Virginians are coming together for a rally this Sunday to voice concerns about data center expansion.

Lawmakers, community leaders and environmental groups worry about a lack of safeguards on data center growth in Virginia. Data centers support more than 78,000 jobs and generate billions in tax revenue but the groups said they pose hidden harms to local residents.

Tim Cywinski, communications director for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, said the Prince William Gateway project is one example of the massive amounts of resources data centers use.

"It will require upwards of three gigawatts of power," Cywinski pointed out. "It means about two million homes, that's the equivalent amount of power. And powering just that one data center is more power than the entire city of Austin, for example. You can't supply that power right now in Virginia, it's impossible."

He added utility companies like Dominion Energy are building fossil fuel plants to generate the necessary electricity. Some are convinced this is what Dominion's gas-powered plant in Chesterfield will be used for. The plant has been met with widespread opposition from community members and lawmakers.

State and federal policies could align Virginia's current data center growth with its climate goals. But numerous bills introduced in the past General Assembly session to do so did not advance. Cywinski thinks the successfully passed legislation on data centers is woefully inadequate.

"What they did pass was a JLARC (Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission) study to see what the impact of data center growth is going to look like," Cywinski explained. "That's all well and good, five years ago. But we've reached the point of crisis when it comes to this issue, and a JLARC study is not enough."

At the rate data centers are growing, Dominion Energy reported the facilities will require an added 8 gigawatts of power, quadruple the output of Virginia's North Anna nuclear facility. The projects are slated to double by 2040.

Two new solar farms will soon be under construction in the Lexington and Lebanon areas to bring affordable and clean energy to eastern Kentuckians, according to East Kentucky Power Cooperative, the utility spearheading the projects.

Local community members, including an ecumenical monastic community of women in Floyd County, said the move is a step in the right direction.

Nick Comer, external affairs manager for the cooperative, said plans include a 96 megawatt solar farm on 635 acres in Marion County and a 40 megawatt solar farm on 387 acres in Fayette County.

"These will certainly be among the largest solar farms in Kentucky that I'm aware of," Comer noted. "They will provide enough electricity for about 15,500 homes. This is a big move forward for renewable energy in Kentucky."

The cooperative is owned by more than a dozen distribution cooperatives and provides power to around 1 million people.

Kathy Curtis, prioress of The Dwelling Place Monastery in Mount Tabor, said the move reflects a changing reality in a region long dependent on coal industry jobs. She added the emerging tourism industry in eastern Kentucky depends on having clean lakes, mountains and other natural resources.

"We need to be bold and step into the future," Curtis urged. "Expecting that it will be good, not being afraid, just expecting that this is a good choice for Kentucky across the board."

Comer pointed out construction for the Lexington solar farm is expected to start in 2025 and the Marion County farm in 2026.

"These two projects are expected to be online in mid 2027, right now they're going through a regulatory process with the Kentucky Public Service Commission," Comer explained.

Kentucky continues to expand solar energy. Earlier this year the state was awarded more than $62 million in grants to help increase access to affordable residential solar.


get more stories like this via email

Minnesota is sorting out details ahead of trying to meet its 100% carbon-free electricity goal by 2040.

Some environmental advocates feel energy sources being floated to regulators would defeat the purpose of the new law. The state's Public Utilities Commission is accepting public comment until July 10 on which technologies should make the list of energy options defined under the law. Utilities, advocacy organizations and others are lining up with their input.

Hudson Kingston, legal director for the group Clean Up the River Environment, worried certain recommendations he feels are dubious will make the final cut.

"Comments suggesting that burning wood, burning biomass, burning trash are all -- in some people's way of thinking -- carbon free, even though when you burn things like trash or wood, you are emitting quite a lot of carbon," Kingston pointed out.

The Minnesota Forest Resources Partnership contended burning limbs from harvested trees, or wood left over from fires or disease restoration projects, is a viable substitute for fossil-fuel production. The group said there would also be reductions in harmful sulfur and mercury going into the air. Initial public comments will be accepted by June 28. The deadline for reply comments is July 10.

Kingston noted bringing the definition into focus has a lot to do with what is considered a renewable energy source versus green technology emitting no carbon at all.

"It was a political decision a while ago that burning certain things could be considered a renewable," Kingston explained. "But under the carbon-free standard, there is no such list from the Legislature that gives burning things an out."

Even with regulators seeking clarity through public comment, Kingston feels the new law is clear in only leaning on proven carbon-free sources. In adopting the landmark policy last year, Minnesota leaders allowed for other exceptions, namely "offramps" for utilities struggling to meet the standard if clean-energy technologies are too costly or hinder grid reliability.

Signature gatherers in Washington state hope to get an initiative on the November ballot to roll back the state's attempt to phase out natural gas in buildings and environmental groups worry about the effect the initiative would have.

The measure would ensure gas companies and utilities can still offer natural gas and bans cities from prohibiting or discouraging natural gas in buildings. The initiative is sponsored by the Building Industry Association of Washington.

Dylan Plummer, senior field organizing strategist for the Sierra Club, said the measure would be bad for the state and its climate goals.

"What they're hoping to do is turn back the clock multiple years on the progress that Washington state has made on climate action," Plummer asserted. "Specifically electrification efforts, whether it's local building codes like what Seattle has passed or the state building code and other local efforts."

Supporters said people should have the ability to choose natural gas. To qualify for the ballot, signature gatherers need to get nearly 325,000 signatures by July 5.

Plummer argued keeping natural gas around will exacerbate the climate crisis and noted the building sector is a significant contributor of greenhouse gases in the country.

"Specifically, the use of fossil fuels like 'natural' or methane gas for heating and water-heating," Plummer noted. "It's one of the single largest sources of emissions in Washington state."

Plummer added if the initiative passes, it could have negative effects on the state's move toward clean energy.

"We're removing key subsidies and incentives that are going to drive the transition to allow for greater access to these really important technologies that will reduce energy burden, that will protect health and safety indoors and out, and that will protect our climate," Plummer outlined.