Garage-turned-apartments, carriage houses, in-law suites — all are accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Whatever they’re called, ADUs are seen by some as a fix to affordable housing options or a way to meet the needs of specific families.

But the versatile form of housing isn’t always encouraged by locals or officials and little regulatory guidance exists for their approval around the state.

An ADU with alley access in Richmond’s Fan neighborhood. (Wyatt Gordon)

Following the continuation of proposals to frame such guidance during Virginia’s most recent legislative session, a workgroup in the state’s Housing Commission is fine-tuning ideas for how to get a law on the books in the future.

“It was never supposed to get out of committee, is what I was told. And somehow [it] got out of committee to get bipartisan support,” said Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Fairfax, a freshman delegate carrying a bill that would have required local zoning ordinances for ADUs, which had been unsuccessful in a previous session.

Salim’s bill cleared the Senate with bipartisan votes before failing in a House committee. That same committee also stopped a similar measure from Del. Kannan Srinivasan, D-Loudoun. But rather than be defeated totally, they were “continued to 2025.”

Now, Salim is optimistic that after workshopping from the Housing Commission, a future version of the bill can go on to become law. The trick will be balancing local government authority with state-level guidelines for ADUs.

In her own district — which encompasses rural and urban areas with different residential needs — workgroup chair Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Chesterfield, sees the challenge if state law were to more rigidly regulate ADUs.

It’s why she believes there’s some consensus building on taking a guideline approach that localities could implement. Salim is eager to see what comes of the workgroup.

“I think there’s going to be some consensus on ‘what does local authority look like?’ when the bill comes back,” Salim said. “I’m super excited about that.”

Why do ADUs matter?

ADUs may serve different purposes for Virginia communities’ differing needs.

“Sometimes folks build them to have a rental income, to age in place, to help someone recovering from an injury or illness or to house multiple generations on the same property,” said former Charlottesville delegate  Sally Hudson, who’d carried a previous version of the bill.

Hudson had seen inspiration for the legislation in her district, as demand for housing had increased in the Charlottesville area.

Likewise, Salim noted how job growth in his Northern Virginia district has contributed to a higher need for housing that isn’t always being met through construction of new homes and apartments. Allowing for ADUs could at least help, he said.

“This is not going to solve the housing crisis that we have,” Salim said. “This is going to sort of ease some of the issues that we already have right now.”

ADUs aren’t a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing housing stock or affordability. But they offer flexibility for families or communities who may want them.

In some places, they’re allowed to be constructed by-right, or without seeking local permits in residentially-zoned areas.

Rockingham County, for example, allows this. About 90 ADUs were built in the county over the past seven years, allowing housing for a range of people, from farm workers to students and tourists, who can rent them when needed.

Local infrastructure has made their construction a little easier in Rockingham where many properties are on private wells and use septic tanks, but constructing ADUs in other places may require expanding sewage lines and utility setups. It’s considerations like these that are a part of why some people may oppose ADUs, or wish for local authority over how to regulate them.

So, what’s next?

In the short term, the workgroup is planning to explore how localities could allow for ADUs within their comprehensive plans without fully requiring them to develop local zoning ordinances for them.

Comprehensive plans are guiding documents for localities’ urban planning that the state requires they update every few years.

Coyner, the ADU workgroup’s chair, said she hopes to “ensure that localities couldn’t stick their head in the sand and not address the need for accessory dwelling units” and also “allow them to have the flexibility based on the differences and nuances in localities.”

The full Housing Commission is set to meet on July 15, where the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development is expected to present data. Coyner anticipates the ADU work group will meet again later in July to utilize that data in its next steps.

by Charlotte Rene Woods, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Humanity is almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century and Virginia — home to 70% of the world’s data centers — is on the frontlines of the latest emerging technology: artificial intelligence, or AI.

The prevalence of data centers and the rising role of AI don’t equate to a dystopian battle between humans and machine control, though (at least at the moment). Rather, these issues are at the center of a debate over localities’ authority and revenue benefits, historic preservation, environmental considerations, and electricity demand and utility rate projections, all shaped by ever-increasing internet use.

The state is studying data center development

Northern Virginia, the densely populated suburbs and exurbs located just outside the nation’s capital, is home to 70% of the world’s data centers, the huge warehouses that store computers’ processing equipment, internet network servers and data drives. With people increasingly using web-based programs on an average of 22 internet-connected devices in homes, data centers are seen to be needed more than ever.

While data centers are proposed as potential drivers of economic benefits for localities, a number of Virginians have expressed concerns about the proliferation of the warehouses in the state and their effect on communities where they’re located.

“Is it worth losing all your water, and having noise pollution and everything else to get revenue for some of the things you need?” said Mary Damone, 67, who moved to the Orange County area a few years ago, where a 732-acre data center park development has been proposed.

Fairfax County resident Chris Ambrose, 63, who, like Damone, was also at a recent press conference raising concerns over data center development, said the development of thousands of homes in the proposal is bad enough.

“Then you add the data centers to it, and the transmission lines, the impact on the battlefields,” Ambrose said. “If they need more revenue, you would think it would be something more measured. The magnitude is just crazy. It’s off the charts.”

Josh Levi, president of the Data Center Coalition, said the industry looks forward to supporting JLARC and discussing the findings when the study is done.

“Virginia continues to distinguish itself as one of the most dynamic and important markets for the digital infrastructure that enables our innovation economy and meets the growing, collective computing demands of individuals and organizations of all size,” Levi said.

A map of data centers in Virginia (Courtesy of Virginia Economic Development Partnership)

This past legislative session, lawmakers introduced over a dozen bills to address some of the public’s concerns over how data centers could impact water demand, power delivery costs and more, but they were all sent to the Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission, the state’s policy research arm, to develop policy proposal recommendations.

“We have a number of research activities planned or underway for this study,” said Mark Gribbin, the JLARC project lead for the data center study, at a meeting last week outlining the study’s goals.

“Foremost, we’ll have a high level of engagement with local communities and data center companies,” said Gribbin. “We’re also working closely with utilities, local governments and state regulators, especially on questions related to development, water, air and energy,”

In the few months since those legislative deferrals, a battlefield in Orange County has been listed as one of the 11 most endangered sites in the country because of data center development, and Google announced a $1 billion investment to expand their data center campus in Reston.

Both events have re-upped the conversation over how to provide data centers their needed electrons, which could be delivered through an improved transmission system, after a recent regulatory overhaul of how such systems are planned.

“If the generation isn’t there to meet a proposed data center’s needs, the data center doesn’t [need to] locate in Virginia or anywhere else that can’t meet its load,” said Walton Shepherd, Virginia Policy Director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Virginia is not responsible for the running of the internet, the data center operators largely are. The solution we need to solve is a cleaner grid.  We have the tools to do so, and that’s with or without data centers.”

Local, historic concerns

In Orange County, Wilderness Crossing data center received national attention for its proposed development near a Civil War-era battlefield, fueled by concerns after data centers were built near other historic sites in Loudoun and Prince William counties in addition to other parts of the state.

The proposed Wilderness Crossing site near  Wilderness Battlefield sprawls across 2,600 acres, 732 of which  would accommodate data centers — which can typically have a footprint of over 100,000 square feet each and reach 90 feet tall —  and distribution warehouses. The site plan also envisions over 5,000 residential units and 200,000 square feet of mixed commercial use buildings, and a realigning of Route 20.

“If this development goes forward as approved, there will be intense pressure on the existing road network,” said Bob Lookabill, president of the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield, at the press conference announcing concerns over the Wilderness Crossing proposal.

The development would also obstruct the views of Virginia’s hillside, take up forested land, sit on abandoned gold mines and draw on water from the Rapidan River, which experienced drought-like conditions last year. Concerns about data centers’ impact on local waterways have been echoed around the state.

A press conference about the Wilderness Crossing data center proposal. (Charlie Paullin/Virginia Mercury)

The area’s water is served by the Rapidan Service Authority. According to its recently approved water permit, obtained by the Virginia Mercury, the Department of Environmental Quality rejected an initial request finalized after the Wilderness Crossing rezoning that sought to pull more water for projected demand increase.

“What if there is a drought?” said Tim Cywinksi, communications director for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, while speaking about another data center proposal in Caroline County during a webinar. “Are we going to continue to supply what becomes a diminishing resource to an industry that’s powering AI? Or are we going to give it to families to make sure they need it? … This is why protective policy is so important.”

Other data center proposals appear to show that the developments would encroach on historic sites statewide, such as Manassas National Battlefield Park, Culpeper National Cemetery, Brandy Station, Sweet Run State Park and Savage Station Battlefield.

Two historic Black graveyards belonging to the Gaskins family in the Brentsville area of Prince William County are alleged to have been damaged from the construction of a data center and a nearby power substation.

“Without comprehensive action from our elected leaders, countless historic sites [and] national parks may continue to fall victim to this unchecked and unregulated data center growth,” said Kyle Hart, mid-atlantic field representative at the National Park Conservation Service during the May 1 press conference.

The pressure to these sites has already been largely seen in Loudoun and Prince William counties, which have been dubbed Data Center Alley, and recently approved a Digital Gateway rezoning in their respective jurisdictions.

“We have to have a better way [to] think it through and it needs to be transparent,” said Chris Miller, president of the Piedmont Environmental Council, a conservation organization focused on preserving central Virginia’s countryside. The group won a lawsuit against Orange County that forced the release of previously withheld information on the Wilderness Crossing proposal. “I think everyone wants a continued investment in the economy and [to be] prosperous, but you want it done in a way that doesn’t destroy the underlying quality of life.”

Data center developments have been continually proposed throughout Virginia and are welcomed by some communities. A 1,200-acre data center site was recently approved in Hanover County. The Delta Lab, an energy innovation initiative focused on Southwest Virginia, has studied locating one in that region that could use water from mines for cooling.

Del. Mark Sickles, D-Fairfax County, said at the recent JLARC meeting, two vacant buildings along the beltway in his district are being converted into an Amazon Web Services data center, without controversy.

“It was a perfect place for it, actually,” Sickles said. “We need to find more perfect places in Virginia that are close to power, and can be shielded from the public. It’s going to be a challenge for everybody because I don’t think we want to give up on this industry.”

$1 billion investment

Just days before the concern over Wilderness Crossing became public, Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced that Google, one of the biggest companies in the world, would expand its data center campuses from two facilities to three.

“We’re super excited about it,” said Ruth Porat, president, chief financial officer and chief investment officer of both Google and its parent company Alphabet, of the expansion. “The investments we’ve made today are not only important investments in infrastructure, but they’ve also added 3,500 jobs in Virginia, and they supported a billion dollars of economic activity.”

Google completed the first phase of construction on the first two data centers in 2019 with a $1.2 billion investment in the state.

The third center’s creation will usher in an AI Opportunity Fund seeded with $75 million from the company’s philanthropic arm, Google.org. The fund will help people around the county earn online training certifications. The program joins a separate Grow with Google program, already underway, that teamed with Northern Virginia Community College to offer a new free cyber security career certificate.

“Since 2019, this innovative public-private partnership has increased opportunities for students to join the technology workforce,” said Anne M. Kress, president of NOVA, in a statement. Kress added that the partnership  “helps close the skills gap and greatly expands the region’s talent pool.”

A driving force for the online certifications through the opportunity fund, would be leveraging AI. The governor leaned into the “accelerator” allegory during the announcement, highlighting AI’s ability to hasten the pace for certifications to be awarded.

“What’s been so exciting is that this parallel path, this moment of accelerator and brakes, is enabling confidence as we move forward to move forward with an expedited pace,” Youngkin said. “That is where breakthroughs can occur.”

Data centers in Virginia have provided $2.2 billion in wages for citizens, and 25% of revenue to Loudoun County have gone into “essential services” like schools, social services and other public programs, Youngkin added.

Impact on power demand

Increased internet usage, including AI, requires data centers to use more electricity. Computing for AI is measured by an entirely new computing graphic processing unit, or GPU.

“Historically, a single data center typically had a demand of 30 megawatts or greater,” Dominion Energy Virginia President Bob Blue said in the utility’s first quarter earnings call. “However, we’re now receiving individual requests for demand of 60 megawatts to 90 megawatts or greater, and it hasn’t stopped there.”

Larger data center campuses with multiple buildings can “require total capacity ranging from 300 megawatts to as many as several gigawatts,” Blue added.

The utility has connected 94 data centers to date and expects to connect another 15 this year, Blue also told investors. Power Engineering reported on a Securities Exchange Commision annual filing that in 2023 and 2022, 24% and 21% of electricity sales from Dominion were to data centers, respectively.

“The concentration of data centers primarily in Loudoun County, Virginia represents a unique challenge and requires significant investments in electric transmission facilities to meet the growing demand,” the SEC filing states.

While the data center computers have become more efficient through a power usage effectiveness score — a rate that determines how efficiently energy is processed for the web-based service to reach internet users — a study from McKinsey & Company found that data center power demand is expected to more than double across the country from from 17 GW to 35 GW. Some of that power could come from Dominion’s 176-turbine  offshore wind project,  expected to generate 2.6 GW of electricity, or enough to power 660,000 homes.

“The point is that they’re packing more and more into less space,” Miller said. “How are we going to meet that load?”

Dominion projects its load growth, which includes data centers and vehicle electrification, to increase from 17 gigawatts in 2023 to 33 gigawatt in 2048, though environmental groups are skeptical of growth proposals being modeled accurately.

Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative expects to increase its peak electric load by more than 12% per year over the next 15 years, “driven almost exclusively by data centers.”

“NOVEC works one-on-one with each new data center, as each new high-load customer presents unique issues to NOVEC and its distribution facilities,” said Jim East, communications manager at electric cooperative. “Part of this includes meeting the special energy supply and construction schedule needs, while always maintaining the high degree of reliability and affordability for all remaining customers.”

To meet the demand for data centers, Dominion has included renewable energy technology in its long-term, non-binding integrated resource plan, but is also proposing a natural gas plant, which environmental groups continue to oppose, including protests at a Richmond outdoor festival the utility sponsored. 

Protestors to Dominion’s proposed natural gas plant display a sign during the Riverrock festival in Richmond. (Courtesy photo)

Teresa Hall, a spokeswoman for Appalachian Power Company, Virginia’s second largest utility that serves Southwest Virginia, noted that “annual power generation over the last 20 years has stayed relatively flat until now.” The uptick, she said, is thanks to data centers.

“With data centers/increased internet use and AI, the landscape is changing quickly,” Hall said, adding that data centers present a unique challenge because they “require a lot of power – commonly 300 MW or more, which is enough to power all of the homes in a medium-size city.”

The company is facing the challenge head-on, Hall said.

“To date, we’ve been able to accommodate almost any size customer that has expressed an interest in our service territory. As we go forward, we know we will need additional cooperation.”

Virginia’s leaders have increasingly expressed the need for new technologies such as small modular reactors, tinier versions of traditional nuclear plants that could power a small city like Roanoke with a population of 100,000. Proponents say SMRs could provide baseload, around-the-clock power when renewable technology can’t produce it. The SMRs are intended to provide between 300 to 500 megawatts of power, but none have been turned on in the United States since NuScale pulled the plug on its effort to build one in Idaho due to cost concerns.

Shepherd, with the NRDC, said that if SMRs are built, “they’re so far off. I don’t think those are going to implicate the data center’s decision on where and when it builds in a place where it is able to get power.”

Another part of the dialogue focuses on technologies like battery storage and a recently announced 1920 rule from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, to increase planning for transmission lines across state lines. FERC’s new guidance includes transmission lines that may need to be upgraded from a traditional 110 kilovolt to up to 500 kilovolt capacity, in order to supply data centers.

“Transmission developers can now plan projects that address a multitude of needs that are anticipated to develop over a long-term horizon more efficiently and cost-effectively for customers,” stated Ben Fowke, president and CEO of American Electric Power, the parent company of Appalachian Power Company, in U.S. Senate committee testimony this week.

The regional rule will also help areas pull on generation sources that may be located in other areas of the PJM Interconnection regional grid that Virginia is a member of.

“Every resource backs up every other, but only if you have the transmission required,” said Gamlich.

A chart showing the load growth for Dominion. (Courtesy of Dominion’s Integrated Resource Plan)

In 2023, Virginia’s legislature passed a bill to truncate a State Corporation Commission review of a transmission line proposal from PJM Interconnection. The line is needed to deliver power for data center development in Virginia and the $670 million project cost is recovered from ratepayers in Virginia.

There’s also an opportunity to strengthen existing transmission lines through grid enhancing technologies, or GETs, and separate ways to utilize a demand side management and energy efficiency programs to reduce the amount of strain on the grid. It can also help get around the 26 gigawatts of electricity stuck in a queue awaiting approval from PJM, 23% of which is from Virginia, said Kim Jemaine, director at Advanced Energy United.

“In the states where they have been adopted at a medium level, GETs have unlocked 30% additional capacity from existing infrastructure and have allowed twice as many new energy projects to be integrated,” said Kim Jemaine, director at Advanced Energy United. Jermaine said GETs “can be installed with little to no downtime and at a fraction of the cost of new infrastructure.

Utilities have said they can’t rely on energy efficiency efforts, like homeowners using smart thermostats to control consumption, because the end use may not keep up with those behaviors. But that dismissal is a “red herring,” Shepherd said. Measuring the load reductions delivered through energy efficiency programs and making actionable plans based on those measurements is not impossible, Shepherd added.

“I think folks need to chill out and recognize the regular nature of grid planning. It’s just a matter of rolling up our sleeves a little further to make sure it’s done correctly.”

Perhaps ironically, as manufacturing and society in general electrifies more, AI might be able to help with those demand side management programs, as noted by the U.S. Department of Energy.

“AI has the potential to significantly improve all these areas of grid management,” the report stated, and can be a tool that models for capacity and transmission studies, compliance and review for federal permitting, forecasting renewable energy production and creating applications to enhance resilience.

Levi, with the Data Center Coalition, said the “industry is committed to leaning in as an engaged partner at this pivotal time. Collectively, we can meet the moment and ensure a clean, reliable, affordable, and resilient electric system that supports the digitization of our economy, widespread vehicle and building electrification, the onshoring of advanced manufacturing, growth in controlled environment agriculture, and other 21st-century economic drivers.”

Local Revenue

But the money.

The local revenue generated by data centers supports Loudoun and Prince William counties — the latter of which could add $54 million in revenue, with $19 million going toward schools and $21 million offsetting a real estate tax increase — as a result of increasing its data center tax from $2.15 to $3.70 per $100 assessed value.

Henrico County created a $60 million affordable housing fund with revenue from data centers in order to waive water and sewer connection fees and building permit fees.

“We’re doing something different,” Board Chairman Tyrone Nelson said, according to Richmond BizSense. “We may be the only locality in the commonwealth, maybe in the country, dedicating a single revenue source to address a crisis like this in our community.”

Even property owners that sell their land for development of a data center can reap benefits. But, as evidenced by a Prince William County lawsuit,  the spoils don’t always go to the seller  if a legal challenge over the rezoning holds up their profits as the property value and tax increase remains.

The report on Project Oasis proposal in Southwest Virginia said development of a 250,000 square foot “hyperscale” data center with 36 MW of demand could generate an estimated $464 million in capital investment and 40 indirect jobs.

Another report by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership found that 35 data centers, which are cited as the largest industry in the state, invested $23 billion into the economy while getting almost $1 billion in tax relief in exchange for its economic inputs. The report found a 14% average annual return on incentive for the years 2022 through 2027.

“JLARC estimated [in 2019] that 90 percent of the data center investment made by the companies that benefit from the DCRSUT exemption would not have occurred in Virginia without the exemption,” the report stated.

A breakdown of investment and tax breaks. (Courtesy of Virginia Economic Development Partnership).

Although localities may be raking in local revenue benefits, those tax incentives for data centers cancel out cash that could be padding state coffers, which similarly could go toward education and other services.

“There’s different layers to look at,” said Jackson Miller, director of state power sector policy, also at the NRDC. “We just think that if you’re going to give away that revenue, which is taxpayer public money, then it needs to be conditioned with requirements to maximize energy efficiency, with requirements to maximize and ensure that that facility is bearing its costs and paying for it on the grid so ratepayers don’t get a double- whammy.”

Along with a bill to study if data centers or ratepayers foot the bill for transmission upgrades, a separate bill sent to JLARC this session came from Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, and Sen. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Loudoun, that would’ve required data centers to achieve a certain computing efficiency score, known as a PUE, in order to receive state tax breaks.

The data center companies have climate improving commitments, but local permitting pushback to renewable energy sources, including solar, present challenges.

The centers should “ be required to be 100% renewable before they turn the lights on if they’re serious about their publicly stated comments,” said Hart, with the National Park Conservation Service.

The data center industry’s benefits to Virginia’s economy include the creation of 12,140 direct jobs, including engineers, building control specialists, security, server technicians, logistics professionals, construction management, health and safety specialists, and food services. The future benefits — and challenges — of data center development in the state remain to be seen.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Joining 23 conservative-led states’ efforts, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares has signed on to legal challenges to new federal rules designed to advance emission reductions and address what scientists say is causing extreme weather events.

Attorney General Jason Miyares is introduced in the Senate gallery. (Ned Oliver/Virginia Mercury)

Miyares has challenged several rules, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations for tractor trailer and passenger vehicle tailpipes, power plants and meat and poultry processors.

The crux of Miyares’ arguments in all of the legal challenges to the new emissions rules has been to combat what his office characterized as federal government overreach, which spokesperson Chloe Smith said is “a core function of state attorney general offices.”

Though Virginia follows the tailpipe emissions for passenger vehicles set by California, the different federal rules would have a “nationwide effect, including in Virginia,” on American power grids, the supply chain and consumer demand, Smith said.

President Joe Biden’s administration has rolled out the various rules as part of his agenda that has included record amounts of funding for renewable energy deployment through the Inflation Reduction Act and environmental improvement projects through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The new emissions standards — and Miyares’ actions concerning them — have met with mixed reactions in Virginia from environmental groups, the trucking industry and electric utilities.

Heavy truck rule

The latest suit over the heavy truck rule is one that could apply to Virginia, since the state defaults to following the federal government for those tailpipe emissions standards while  following California’s passenger car emissions rules.

Because of smog issues California faced, that state was granted an exception to the Clean Air Act to enforce stricter tailpipe emission regulations. No other state uses that exception,  which prevents car manufacturers from having to make more than two different types of vehicles to meet additional standards.

Though not as stringent as California, the federal passenger car emissions rules are said to lead to greater public adoption of electric vehicles, which the federal heavy truck mirrors. 

Evening traffic on Interstate 95 through Richmond. (Wyatt Gordon)

The Southern Environmental Law Center and other groups have been lauding the work from Biden — though they’d like to see previously drafted and more stringent rules around tractor trailers, or heavy trucks, get adopted — while expressing disappointment in Miyares’ actions.

“It’s very disappointing that the attorney general has joined [challenges to the rules], which will have an outsized impact on climate pollution that are not only harming the earth but also our health,” said Trip Pollard, a senior attorney with the SELC. “I can’t say I’m too surprised.”

Pollard, a leading backer of reducing car emissions, stands by the heavy truck rule because those pollutants from the transportation sector are the state and country’s largest source of greenhouse emissions that are warming the planet, leading to more frequent and severe flooding and fire events.

“There absolutely are legitimate concerns and we just need to be sure to address those concerns,” Pollard said, referencing failed attempts this past session to build out EV charging infrastructure in rural areas.

Conversely, the Virginia Trucking Association has said the new federal heavy truck rules are “unrealistic,” because of the cost to implement the changes and charging demands they say are put on truckers, and support Miyares’ pushback against them.

“We certainly appreciate their effort to stop this rule,” said Dale Bennett, president & CEO of the Virginia Trucking Association. “Let’s take a look at trying to get something that’s realistic and technology neutral.”

Bennett and the trucking industry’s opposition stems from the increased cost the rules will put on the industry that will trickle down to consumers, Bennett said, and could even lead to trucking companies buying vehicles now before needing to buy 2027 to 2032 model year trucks that will need to comply with the federal rules.

“Operationally how do you operate them if there’s no charging infrastructure?” Bennett said.

Virginia is home to a Volvo plant in Dublin that has committed to fossil fuel-free vehicles. There’s also Mack Trucks, which recently expanded in Roanoke County.

“The Volvo Group is completely aligned with EPA’s objective of speeding the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs),” said Jonathan Miller, senior vice president of public affairs for Volvo Group North America, in a statement. “Customers won’t buy ZEVs unless they’re confident they have access to charging, which neither [manufacturers] nor EPA can guarantee.”

Miller said the EPA’s new  rules are “more realistic than what was originally proposed and support the agency’s pledge to consider further adjustments if necessary.”

As less than half of American respondents said in a recent Gallup poll they would purchase an electric vehicle, passenger vehicle manufacturer Ford said it is scaling back its commitments to transition fleets to electric vehicles amid sale concerns. The car maker, which recently began an ad campaign promoting  options to buy gas, electric and hybrid vehicles, still filed a brief in support of the new passenger car tailpipe emissions because of the “regulatory stability” it provides.

“Even more important than the power our customers choose, is what they choose to do with that power,” said Lisa Materazzo, Ford global chief marketing officer, in a statement on its ad campaign promoting choice.

Power plant rule

The EPA’s power plant rule has a similar intent of weaning the country’s electric grid off of fossil fuel-emitting generation sources, but the VCEA directly governing the state’s grid has already set up Virginia to get there.

The new federal rule, according to the Associated Press, would create standards that require existing coal plants operating beyond 2032 to capture 90% of their emissions, or close before then. Future coal or natural gas plants would need to meet that carbon capture rate, too.

“By developing these standards in a clear, transparent, inclusive manner, EPA is cutting pollution while ensuring that power companies can make smart investments and continue to deliver reliable electricity for all Americans,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan in a statement.

The rules for the coal plants could come into play for the Clover Power Station that is co-owned by Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, the electricity supplier for the state’s more rural  electric cooperatives, and Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility. Under the VCEA, the Clover plant is mandated to close by 2045, unless there’s a reliability concern. 

If it were to stay open up until then, it would need to adopt the carbon capture technology the federal rules are requiring that industry associations are challenging because of sequestration measures being in its nascent stage. Otherwise, the 880 megawatts of electricity Clover produces, as well as several other coal plants that are already cited to come offline, would need to close, creating a reliability concern amid unprecedented energy demand.

Despite generating less and less of its potential electricity, the full output of the plant may be needed as part of a “capacity obligation” with the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to supply electricity at the highest peak the grid could face at anypoint.

But whereas the tailpipe emission rules may have a more stark division between support and opposition, the power plant rules don’t have a clear for and against delineation.

“We support EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, as well as the agency’s efforts to provide paths to additional carbon reductions and cleaner resources,” said the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association for investor-owned public utilities like Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power Company, in a statement. “At the same time, we are seeking judicial review of the agency’s determination that carbon capture and storage (CCS) should be the basis for compliance with other portions of the [federal] rules.”

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative’s Kirk Johnson said in a statement: “EPA’s regulation relies on the use of carbon capture technology that is not currently commercially available, despite the Clean Air Act’s requirement that regulatory standards be achievable and based on available technologies,” Without carbon capture technology, Johnson said, “the rule will require power plants to close prematurely during a time when we expect to see unprecedented growth in the need for electricity.”

Because of the recent unveiling of the rules and ongoing litigation, Dominion spokesperson Aaron Ruby said the utility “will need time to evaluate how they might impact our existing fleet or new power stations,” which includes a natural gas plant being proposed in Chesterfield.

Teresa Hall, a spokeswoman for Appalachian Power Company, Virginia’s second largest utility that also serves West Virginia, also said  carbon capture and storage is “not a viable or proven technology that can be deployed on a large scale within the timeframes required by the rule.”

Appalachian Power falls under the parent company American Electric Power, which also includes Wheeling and Kingsport power companies and had 63% and 19% of its electricity generation come from coal and natural gas, respectively, in 2023.

But Virginia has already charted itself toward an electric grid less dependent on fossil fuel through VCEA, and through the state’s previous participation in the Regional Greenhouse Initiative that required electricity producers, including utilities, to purchase allowances to emit carbon, said Walton Shepherd, Virginia Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council,

“We’re already on a path to compliance,” said Shepherd, adding that technologies like battery storage are increasingly emerging as viable ways to provide electricity amid any concerns over the deployment of renewable sources, especially compared to several years ago. “The solutions are there. We have the tools.”

The lawsuit from Miyares, without an alternative solution to address the “health and welfare,” issues from emissions causing climate change for Virginia, Shepherd added, is “an insult to Virginia.”

But referencing another SCOTUS case from 2022 that arose out of West Virginia, Miyares said the EPA’s power plant rule was “overstepping its bounds,” ignoring Supreme Court guidance and “infringing upon the sovereign rights of states to manage their energy resources.”

“We are urging the Court to recognize the EPA’s illegal power-grab and ensure that any changes to our nation’s energy policies are made through the proper legislative process, not through unilateral regulatory mandates,” Miyares added.

Other action

Virginia’s attorney general has also challenged federal rules over meat and poultry waste and air quality standards, as well as some protections for solar customers. Miyares claimed wins for the withdrawal of a rule that would have allowed the public trading of corporations holding park, federal or private land with an intent to conserve it, and a settlement with Monsanto.

The additional challenges oppose regulations that would expand requirements for liquid waste produced by meat processing plants from being enacted at 171 facilities to 3,879 in the country. Details on the number of Virginia facilities the rules would apply to were not immediately available.

The EPA said the proposed rule “would reduce pollutants discharged through wastewater from [meat and poultry processing] facilities by approximately 100 million pounds per year.”

Poultry barns on the Eastern Shore. (Ned Oliver/Virginia Mercury)

But currently, meat and poultry processing plants that aren’t discharging directly into a stream have to pre-treat their waste under a Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit before sending it to a municipal waste facility, in order to prevent the system becoming overwhelmed. That works “well the way it is,” said Hobey Bauhan, Virginia Poultry Federation president.

“We’re favorable to those who are trying to say, ‘yeah let’s take a second look,’” at the federal proposals, Bauhan said.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Should the U.S. get rid of pennies, nickels and dimes? The debate has gone on for years. Many people argue for keeping coins on economic-fairness grounds. Others call for eliminating them because the government loses money minting low-value coins.

One way to resolve the debate is to check whether people are still using small-value coins. And there’s an unlikely source of information showing how much people are using pocket change: the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. Yes, the same people who screen passengers at airport checkpoints can answer whether people are still using coins – and whether that usage is trending up or down over the years.

Each year, the TSA provides a detailed report to Congress showing how much money is left behind at checkpoints. A decreasing amount of change would suggest fewer people have coins in their pockets, while a steady or increasing amount indicates people are still carrying coins.

The latest TSA figure shows that during 2023, air travelers left almost US$1 million in small change at checkpoints. This is roughly double the amount left behind in 2012.

At first glance, this suggests more people are carrying around and using coins. But as a university researcher who studies both travel and money usage – as well as a keen observer of habits while lining up at airport checkpoints – I know the story is more complicated than these numbers suggest.

What gets left behind?

More than 2 million people fly each day in the U.S., passing through hundreds of airport checkpoints manned by the TSA. Each flyer going through a checkpoint is asked to place items from their pockets such as wallets, phones, keys and coins in either a bin or their carry-on bag. Not everyone remembers to pick up all their items on the other side of the scanner. About 90,000 to 100,000 items are left behind each month, the TSA estimates.

For expensive or identifiable items such as cellphones, wallets and laptops, the TSA has a lost-and-found department. For coins and the occasional paper bills that end up in the scanner bins, TSA has a different procedure. It collects all that money, catalogs the amount and periodically deposits it into a special account that the TSA uses to improve security operations.

That money adds up, with travelers leaving behind almost $10 million in change over the past 12 years.

The amount of money left varies by airport. JFK International Airport in New York City is consistently in one of the top slots for most money lost, with travelers leaving almost $60,000 behind in 2022. Harry Reid International Airport, which serves Las Vegas, also sees a large amount of money left behind. Love Field in Dallas, headquarters of Southwest Airlines, is often near the bottom of the list, with only about $100 lost in 2022.

People lose money while going through security for a few reasons. First, some cut it close getting to the airport, and in their rush to avoid missing their plane, they don’t pick up everything after screening. Second, sometimes TSA lines are exceptionally long, leaving people to again scramble to make up time. And finally, TSA checkpoints are often confusing and noisy places, especially for new or infrequent travelers. Making it more confusing is that some airports have bins featuring advertisements, which distract travelers who only quickly glance to check for all their items.

How much is lost?

TSA keeps careful track of how much is lost because the agency is allowed to keep any unclaimed money left behind at checkpoints. TSA records show people left behind half a million dollars in 2012. This rose to almost a million in 2018. The drop in travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the figure back to half a million in 2020. In 2023, people left $956,000.

These raw figures need two adjustments to accurately track trends in coins lost. First, the numbers need to be adjusted for inflation. From 2012 to 2023, the consumer price index rose by 33%. This means a dollar of change in 2012 purchased one-third more than it did 12 years later.

Second, the number of people flying and passing through TSA screening has changed dramatically over time. In 2012, about 638 million people went through the checkpoints. By 2023, that had risen to 859 million people, which is about 1,000 people every 30 seconds across the entire U.S. when airports and checkpoints are open.

Adjusting for both inflation and the number of people screened shows no change in the amount of money lost. My calculations show back in 2012 about $1.10 in coins was lost for every 1,000 people screened. In 2023, about one penny more, or $1.11, was lost per 1,000.

The peak year for money being lost was 2020, when $1.80 per 1,000 people was left behind. This was likely due to people not wanting to touch objects out of misplaced fear they could contact COVID-19. During the pandemic, people in general carried less money.

The world is increasingly using electronic payments. The data from TSA checkpoints, however, clearly shows people are carrying coins at roughly the same rate as back in 2012. This suggests Americans are still using physical money, at least for making small payments – and that the drive to get rid of pennies, nickels and dimes should hold off a while longer.

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in The Conversation.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Legislation that would have aligned Virginia teachers’ pay with the national average or higher by the 2027-28 school year won bipartisan support but was blocked from the state budget by Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s veto last week.

The two-year budget, signed last week, includes $540 million to help pay for 3% salary increases for teachers and state employees in both years.

The governor said he supported the goal of “ensuring that teachers and state-funded education support positions are funded competitively,” but didn’t approve the bill to boost educators’ salaries to the national average because it relied heavily on what he viewed as flawed data from the National Education Association, which represents educators across the country.

In his veto, the governor said the legislation does not “accurately reflect” the state of teacher compensation in Virginia and that NEA’s methodology includes substitute teacher compensation and fails to account for supplemental salary expenditures in determining teacher compensation. He added that the legislation does not account for various scenarios, such as an economic downturn or state of emergency, that could impact teacher pay rates.

The measure also didn’t include Youngkin’s earlier recommendation to create an annual teacher compensation review.

“Consistent, annual reporting of accurate teacher compensation data is essential for lawmakers and the governor to make sound decisions,” he said.

The governor further explained his veto by noting that since 2021, the state has invested $1.6 billion to grow teacher salaries by 23%.

Youngkin said that Virginia‘s average teacher pay was already projected to hit the national average this fiscal year.

Legislation to bring Va. teacher pay to national average gets bipartisan support

The Virginia Education Association argued that the governor’s administration is “mistakenly” making comparisons between the estimated national teacher pay average in the National Education Association Rankings and Estimates report and the Virginia estimate in the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Annual Salary Survey Report.

“The estimates provided within these two reports are calculated using different data and methodologies and are not comparable,” VEA said in a statement on Friday.

According to NEA’s recent report, Virginia’s salary average is $65,058, which is below the national estimated average of $71,699.

Virginia, like other states, provides NEA data to compile state averages in their annual reports, removing non-instructional positions and allowing for an “apples to apples comparison” across all the states, according to VEA.

The Department of Education’s “Annual Salary Survey Report” includes all salary expenditures, including supplemental pay, for classroom teachers, homebound teachers, guidance counselors, librarians, and instructional technology positions, VEA stated. NEA includes only classroom teachers, substitutes, and homebound teachers and excludes supplemental pay.

While lawmakers debated the actual national average during this year’s session, they agreed compensation must be improved for teachers, as vacancies have grown since the pandemic. Youngkin’s veto magnified some Democratic lawmakers’ concerns with Virginia’s educator shortage.

“This school year began with over 4,000 teacher vacancies across our commonwealth, and the governor is not interested in attracting or keeping teachers here. If he was, he would have signed my bill that would have ensured Virginia teachers are being paid at the national average,” said Del. Nadarius Clark, D-Suffolk, one of the bill’s carriers, along with Sen. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth.

Clark added that the governor’s veto indicates where he stands on public education.

“When the governor lets our teachers down, when he doesn’t value them, he is telling the communities they serve and their students that they don’t matter either,” Clark said.

With Youngkin’s veto coming in the same week as the 70th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling — in which the Supreme Court of the United States mandated states desegregate public schools — Lucas said the inequities the case tried to address decades ago still persist in her community and throughout Virginia, which the governor’s rejection of the bill won’t help resolve.

“Governor Youngkin doesn’t care about public education and is determined to hold our students back,” Lucas said. “This is just a small part of his broader agenda to disenfranchise Virginians, and we will not stand for it.”

by Nathaniel Cline, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.

Twenty-six GOP-led states, including Virginia, are suing the Biden administration over changes to Title IX aiming to protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination in schools.

Less than a month after the U.S. Department of Education released its final rule seeking to protect against discrimination “based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics,” a wave of Republican attorneys general scrambled to challenge the measure.

The revised rule, which will go into effect on Aug. 1, requires schools “to take prompt and effective action when notified of conduct that reasonably may constitute sex discrimination in their education programs or activities.”

The lawsuits hail from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

All of the attorneys general in the 26 states suing over the final rule are part of the Republicans Attorneys General Association.

Various advocacy groups and school boards have also tacked onto the states’ legal actions. The lawsuits carry similar language and arguments in vehemently opposing the final rule. They say the new regulations raise First Amendment concerns and accuse the rule of violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

LGBTQ+ advocates say the revised rule offers students a needed protection and complies with existing law.

“Our kids’ experience in schools should be about learning, about making friends and growing as a young person. LGBTQ+ students deserve those same opportunities,” Sarah Warbelow, vice president of legal at the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said in an emailed statement. “In bringing these lawsuits, these state attorneys general are attempting to rob LGBTQ+ students of their rights, illustrating a complete disregard for the humanity of LGBTQ+ students.”

GOP states band together against new regulations

In the most recent effort, Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming sued the Biden administration on Tuesday, accusing the Department of Education of seeking to “politicize our country’s educational system to conform to the radical ideological views of the Biden administration and its allies.”

The lawsuit claims that under the updated regulations, teachers, coaches and administrators would have to “acknowledge, affirm, and validate students’ ‘gender identities’ regardless of the speakers’ own religious beliefs on the matter in violation of the First Amendment.”

In another lawsuit, a group of Southern states —  Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina — sued the administration in federal court in Alabama over the new regulations.

Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said President Joe Biden “has brazenly attempted to use federal funding to force radical gender ideology onto states that reject it at the ballot box” since he took office.

“Now our schoolchildren are the target. The threat is that if Alabama’s public schools and universities do not conform, then the federal government will take away our funding,” Marshall said in a press release.

The lawsuit also drew praise from Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.” He added that the Sunshine State will “not comply” and instead “fight back against Biden’s harmful agenda.”

Individual states sue the administration 

Meanwhile, some states have opted to file individual lawsuits against the administration.

In Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration late last month in federal court in Amarillo. Paxton filed an amended complaint earlier this week, with two new plaintiffs added.

In an April 29 press release, Paxton said the Lone Star State “will not allow Joe Biden to rewrite Title IX at whim, destroying legal protections for women in furtherance of his radical obsession with gender ideology.”

Oklahoma’s Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration earlier this month in federal court in Oklahoma. The state’s education department also filed a separate suit against the Biden administration.

A hodgepodge of states 

In late April, Republican attorneys general in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration in federal court in Kentucky.

Virginia attorney general joins efforts to fight back against Title IX changes

The states argued that the U.S. Education Department “has used rulemaking power to convert a law designed to equalize opportunities for both sexes into a far broader regime of its own making.”

Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and Montana also sued the Biden administration in late April, echoing the language seen in the other related lawsuits. Seventeen local school boards in Louisiana also joined the states.

Earlier this month, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota also brought a collective legal challenge to the final rule.

A spokesperson for the Education Department said the department does not comment on pending litigation but noted that “as a condition of receiving federal funds, all federally-funded schools are obligated to comply with these final regulations.” They added that the department looks forward “to working with school communities all across the country to ensure the Title IX guarantee of nondiscrimination in school is every student’s experience.”

The department has yet to finalize a separate rule that establishes new criteria for transgender athletes. So far, 24 states have passed laws that ban transgender students from partaking in sports that align with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

by Shauneen Miranda, Virginia Mercury

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.