Now that the opening day ceremonies in Richmond are done, it’s time for legislators to get down to business — although we do have that matter of some more ceremony on Saturday when we inaugurate a new governor.
Energy issues and economic issues more broadly are expected to dominate this session. Opinions will vary — that’s the essence of politics — but it would be good if everyone were operating off the same set of facts. With that in mind, we have some new facts that have developed lately that might factor into some of these debates. Here are the energy stats; I’ll deal with the economic numbers in a future column.
Virginia is no longer the nation’s top importer of electricity
A year ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that Virginia had moved into the top spot and was importing more electricity than any other state — a consequence of having so many energy-guzzling data centers. That’s become a key line mentioned by all sides in the debate over data centers, and a rationale for the state to produce more power of its own, although what kind and where remains a major point of contention. (Keep in mind there’s a lag on data collection, so what got reported last year were the 2023 stats and what we’re getting now are the 2024 stats.)
The latest report from the EIA, though, shows that Virginia is no longer the nation’s biggest power importer. We’re second, behind California. It’s possible that our No. 1 ranking for the past year (with those 2023 stats) was a fluke. Virginia’s electricity imports have been relatively consistent over the past few years, while California’s have fluctuated wildly. The California Energy Commission attributes this to weather; the state imports some of its power from hydroelectric generation in the Pacific Northwest. Drier conditions there reduced those imports in 2023, causing California to drop behind Virginia — temporarily, as it turns out.
Virginia’s power imports have fallen for two straight years and are now barely changed from before the state gave a tax break to data centers
Make no mistake: Virginia still imports a lot of power, especially relative to its size. That’s why we’re still second in the country for power imports. However, the amount of power that Virginia imports has now fallen for two straight years and is less than what it was in 2008, the year the state passed its first tax incentive to attract data centers, and just barely ahead of what it was the year before that.
Furthermore, imports are lower today than in 2008, both in terms of megawatt-hours and on a percentage basis.
Below is what the latest EIA reports show about how Virginia’s energy imports have changed over the years. To get the best comparison, I’m starting with 2007, the year before that first tax abatement for data centers. This chart shows how imports have changed in megawatt hours.
Another way to look at energy imports is on a percentage basis. In 2007, the year before that first tax abatement, Virginia imported 36.2% of its power. That rose to 44.2% in 2011 but is now down to 30.6%.
There are many reasons why these percentages might change, weather and energy prices being big ones.
Still, since 2007, our imports are only up by 1.9% — and, in terms of actual megawatt-hours, are lower than they were in 2023, 2022, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2006, or eight of the past 18 years covered in the report. We import a lot of power, but we’ve been importing a lot of power now for some time, even before we gave tax breaks to data centers. While those breaks were passed in 2008, then expanded in 2010, the explosive growth of data centers generally is dated from 2015, which drops out most of these high-import years.
There are at least two ways to view these imports. One is that, contrary to popular opinion, data centers have not driven electricity imports at all. The other is that, if we didn’t have so many data centers, imports would have dropped, so data centers are keeping them high despite more homegrown power generation.
Virginia’s power demand is at an all-time high
While our electricity imports have fallen, our electricity demand is up — way up.
Since 2007, Virginia’s population has grown by 13.6%. However, its electricity usage during that time has gone up 20.5%. Data centers aren’t responsible for all of that (we’re electrifying lots of things), but they are what’s driving the growth in electricity demand. A report by Environment America says more than 25% of the state’s power now goes to data centers, and a report last year by the General Assembly’s investigative arm said that unrestrained growth of data centers could triple electricity demands by 2040.
Whatever the predictions are, the growth of Virginia’s power demands is remarkable. During the same 2007-2024 time frame, the power demands in our great economic rival, North Carolina, grew by just 0.8%, according to the EIA.
Virginia certainly seems like it needs more power — I’ve not heard anyone, left or right, dispute that. They simply dispute how that power should be generated.
You may be wondering, though: Wait a minute — if our power demands are up 20.5% from 2007 to 2024, but our imports are up only 1.9%, where are we getting the rest of the power from? Good question. Here’s the answer, from the EIA reports: homegrown generation.
Virginia is generating more power than it ever has, despite retirement of coal plants
Since 2007, Virginia’s homegrown power generation has grown by 32.0%, even though multiple coal-fired plants have been retired since then. Shutting down those plants (some of which were old and would have needed expensive upgrades to stay operational anyway) has not decreased the amount of power Virginia produces. You could argue, of course, that Virginia would have even more power had they stayed open, but we’d also need to factor in cost considerations to modernize them to see what the best bargain would be for ratepayers.
Most of the new power has come from independent power producers
In all, electricity for the power sector (as opposed to electricity that an industry might produce for its own factory) has increased by 24,167,802 megawatt-hours since 2007. Of that, 11,894,026 megawatt-hours have come from the utilities themselves. Where has the rest come from then? Independent power producers — companies that produce power and then sell it to utilities through power purchase agreements. Many of the solar projects we’ve seen blossom across the state aren’t from our traditional utilities; they’re from independent power producers for whom the utilities are a customer. That’s where the real growth has come from. These independent power producers have added 14,823,291 megawatt-hours since 2007.
In 2007, these independent power producers accounted for just 5.3% of the state’s power supply. By 2024, they accounted for 14.4%.
Power generation has been flat since the Clean Economy Act was passed, but it’s unclear if that’s the cause
In 2020, Virginia enacted a landmark energy law that requires the state’s biggest utilities to go carbon-free by 2040. It’s been controversial ever since; critics say it’s raised electricity prices and unnecessarily retired some power generation; supporters say those price increases are due to other factors and it’s reducing carbon emissions.
What effect has the Clean Economy Act had on power generation? That’s harder to say. These reports give numbers but not explanations. Here are the numbers:
From 2020 to 2024, electricity generation from Virginia’s power sector has declined slightly — a drop of 688,535 megawatt-hours, or 0.6%. That’s so slight, on a percentage basis, that it might be meaningless, just a random slide due to weather or somesuch. However, it is basically flat. Meanwhile, in the previous five-year period, from 2015-2019, electricity generation was up by 12,566,462 megawatt-hours, or 15.4%. From 2010 to 2014, electricity generation was up by 3,705,182 megawatt-hours, or 5.2%.
Does that mean the Clean Economy Act has stalled the growth of power generation? We must remember that correlation is not causation. Most of the coal plant retirements in Virginia came before the Clean Economy Act was passed. There could be lots of other explanations for this slowdown — the global economy and the long timelines of most power projects, for instance. For example, Virginia’s first commercial wind farm is scheduled to come online later this year in Botetourt County, built by one of those independent power producers referenced earlier. That project started in 2015, long before the Clean Economy Act. Its power output will boost the state’s numbers now, but is unconnected to the act. Likewise, Dominion Energy’s offshore wind project off the coast of Virginia Beach is currently stalled by the Trump administration. If that project is allowed to finish, and gets in operation this year, that will also boost the state’s power generation, but the origin of that project goes back to 2012. If we’re seeing a slowdown in the growth of energy production, we need to look at what impact the Clean Economy Act had, but also look at whether there might be roots in economic factors from more than a decade ago. Energy projects take a long time to get up and running. (Disclosure: Dominion is one of our donors, but donors have no say in news decisions; see our policy.)
All we know is that since the act was passed, energy generation in Virginia has been flat, but imports of power, which once declined, did increase right after the act was passed, although they’re coming down now. Even if the cause is something other than the Clean Economy Act, this is an easy talking point for the act’s critics.
Virginia’s electricity rates are lower than the national average
That may come as a surprise to customers when it comes time to pay the bill, but that’s what this report shows. Nationally, the average retail price is 12.94 cents per kilowatt-hour; the EIA lists Virginia’s average as 10.62 cents per kilowatt-hour. (Keep in mind that’s the average across 16 utilities across the state, so your bill may vary.) That’s lower than all our neighboring states, which range from 10.90 cents in Tennessee to 15.04 cents in Maryland.
The highest rate in the country is in Hawaii, at 38 cents per kilowatt-hour. Hawaii, being an island chain, is a special case since it must produce all its energy. Otherwise, the highest rate is in California at 27.04 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the lowest is in North Dakota at 7.93 cents per kilowatt-hour.
I’d caution against sweeping conclusions from this. California’s biggest source of energy is solar energy, but so is Nevada’s, yet Nevada’s energy prices are less than half of California’s and are more like ours. North Dakota’s biggest source of energy is coal, but so is West Virginia, yet North Dakota’s energy prices are the lowest in the country, while West Virginia’s energy prices are higher than ours. Both New Hampshire and South Carolina get most of their energy from nuclear power, but New Hampshire’s rates are twice as high as South Carolina’s. In Iowa and South Dakota, the biggest source of energy is wind power; Iowa has some of the lowest rates in the country while, South Dakota’s rates are a little higher than ours. There are lots of factors that go into energy prices.
Carbon emissions have fallen 39.1% this century
The report also tracks all the stuff that power plants belch out into the atmosphere.
In 2001, carbon dioxide emissions in Virginia peaked at 48,561,000 metric tons, 88.5% of those attributed to coal.
By 2024, carbon dioxide emissions were down to 29,439,000 metric tons. Coal now accounts for only 8.1% of carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, it’s natural gas that accounts for most of the state’s carbon emissions now — 88.0%.
Who gets the credit for reducing carbon emissions? Or the blame for killing coal? For all the talk of President Barack Obama’s “war on coal,” they fell most sharply under Donald Trump’s first term.
Carbon emissions from coal were falling under the presidency of George W. Bush. From 2001 to 2008, carbon emissions from coal in Virginia dropped by 4,733,000 metric tons, or 13.5%.
From 2009 to 2016, under Obama, they dropped by 11,129,000 metric tons — or 38.7%.
Undoubtedly, Obama’s “war on coal,” as critics called it, had a definite impact. However, under Trump’s first term, carbon emissions from coal fell by 7,441,000 metric tons, almost as much in four years as under Obama’s eight. That drop under Trump represented a 64.2% decline, much steeper than under Obama.
Under Joe Biden, they fell by 1,041,000 metric tons, partly because there simply wasn’t much left (although that many metric tons of anything does seem like a lot). Those emissions may have dropped under Trump because of policies put in place by Obama, but let’s also not forget the role of the marketplace here. Trump may have enthusiastically embraced “King Coal,” as he called it once during a campaign rally in Radford, but the market has not.
What did happen under Trump’s first term was that emissions from natural gas topped emissions from coal for the first time, a consequence of utilities swapping out coal plants for natural gas plants. Overall, emissions have gone down, although likely not as much as some want.
Did the Clean Economy Act have any impact on carbon emissions? From these reports, it’s hard to say. In 2020, the year the act was passed, they were at 31,807,000 metric tons. They fell in 2021, then again in 2022, and yet again in 2023, but went back up in 2024 — and stood at 29,439,000 metric tons, so not that much different from where we started. Those changes are entirely due to natural gas, whose emissions were down in 2021-23 and then back up in 2024.
I can see these figures being cited both ways. Critics of the Clean Economy Act will say, “See, the act hasn’t really reduced carbon emissions at all, plus it’s stalled energy generation, forcing us to buy expensive out-of-state power.” Supporters will say, “It would work better if we didn’t have so much natural gas, so we need to discourage that — and the generation stall is due to other factors.” Another side, if there is another side, might say, “We really don’t have enough data points to make sweeping judgments.”
Who’s right? That’s often more a political question than a factual one, but these are the numbers. Do with them as you see fit.
What others say about these stats
What should we make of these statistics? Here are two responses from opposite sides of the political spectrum:
Youngkin: RGGI has increased emissions, not decreased them
A spokesman for Gov. Glenn Youngkin said Virginia’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative had driven up emissions:
“Virginia’s decrease of imported power despite increased electricity demand in 2024 is a direct result of Virginia’s withdrawal from RGGI, which has made Virginia power generators more competitive in the PJM market [the regional power grid]. Virginia’s participation in RGGI drives up cost to residents and businesses in two ways — through the purchasing of allowances and through increased energy purchases from the market due to less dispatch of Virginia generators. The Department of Energy estimated that while the energy Virginians purchased from Dominion required the emission of 118.86 billion pounds of CO2 in 2022 and 2023 under RGGI, it would only have required the emission of 116.71 billion pounds [without RGGI]. Ironically, Virginia participation in RGGI resulted in 2,145,510,874 more pounds of CO2 getting emitted into the atmosphere. The Youngkin Administration believes we create a cleaner future by responsibly utilizing all-American, all-of-the-above energy. Being part of an unholy alliance like RGGI not only drives costs up for families but also results in more carbon emissions rather than less — completely defeating its purpose. We hope that the incoming administration and General Assembly will heed these lessons and govern accordingly.”
Clean Virginia: RGGI reduces cost and emissions
A look through Virginia’s net import numbers over time shows significant year-over-year changes to Virginia’s import amounts (both increases and decreases), well before RGGI was established. RGGI is clearly not responsible for those historical changes. Virginia’s 2024 import number could be caused by any of a range of factors.
There are also issues with the assertions of the governor’s office: It is true that RGGI carbon allowance costs raise variable operating costs for fossil fuel power plants in participating states. However, that does not mean that removing those costs makes power plants instantly more competitive against out-of-state producers, because:
- PJM includes 13 states whose generators may have different costs unrelated to RGGI.
- Other factors — like fuel costs, transmission constraints and renewable integration — also affect competitiveness.
There are many variables that impact the costs of fossil fuel generators, and RGGI is just one of them.
Without supported data from RGGI or PJM, or more detailed data from the DOE, it is hard to fully assess the accuracy of these claims.
Additionally, if the goal is to rein in costs and reduce pollution, RGGI is an effective tool. Fuel charges have been one of the largest contributors to rising customer bills in Virginia. See, for example, the recent EDF analysis. Clean Virginia had similar findings regarding APCo (see our research report here), and we are about to release a report finding a similar issue with Dominion. RGGI helps ensure that utilities plan to reduce reliance on volatile and costly global fuels like methane gas, whose prices Virginia cannot control.
If the commonwealth wants to reduce imports, strengthen energy independence, and lower costs, the solution is not to abandon RGGI; it is to hold utilities and developers accountable for building more clean, fuel-free energy in Virginia. That means creating in-state jobs, reducing fuel costs on customer bills and improving air quality for Virginians.
For more political news and insights, sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter.
