Virginia’s next governor will face an energy crisis. How she handles it may well define her term.
The basic problem is that the demand for energy is rising — driven largely by the growth of data centers.
The operator of the regional power grid, known as PJM, has already warned that under some scenarios we might not have enough power this summer — and we’ve come close.
The generally agreed-upon solution is to produce more power. There’s also a more controversial notion that maybe we should try to slow down the growth of these power-hungry data centers, although those on the environmental side of the ledger who are most inclined to want to constrain data centers also back the Virginia Clean Economy Act’s goals to convert Virginia’s biggest utilities to a carbon-free electric grid, which means building new energy sources to replace fossil fuels. There seems no scenario where we don’t need to produce more power.
That’s not a task for government — that’s a task for utilities — but the rules that government sets shape what those utilities can and cannot do, and what our energy choices are. That’s why as soon as Republican Winsome Earle-Sears and Democrat Abigail Spanberger were confirmed as their parties’ nominees for governor in early April, I contacted each to ask for an interview on energy policy. Spanberger’s campaign responded right away, and my interview with Spanberger published in late April. Earle-Sears has taken longer to respond, but we recently connected and instead of the promised 15 minutes, she gave me 40 minutes of her time.
Even without an interview, we know some things about how the two candidates differ on energy policy. Spanberger supports the Clean Economy Act and wants to see more solar power developed on rooftops, parking lots and schools as a way to relieve some of the pressure on rural Virginia. Earle-Sears opposes the Clean Economy Act and backs an “all-of-the-above” energy approach, specifically citing “clean coal” as an energy option. In our interview, she said she doesn’t object to renewables, but is not nearly as enthusiastic as pushing solar, in particular, as Spanberger is.
However, on other energy sources, the rhetorical differences between the two candidates might be bigger than the actual policy differences. Both candidates say they support the development of small nuclear reactors (Earle-Sears is more effusive, though). Both say they support burning biomass (again, Earle-Sears seems more effusive). And while Earle-Sears is more supportive of natural gas, Spanberger allows that there is a place for natural gas “in the near- and medium-term.”
With that background, here are some of the highlights of my interview with Earle-Sears:
On how we solve the energy crisis: Both candidates say we need to talk this through; neither has a plan
It’s easy to say we need to produce more energy; it’s much harder to actually do it, when every form of energy has its detractors and nobody wants an energy site near them. So how do we pursue any energy strategy — be it “all of the above” or “some of the above” — when neighbors often want “none of the above” near them?
That’s a question I put to both candidates.
Spanberger’s answer was that she’d convene utilities and others “to have a clear understanding” of the scope of the challenge and figure out how Virginia’s response fits into what other states on the grid do. “I haven’t necessarily given you the solution, but it’s an acknowledgement that it takes real leadership and a focus from the state,” she said.
Earle-Sears’ answer was much the same: “My way of living is to bring people to the table and find a compromise. Find a way that we can have this ‘all of the above’ energy approach.”
Neither of those answers are terribly specific. I also don’t know what answer a candidate could realistically give. Both candidates reject one possible solution — for the state to override local zoning decisions and mandate that localities must accept certain energy projects.
Spanberger opposes a state mandate; so does Earle-Sears. “I do believe the best form of government is the government closest to you,” Earle-Sears said. “After all, you see the mayor, the board of supervisors in the supermarket.”
That also creates a situation where some local governments are making decisions — to approve data centers or to block energy development — that creates consequences the state must deal with; in this case, energy demands are rising faster than energy supply. The solution? “It’s not unusual for us to come together and find a way,” Earle-Sears said. “Someone once said politics is the art of the compromise.”
She did talk about how she would conduct such a meeting: “There are some things as governor you can promise all you want but you have to come to the table and shut everybody in a room and say look, we all want the same thing, how do we get there. You’ve got to get to the white board. What are your five things? What are your five things? What are your five things? How about you? OK, we can’t do your five, but can you agree that maybe these other five we can start looking at? OK, now, let’s go down the line, why won’t this work? OK — why won’t this work? Well, how about this one, and then you bring everybody together. I mean, this is not war. This is not war. You bring everybody together and you figure it out, and sometimes you’ve got to take a hit. You’ve got to take a hit and then hope in the long run, the voters understand that this was the best solution you could come up with.”
As part of her belief in an “all of the above” energy strategy, Earle-Sears said she was not inclined to rule out any energy options: “Why would we tie our hands?”
On nuclear power: ‘We know that SMRs are safe‘
Nuclear power is enjoying a renaissance, with an emphasis on a new type of reactor known as small modular reactors, or SMRs. As the name suggests, they are smaller than conventional reactors (maybe one-third the size) and the idea is that they can be mass-produced in a factory and moved to the eventual site (that’s the modular part). Conventional nuclear plants have taken a long time to build and are expensive. The hope is that SMRs can be built quicker, and more cheaply — and then produce lots of power from a small site (whereas solar requires a lot of space).
The technical term that comes into play here is “baseload power,” meaning a type of power that can run around-the-clock to produce a consistent amount of power — something solar and wind can’t do. While nuclear power has always been popular on the right, some (though not all) on the left are also starting to embrace it because they see using a certain level of nuclear power as the easiest way to phase out fossil fuels without losing reliability.
The only small reactors currently in operation are in China and Russia, but a recent report by the Nuclear Energy Association listed 126 SMRs that have been proposed around the world — with 19 of those described as “near-term” projects, mostly in North America, Europe and Asia. Those lists don’t include the three that are still in the idea stage in Virginia — two from Dominion Energy, at its North Anna nuclear station in Louisa County and the Yorktown Naval Weapons Center, one from Appalachian Power at its Joshua Falls substation in Campbell County. (Disclosure: Dominion is one of our donors, but donors have no say in new decisions; see our policy).
Spanberger has said that “I think Virginia is doing it perfectly” by having Dominion pioneer an SMR at an existing nuclear site.
Earle-Sears emphasized that the technology behind SMRs has already been proven because, even though small reactors have not been used commercially, they have been used by the military for decades. “We know that SMRs are safe because right now they’re right now on the ships and submarines in Norfolk, the largest naval base in the world, and I do not think they’ve had an accident, not the Fukushima type, which is what people want to say when they want to scare folks.”
On renewables: They’re not as green as people think
While Spanberger wants to see more deployment of solar — with particular emphasis on urban areas — Earle-Sears is more critical of both solar and wind.
“I’m not against solar, not against wind, but don’t gaslight the people of Virginia by saying they’re clean,” Earle-Sears said. “These turbines, for example, are manufactured in China, which, as you know, is pursuing coal, so they’re manufactured by fossil fuels, and then lubricated by fossil fuels. And solar has its attendant problems with lithium and storage and all that.”
Globally, 60% of the wind turbines deployed around the world are built in China, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. However, a U.S. Department of Energy report — produced during President Donald Trump’s first term — found that most of the parts used in wind turbines built in the United States were manufactured domestically, from 50% to 70% of the blades to 85% of the nacelles, to 75% to 90% of the towers.
Virginia doesn’t have any on-shore wind farms — not yet anyway, although one is under construction in Botetourt County — but Dominion does have an off-shore wind farm underway off the coast of Virginia Beach. A Dominion spokesman says “the vast majority” of the parts for that facility come from Europe, with some from Mexico — and none from China.
Solar, by contrast, is much more dependent on Chinese production. While it’s difficult to find out what percentage of the panels used in the United States come from China, that nation does account for about 85% of global production of solar panels, according to Statista. The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act was intended to spur domestic production of solar panels, and it did — but the energy news site E+E Leader reports that many of those companies setting up operations have Chinese ties. The recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill also ends many solar tax credits, so it’s unclear how many domestic solar panel factories will survive.
Earle-Sears is correct on Chinese manufacturing: While China is ramping up its use of renewables, more than 87% of Chinese power is still based on fossil fuels, with 60.9% coming from coal, according to the International Energy Association. If something says “made in China,” it’s almost a given that it was made with fossil fuels.
On biomass: ‘A very good source of fuel’
Some of the policy debates over energy in Richmond have been over what counts as renewable energy beyond solar and wind. One particular debate has been over “biomass” energy, which means burning something biological to turn it into energy. That can mean lots of things — burning municipal solid waste, for instance — but generally means burning wood.
Not everyone is happy about counting biomass as renewable energy. Yes, trees can grow back, but critics see biomass as expensive — and just another form of carbon emissions.
Biomass currently accounts for 4% of Virginia’s energy generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While that’s a small percentage, Virginia produces more megawatt hours of energy from biomass than all but three other states — California, Georgia and Florida, in that order, according to the group Save On Energy.
Earle-Sears is enthusiastic about biomass. “Biomass, of course, could be used as a baseload, but my opponent doesn’t want to talk about that, but we can’t afford to lose our farming, our forestry, our loggers in Virginia — that’s jobs. And this is a very good source of fuel.” More use of biomass would also be an economic boon to rural areas, particularly those in Southside, whose counties are the top producers of forest products in the state. “We have the land. And trees,” Earle-Sears said. There are those who say “they don’t want any trees cut down. You know there are jobs attached to that. It’s created opportunity. We are going to lose that industry — it adds quite a bit to our economy. That could be part of the renewables but, of course, there are people who don’t want that. They only want solar and they only want wind.”
Earle-Sears’ emphasis on biomass prompted me to go back to ask Spanberger about her views on biomass, since that was something we didn’t cover in our first interview. Here’s the statement Spanberger’s campaign sent: “Abigail is committed to transitioning Virginia to cleaner electricity generation, and she is committed to the long-term goals of the Virginia Clean Economy Act. Abigail also understands that Virginia must meet its energy needs with affordable, reliable energy in the short- and medium-term. Abigail is supportive of expanding a variety of electricity generation sources and continuing to develop advanced energy technologies, such as small modular nuclear reactors, fusion, geothermal, and hydrogen. Abigail also knows that natural gas will continue to be an important part of our energy mix in the near- and medium-term. She also believes that as Virginia works to meet increasing electricity demand, biomass — particularly biomass managed in such a way as to reduce local pollution and encourage sustainable forest management — should remain on the table as an option for consideration.”
You can also see how the candidates answered two energy-related questions on our Voter Guide questionnaire. I intend to seek other interviews with both candidates to ask about other topics.
Want more politics? Sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter:
