected a proposal to freeze prices during periods of high electricity cost, but there was no public record on how utility companies voted.
'As our own energy needs are growing with data centers, rate payers deserve to know that the rate they are paying for their energy needs is not subsidizing large industry,' said Del. Amy Laufer, D-Albemarle, who sponsored the bill.
Laufer drew parallels to the General Assembly's recent move to live stream and record subcommittee votes, emphasizing the need for transparency at all decision-making levels.
'PJM does publish the upper-level votes, but we know that the policies and proposals voted on at the lower-level meetings have a large impact on what happens at the upper-level meetings, which directly impact 65 million ratepayers,' Laufer said.
Christine Noonan, a lobbyist representing Dominion Energy, expressed concerns that publishing committee votes could discourage open discussions with PJM.
'We want to ensure that this quest for transparency doesn't hamper collaboration,' Noonan said, adding that any transparency requirements 'should apply equally to all entities that either generate [power] or have [power] transmission in the commonwealth.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
7 hours ago
- Washington Post
D.C. region leaders criticize, endorse U.S. attack on Iran
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) called President Donald Trump's attack on Iranian nuclear sites a reckless display of 'horrible judgment' as elected leaders from the Washington region swiftly responded to Saturday night's news. After the U.S. strikes on the sites became known, responses came quickly, and appeared to split along party lines. Democrats suggested that the U.S. was being drawn into war, while Republicans praised the president, as someone who, in the words of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, 'meant what he has said, over and over again.' In a message posted on social media, Youngkin added: 'Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. Promises made, promises kept.' Support for Trump also came from Virginia's attorney general, Jason Miyares (R), who said the U.S. had responded to what he called the longtime rallying cry of Iran's theocratic regime: 'Death to America.' Rep. Jane Kiggans (R-Virginia) said she supported the bombing 'because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.' Our goal remained 'peace through strength,' she said, and urged Iran to heed Trump's warning not to retaliate against U.S. forces or citizens. Both of Virginia's Democratic Senators, Kaine and Mark R. Warner, voiced objections to Trump's actions. Warner said Trump had taken office pledging to stop unending foreign wars. But Warner added, 'Tonight he took steps that could drag the United States into another one.' Kaine, in a message posted like many of the others on the platform X, formerly Twitter, appeared particularly vehement in his objections to the decision to attack. Quoting an Israeli official as saying that his country's bombing had set back Iran's nuclear program at least two or three years, Kaine asked: 'So what made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today?' He said the president had displayed 'horrible judgment,' adding that he would try to allow all senators 'to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' His opposition appeared similar to that of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) who asserted that Trump had 'dragged us into' war, violating the Constitution. He said Trump's attack 'endangers American lives and risks unleashing dangerous forces we can't control.' Meanwhile, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) addressed the possible security implications of the attack for Washington as the nation's capital. Following the strikes on Iran, she said, consultations had been held with federal security officials to assess possible threats and protect the city. 'Together, we are monitoring intelligence and, as always, ask everyone to stay vigilant. If you see something, say something.'
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump makes the world a safer place — and shows America means exactly what it says
US planes bombed three Iranian nuclear sites Saturday, returning safely with President Donald Trump calling for an immediate peace now that, presumably, the work of destroying Tehran's nuke program is complete. The prez had warned that he'd be deciding 'within two weeks,' and as Iran made it clear Friday, there wasn't much point in waiting as its leaders began to attempt to give world leaders the runaround again. And that, as we noted Friday night, obliged Trump 'to pay even more heed to the risks of holding off on a decisive intervention.' President Trump ordered the bombings of 3 vital Iranian nuclear sites Saturday. Getty Images He plainly decided on a fast intervention, using US bunker-busters to take out the super hardened Fordow site with two other nuclear facilities. It was an action that as we have stated gives 'the best hope for the region to stabilize.' We'll see what comes next; Iran's noise about the United States taking action somehow triggering 'all-out war in the region' will hopefully prove to be nothing but characteristic bluster — but US forces in the Middle East will surely be on full alert for days, with bases worldwide on the watch for some sort of terror attack. Yet most fears of escalation seem ill-founded: Iran has proved unable to do much in the face of daily pounding by Israeli warplanes — a humiliation that all by itself posed a dire threat to the regime. It can't have been holding much back. The president tried to get this done peacefully, giving Tehran ample time to make a deal and clear warning of the consequences. Now, thanks to the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces, he has followed through on his warnings. The Israelis can stand down while the 'regime change' crowd heads back to its think tanks and the 'hundreds of thousands of Americans will die' kooks pretend they never predicted disaster. Moscow, Beijing and the rest of the world are on notice as Trump's clinical strikes reverse the damage of Biden's disastrous Afghanistan pull out. Trump doesn't chicken out — and when it comes to war, peace and America's national interests, he means exactly what he says.
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Here are some of the US bases and assets Iran could target in retaliation for Trump strikes
The US has several bases and military assets in the Middle East that Iran could target in retaliation for the strikes President Trump ordered earlier today. President Trump steps off Marine One before boarding Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, on June 21, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Here are a few of the ones Iran may target: Al Udeid Air Base — located in Qatar, it's the largest US military base in the Middle East US Navy Fifth Fleet — its headquarters is in Bahrain and is a critical asset in the Persian Gulf Al Asad Air Base — a US base in Iraq that Iran targeted in 2020 after the killing of Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani There are several other key bases and assets in the region. Iran could hit US embassies in nearby countries such as Iraq, the United Arab Emirates or even Israel. Although not a US asset per se, Iran could also try to close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical potential chokehold where about 25% of the world's oil consumption and roughly a third of the world's liquefied natural gas flows.
