Demand Response Program for Data Centers

On Wednesday SB 1047 Electric utilities; demand response programs for certain customers, Senator Roem’s bill as summarized below passed the house. This was one of the few data center bills to survive the legislative session. Until it started to look like the bill might pass, I had not given a lot of thought to it. So, let’s talk about it.

First, the surviving bill only requires the Virginia Department of Energy to work with the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to study the need for demand response programs in Virginia. The programs do exist for residential customers.

In a demand response program, the utility company provides financial incentives for customers to reduce demand on the grid by reducing power usage or shifting to on-site generation. These demand response programs usually include critical peak pricing, variable peak pricing, real time pricing, and critical peak rebates. Demand response programs also include programs for smaller users which provide the ability for the power companies to cycle air conditioners, heat pumps and water heaters on and off during periods of peak demand to manage the load. This cannot be done for data centers.

To protect the grid in times of high demand, due to weather or disruptions data centers have not been willing to voluntarily reduce their power draw. No data centers in Virginia participates in Dominion Energy’s demand response program, in which organizations agree to reduce their power load if there is a shortage. Data center operators said that’s because they have no control over their customers’ power demands.

About two years ago in Dev/sustainability ran an article, “Why don't data centers participate in demand response?” by David Mytton where he said “The primary purpose of a data center is to provide a secure, reliable, and well connected place for IT workloads to operate efficiently. Power is a crucial aspect of this and data centers invest a lot of money into ensuring that the IT equipment always has power. This involves backup batteries, generators, and emergency fuel delivery contracts to ensure continuity.

If power to a data center could be taken offline at short notice it would either need to shut down entirely or (more likely) would have to switch to an alternative source of power. Shutting down entirely is impractical even if a single entity controlled all the equipment and systems within the data centers. Building applications to shift load is very expensive and difficult to do. And switching to backup is a risky process in itself, even when tested regularly. Long duration batteries are still too expensive and too immature in their development to make them a reliable option, although large scale batteries are being deployed.”

He went on to say: “the additional revenue of participating in demand response is therefore meaningless in comparison to the risks and costs of migrating workloads. That’s why data centers don’t (and won’t) participate in demand response. “

This week Amazon Web Services experienced a power outage at its Tanner Way facility in Manassas. The backup generators kicked on to keep the operation running. Neighbors of the campus expressed dismay at the sound of the backup generators and fumes from the diesel generators. If SB 1047 requires data centers to run on backup generators during periods of high power demand and pays the companies for noise and diesel pollution, we might end up with very unhappy residents and data center companies. The current bill specifically says:

 “that any demand response program (a) meet the minimum reliability and resource adequacy standards set by the regional transmission entity of which the utility is a member, (b) reduce customers' energy consumption during the grid's emergency events or when called upon, (c) not increase local air pollution through the use of fossil fuels generators, and (d) be cost-effective.”

There may be another way. In an article that was published in Data Center Frontier “Google Is Now Reducing Data Center Energy Use During Local Power Emergencies’ by Matt Vincent, another approach was discussed. “Google has… a system optimized to reduce the energy use of data centers when there is a local power emergency. Core functions of the system, which has the hallmarks of a universally applicable technology, include postponing low-priority workloads, and moving others to other regions that are less constrained.”

“The system as developed and piloted by Google represents a new way to reduce its data centers’ electricity consumption when there is high stress on the local power grid, by shifting some non-urgent compute tasks to other times and locations, without impacting the most commonly used Google services.”

“… Google is using this task-shifting capability for a demand response system, as a means of temporarily reducing power consumption at certain data centers to provide flexibility when it is needed, to help local grids continue operating reliably and efficiently…. Google said its demand response pilot programs are in effect in parts of Europe and Asia, and centrally in the U.S.”

“In collaboration with its local utility partners, Google affirmed that via the demand response system, it reduced its data centers’ power consumption in these regions during these periods, helping to ensure that the local grids could operate reliably in meeting the needs of local communities.”

So, there may be another way that data centers can reduce power use temporarily without shutting down operations or stepping off to back up powers. Demand response programs for data centers may have potential. Let’s see.

 

SB 1047 - Electric utilities; demand response programs for certain customers.
Patron: Sen. Roem
Status: Passed Senate
Referred to House Committee on Labor and Commerce; Passed Committee, passed House.

A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 56-596.2:3, relating to electric utilities; demand response programs for certain customers.

SUMMARY AS PASSED:

1. § 1. That the Department of Energy, in consultation with the State Corporation Commission, shall evaluate and assess benefits, impacts, best practices, and implementation recommendations for demand response programs in the Commonwealth. Such evaluation and assessment shall consider (i) existing utilization of demand response programs and networks in the Commonwealth; (ii) current and prospective participation rates; and (iii) potential requirements that any demand response program (a) meet the minimum reliability and resource adequacy standards set by the regional transmission entity of which the utility is a member, (b) reduce customers' energy consumption during the grid's emergency events or when called upon, (c) not increase local air pollution through the use of fossil fuels generators, and (d) be cost-effective. The Department of Energy shall report such evaluation and assessment to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor and the House Committee on Labor and Commerce no later than November 1, 2025.

PJM has Power Plant Fast Track Plan Approved

 Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a comprehensive reform of the PJM generator interconnection process.  The change is designed to quickly and more efficiently process new service requests by changing from a first-come, first-served queue process to a first-ready, first-served approach. This is how PJM is going to address the data center power demand problem.

PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission grid operator, works behind the scenes to ensure the reliability of the power grid and to keep the lights on. PJM is our regional transmission organization that takes responsibility for grid operations, reliability, and transmission service within 13 states and the District of Columbia: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. As part of that mission PJM forecasts the demand and makes sure the power generation is available to meet that need. PJM is the largest regional grid operator.

Under the approved plan PJM can review up to 50 new power generation proposals in addition to the 55 gigawatts of renewable and batter energy storage in the already in the que. This change is needed to address the power shortage forecasted to be 30 gigawatts by 2029. Most of this growth is in Northern Virginia and is from the growth in the number of data centers. These new fast tracked generation proposals are thought likely to include large gas generation projects.  In its January 2025 Long-Term Load Forecast Report, PJM outlined near-term resource adequacy concerns, occurring as soon as the 2029/2030 delivery year.  Gas generation is not only dispatchable, but is generally the fastest to build and PJM will address the data center power demand surge.

Net Energy Load Growth in the PJM region is projected to average 4.8% per year over the next 10-year period, and 2.9% over the next 20-years. The total PJM electricity use is forecasted to be 1,328,045 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2035, a 10-year increase of 495,264 GWh, and reaches 1,482,068 GWh in 2045, a 20-year increase of 649,287 GWh. What is driving the growth is the demand in the Dominion Region-

from PJM

As you can see from the chart above in the Dominion Zone, Commercial Demand which includes data centers) for electricity had grown to over 50% of demand by 2023. Now that demand is forecast to continue growing driving almost all the near term growth in the entire PJM. It is reported that PJM's grid includes only 5% renewables at this time and this will slow the conversion to renewables under the VCEA. 

Under the VCEA, Virginia is legally required to retire all fossil fuel baseload generation, (this excludes the existing nuclear power plants), in favor of  renewable generation which is intermittent and not dispatchable. The VCEA will require additional solar panels enough to cover an area the size of multiple Fairfax Counties. Building so called solar farms has coincided with decreasing tree canopy in Virginia. This is counterproductive to a sustainable Virginia. With the retirement of baseload generation which is dispatchable and always on-demand and can power data centers in the dark, multiples of the GW generation shut down must be combined with utility scale storage to manage power demand when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Such battery storage is not yet cost effective. The authors of the VCEA law forgot to control the demand for additional power when they planned for Virginia's future. 

Microplastics and PFAS in Landfills and WWTP

Prada AF, Scott JW, Green L, Hoellein TJ. Microplastics and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in landfill-wastewater treatment systems: A field study. Sci Total Environ. 2024 Dec 1;954:176751. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176751. Epub 2024 Oct 6. PMID: 39378946.

The article excerpts and summarizes the research cited above and the University of Illinois press release.

Since the 1950s plastics have been mass produced in greater and greater volumes. Global production of plastics was 1.5 million tons/year in the 1950's and was 370 million tons/year in 2019 (Kumar et al., 2021). It is estimated that 79 % of all the plastic produced has either been buried in landfills or becomes fugitive in the environment. Only 9 % of plastic has been recycled (Geyer et al., 2017). As a result, plastic pollution, including microplastics the name given for particles smaller than 5 mm) are now ubiquitous in the environment (Lim, 2021).

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic organic chemicals are entirely synthetic. PFAS are used extensively in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs), non-stick coating, paper products, textiles, and other products because they repel oil and water, resist temperature extremes, and reduce friction (Paul et al., 2009; Lindstrom et al., 2011). By design, PFAS are thermally stable, oxidatively recalcitrant, and resist microbial degradation (Kannan et al., 2001; Kissa, 2001; Parsons et al., 2008)- in other words they last almost forever. Because of their large-scale use and high stability, PFAS have spread and are widely detected at low levels in water, soil, and the atmosphere. (Ahrens et al., 2011; Hamid et al., 2018).

In the last two decades, many PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have been ubiquitously detected in wildlife and humans (Giesy et al., 2010; Nakayama et al., 2019; Remucal, 2019; McDonough et al., 2022). In animals, PFAS can be immunotoxins, reproductive toxins, developmental toxins, endocrine disruptors, and possible carcinogens (Lau et al., 2007; Gorrochategui et al., 2014; Grandjean and Clapp, 2015; Jian et al., 2018; Steenland and Winquist, 2021; Panieri et al., 2022).

Microplastics have also been related to health problems as they could disrupt the gut microbiome, enter organ tissues, cause local inflammatory and immune responses, and transport other toxic substances (Gruber et al., 2022).

Landfills and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) have been found to be point sources for many emerging contaminants, including microplastics and PFAS (Michielssen et al., 2016; Stahl et al., 2018; Solo-Gabriele et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021). Landfill leachate may contain 10² microplastics per liter (Sun et al., 2021) and PFAS in concentrations of parts-per-billion (Harrad et al., 2019). WWTP effluent may contain tens of microplastics per liter (Franco et al., 2021) and PFAS in concentrations of parts-per-trillion (Gallen et al., 2018).

Landfills and WWTPs are places where plastic materials and PFAS containing material are disposed. However, those materials do not entirely stay in the landfill and WWTPs. Previous research suggests most microplastics and PFAS that enter WWTPs are retained in the biosolids (Harley-Nyang et al., 2023; Garg et al., 2023). Biosolids are commonly later used as soil amendments and thus facilitate the return of contaminants to the environment when applied to land. Biosolids have also been disposed of in landfills, and WWTPs are interconnected by the regulatory requirement that landfill leachate must be treated before it is discharged to surface waters (USEPA, 2000). Previous studies have examined these systems separately and have reported concentrations of microplastics and PFAS without further investigation of how much of the detected concentrations in WWTP influents come from landfill leachates compared to city sewage.

In the 2024 study cited above, the scientists measured microplastics and PFAS throughout the linked landfill-WWTP systems, where landfill leachate entered a WWTP (N = 4 different systems). The objectives of this study were to:

1. Quantify microplastics and 14 of the most common PFAS compounds found in landfill leachate and WWTP influent, effluent, and biosolids 
2. Perform detailed size measurements of microplastics to calculate microplastic mass, and
3. Generate mass balances of microplastics and PFAS to assess their fate.

 The scientist found that landfills retain most of the plastic waste that is dumped there, and wastewater treatment plants remove 99% of the microplastics and some of the PFAS from the wastewater and landfill leachate they take in. The analysis revealed that while landfills do a good job of retaining microplastics, their leachate contains higher levels of PFAS than anticipated.

“We were surprised how high the PFAS levels were in landfill leachate, while the microplastics were lower than expected,” Dr. Andrea Prada said.

Unfortunately, both microplastics and PFAS accumulate in the biosolids that settle to the bottom of wastewater treatment plants. These biosolids must be disposed of in other ways and have been landfilled and land applied as an agricultural amendment for decades.

Wastewater treatment plants are designed to process thousands even millions of gallons of wastewater from sanitary (and in older urban areas storm) sewer systems. That water carries a significant load of microplastics and PFAS from homes and businesses. While the concentration of PFAS in water flowing through these systems is lower than that found in landfill leachate, the massive volume of water coming in from sewers makes the overall mass of both contaminants higher.

The WWTPs in the study can take in 10,000 gallons of wastewater per minute but only about 30,000 gallons of landfill leachate per day. “The problem of microplastics and PFAS in biosolids is not easy to solve,the researchers said. Spreading PFAS and microplastics across cropland is not a good practice,” Dr. John Scott said. “But what else are we to do with it? If we landfill it, we’re just going around and around in the circle of moving it from landfill to wastewater treatment plant and back to the landfill.”

Mankind has created an unholy loop that we need to solve.

Photo by Fred Zwicky U of I

 

China’s Cities are Subsiding

Zurui Ao et al., A national-scale assessment of land subsidence in China’s major cities.Science384,301-306(2024).DOI:10.1126/science.adl4366

Robert J. Nicholls, Manoochehr Shirzaei , Earth’s sinking surface.Science384,268-269(2024).DOI:10.1126/science.ado998

The article below is excerpted from the peer reviewed research study and related invited perspective cited above.

 Subsidence is the lowering or sinking  of the Earth’s land surface through natural or manmade processes. It is a widespread and sometimes dramatic phenomenon. Such sinking is caused by a range of factors, including groundwater withdrawal, which is generally considered the most significant driver. However, at present our understanding of subsidence is not complete, though the phenomenon has been observed for more than a century.

 Earth’s surface experiences natural uplift and subsidence due to various geological processes such as glacial retreat or earthquake. As mentioned above groundwater withdrawal almost always promote subsidence. Subsidence most often occurs on coastal sedimentary plains and deltas, - inland sedimentary plains often show similar behavior. In coastal areas, subsidence also contributes to relative sea level rise.

Over the past decade, advances in satellite imaging technology have enabled scientists to measure down to millimeter-scale changes in land level over days to years. Using measurements from the satellite Sentinal-1 Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) and ground-based GPS data, Zurui Ao and colleagues examined land subsidence in 82 of China’s major cities from 2015 to 2022. InSAR uses highly precise radar pulses to measure the change in distance between the satellite and the ground surface and can detect changes in elevation down to millimeters per year.  

In the study cited above Ao et al. found that 45% of the studied urban land area is subsiding faster than 3 millimeters per year (mm/year), and as much as 16% is subsiding at a rate of 10 mm/year or more. These sinking lands contain 29% and 7% of China’s urban population, respectively. This is a concern because the impacts of subsidence in urban areas include direct damage to buildings and foundations, infrastructure, drains, and sewage systems. It also exacerbates the occurrence and effects of flooding, especially in coastal cities, compounding climate change.

Ao et al were not able to attribute the measured subsidence to specific physical causes (building weight, groundwater withdrawal, landfill etc.) because they lacked data and models of the various processes that can or do contribute to subsidence. Predicting or slowing future subsidence requires an understanding of all the causes, including human activities and climate change, and how they might change with time. 

from Ao et al

The authors speculate on what some of the causes might be based on previous work in subsidence. The first factor is the geological setting beneath the city. Closely related with the geological setting is the weight of buildings-China has had an extraordinary speed of urban construction in the past 3 decades. Ao et al found that the later the building was constructed, the faster the subsidence tends to be, and counter intuitively  they found that heavier buildings tend to subside more slowly.  The authors speculated that heavier buildings are anchored on deeper bedrock and are therefore less prone to subside. A major factor identified is groundwater loss, which decreases pore pressure and leads to subsurface compaction. This has been observed worldwide including the coastal plain of the eastern united states.

The Digital Gateway- Rezoning and Taxes

I have been tracking the bills that pertain to Data Centers in the current legislative session. Wednesday was cross over when the bills that passed the Senate go to the House and vice versa. In general the bills to control data center development have not been doing well. One bills in this group is a special interest tax code bill written to benefit the landowners of the Prince William Digital Gateway rezoning. It is carried by Senator McPike McPike, a Democrat, who represents a large portion of Prince William County but not the Digital Gateway corridor.

The PW Digital Gateway is a project in which QTS and Compass Datacenters are planning to develop over 2,100 acres of greenfield land adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield Park for a massive industrial data center development consisting of up to 34 buildings and over 22 million square feet complete with fenced security, electric substations and backup diesel microgrid of hundreds of industrial sized backup generators and transmission lines.

Through a land acquisition entity QTS, has contracted to buy the Digital Gateway landowner's property for their development at life changing valuations of millions of dollars. Those purchases stand to drastically increase the value of the land, but the sale is contingent on two data center zoning approvals being declared final and unappealable. In the meantime, the current property owners are responsible for the property taxes and liens.

Several opponents of the  PW Digital Gateway have sued. The data center companies involved in the project, QTS and Compass Datacenters, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the PWC Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Irving declined to dismiss the case. Saying she needed more evidence about a key argument: whether Prince William County fulfilled its legal requirements to properly advertise the public hearing before the vote on the PW Digital Gateway rezoning, she scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 6, 2025. 

Under the current state tax code the tax rate goes up and deferred taxes for the five tax years of 2018, 2019,2020,2021 and 2022 become due immediately. The recovered taxes are due to losses in agriculture and open space exemptions that were previously granted. The Digital Gateway homeowners sued the county for tax relief. However, the Circuit Court found that there is really no remedy under the current tax code. Prince William County had already  discounted the tax due by 75%  for uncertainty though the increase in taxes was eye popping- tens of thousands of dollars up to hundreds of thousands of dollars due to the county.

Enter Senator McPike who despite not representing the property owners has carried a bill through the state senate to change the state tax code to benefit these property owners and others who may be engaged in having their properties rezoned and then banking the property.

The Prince William Times reports: “So far, the county is owed at least $1.9 million in real estate taxes from Digital Gateway landowners because they are refusing to pay the full tax bills on their recently rezoned land, according to Nikki Brown, a county spokeswoman.  McPike has received thousands in donations from data center interests, including the landowners who would directly benefit from his bill. In 2024, he received more than $20,000 from data center and construction interests. Since 2021, he has received an additional $15,000 from donors involved in the Digital Gateway, according to campaign finance reports.” 

Look, I am thoroughly unhappy with the development of greenfield agriculture land into industrial uses, the lack of management and planning for the electric demand and power infrastructure (and water) needed for this uncontrolled building of data centers and the intensity of industrial development. I am angry about the way the project seemed to be rammed through, and I am furious about the appearance that data center companies bought themselves supervisors and state senators. However, I do not feel it is right to bankrupt our neighbors who were tempted with life changing wealth to sign a bad contract. (Really, they should have had better legal representation.) I do not want to destroy their lives (though they seem not to care about the rest of us). I believe the bill will pass if the performance in the Senate chamber is any indication. The scope of this change in the tax code needs to be limited to this one project and let the courts settle it. The bill and summary appear below.

UPDATE: Well, I was wrong. The bill was laid on the Table in the House Subcommittee on Friday, February 14, 2025. 

SB 1305 - Local taxes; change to zoning ordinances, etc.
Patron: McPike
Status: Passed Senate< UPDATE Houses  Counties Cities and Towns - Subcommittee #3 Voted to lay on the table.

A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 58.1-3237 and 58.1-3285 of the Code of Virginia, relating to local taxes; zoning; assessments; ordinances.

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:

Local taxes; zoning; assessments; injunctions; ordinances. Provides that for purposes of real estate subject to a special tax assessment for land preservation by local ordinance, a change to the zoning ordinance shall only be effective following (i) the approval of the relevant modification in the zoning classification of real estate; (ii) the exhaustion of the challenge or appeal period; and (iii) if pending, the final determination of any challenge or appeal made within such period.

The bill also provides that for purposes of subdivided or rezoned lots, the assessment or reassessment required by law shall only be effective following (a) the approval of a modification in the zoning classification of the subject real estate, an exception to zoning or classification of the subject real estate, or a reclassification of the subject real estate; (b) the exhaustion of the challenge or appeal period for such approvals; or (c) if pending, the final determination of any such challenge or appeal made within such period.

The bill also authorizes the circuit court to issue an injunction to stay the collection of taxes during the pendency of any application to the circuit court for an assessment correction upon a showing of (1) a bona fide hardship caused by such assessment and (2) a bona fide financial inability to satisfy such assessed tax obligation. Any injunction so issued shall not remain in effect later than when a final determination is made on the merits of an assessment correction application. Under current law, no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any local tax shall be maintained in any court of the Commonwealth, except when the party has no adequate remedy at law.

Finally, the bill provides that any zoning ordinance enacted after December 1, 2023, shall not become effective until the later of either (A) the exhaustion of the period within which a decision of the local governing body may be contested or (B) if pending, the date of final determination for all actions related to a contested decision of the local governing body.

Drought Continues to Build

The water year runs from October 1 to September 30^th. Thanks to a very wet December and January in the 2023- 2024 water year, last year was only about an inch of rainfall short of the average here in Haymarket despite and extremely dry spring and summer. This year is shaping up differently. Despite the rain this past weekend, where I got under an inch of rain in my gauge, we are still 6 inches of rain behind normal. Not only Haymarket, but the entire Potomac River watershed has had a dry winter.

from CoCoRHaS 5.5 N Haymarket, VA

Virginia generally receives about 44 inches of precipitation per year in Prince William County and over 40 inches in all of the Commonwealth and is historically considered “water rich" area. However, droughts are not uncommon, Virginia has a history of multi-year droughts. The climate forecasts for the region call for longer and more sever droughts and wetter non-drought years. The graph below shows the frequency of drought years since 2000. As you can see, so far the droughts we have seen have been very mild by historical standards. 

 

from NOAA

Below is the groundwater picture at USGS monitoring well 49V in the Northwest corner of Prince William County.  It is clear from the first USGS graph that the groundwater level in well 49V  has falling for 15 or more years. The groundwater is being used up. In the second graph you can see that for decades before that the groundwater level was fairly stable, but the monitoring was not continuous in those days (thus the little circles). The PW BOCS has recently approved the funding to begin groundwater studies and monitoring. 

from USGS

Virginia is dependent on groundwater. According to information from Virginia Tech, the Rural Household Water Quality program and the National Groundwater Association approximately 30% of Virginians are entirely dependent on groundwater for their drinking water. In Prince William County about a fifth of residents get their water directly from groundwater, including the Evergreen/Bull Run distribution system. However, the health of our watersheds and stream flow are dependent on groundwater, too.  Groundwater provides the baseflow to the rivers and streams. While groundwater is ubiquitous in Virginia it is not unlimited. There are already problems with availability, quality and sustainability of groundwater in Virginia in places such as Fauquier County, Loudoun County and the Coastal Plain. 

from ICPRB

After weeks of frigid temperatures, ice is now breaking up in the river and we are able to see the flow on USGS gages. The blue block on the graph below indicates no data due to ice. The flow (blue line) at Point of Rocks is 3,330 cubic feet per second (cfs). The median (gray line) for this time of year is 8,500 cfs. We are currently at less than 40% of median flow.

 

Last week’s U.S. Drought Monitor map for the Potomac River basin shows 75% of the area is in Moderate Drought conditions and 12% is in Sever Drought (mostly the south eastern section of the watershed which includes the eastern portion of Prince William county). This is an increase in Moderate Drought conditions over last week’s map.

 

The DC metropolitan area remains in the Drought Watch declared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) back in July. Officials are asking everyone to use water wisely during this time. The COG Drought Coordination Technical Committee will convene on March 7 to evaluate the drought declaration.

Forest Conservation Act, Data Centers and the VCA

Tree canopies play a crucial role in supporting environmental and human health. A tree canopy is the upper layer crowns of trees- branches, foliage and leaves. It shades the ground below, providing a continuous cover created by the branches and foliage of multiple trees. Tree canopies provide shade, sheltering wildlife, regulating temperatures (through shade and evapotranspiration), intercepting rainfall, and contributing to air purification by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen through photosynthesis. In urban environments, the tree canopy enhances streetscapes aesthetically and improves the overall environmental quality by reducing heat and stormwater flow.

Healthy forests and the urban tree canopy are essential. Urban heat island (UHI) effect is widely recognized as a heat accumulation phenomenon, which is caused by urban construction and tree removal. Healthy, well-managed forests are essential to our economy and provide benefits to people and wildlife in Virginia. Forest loss is also responsible for deterioration of rivers and streams.

Yet, Virginians continue to lose trees at an alarming rate. Virginia’s tree canopy decreased 19% from 2001-2023. The loss of tree canopies diminishes our environment’s capacity to filter water pollutants and reduce air pollution and smog. Trees release fresh oxygen to breathe as the canopy layer provides shade and cools the air, which can reduce pollution levels and lower energy usage in buildings, cutting emissions from power plants. When forests are cut down, they release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat. The new Forest Conservation Act pinpoints where critical tree canopy loss is occurring to mitigate the effects of extreme heat and pollution.

In 2023 Virginia passed the Forest Conservation Act to address the loss of trees facing Virginia’s tree canopies and forests. The law requires the Department of Forestry to conduct comprehensive assessments of the health of Virginia’s forests and explore the various factors contributing to forest loss, such as increased development, invasive species, road construction, and other infrastructure projects.

The Forest Conservation Act and the Forestland and Urban Tree Canopy Conservation Plan are vital steps towards reducing deforestation, reducing tree canopy loss, and maintaining the health of our landscapes and human communities.  Given the alarming loss of Virginia’s tree canopies, having transparent data on where the loss is happening is essential to guide targeted restoration efforts. Beyond temperature regulation, tree canopies serve as natural buffer zones, preventing polluted water from entering our rivers and streams. Tree roots stabilize soil, reduce erosion, and filter out water contaminants. 

Loosing nearly a fifth of our tree canopy in a small number of years has exacerbated extreme heat waves and the urban heat island effect. In Virginia, the top 11 regions for forest loss were responsible for almost 405 of all tree cover loss between 2001 and 2023. When I looked this up, I expected to see counties with tremendous urbanization pushes, but instead I found predominantly rural counties at the top of the list. Brunswick County had the most tree cover loss at 60.7 kha compared to an average of 9.83 kha. Brunswick was followed by Pittsylvania, Halifax, Buckingham and Sussex. It turns out that all these counties were home to millions of solar panels. We had cut down trees to build solar farms.

In 2020, the General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which mandated a goal of 100% zero-carbon energy generation by 2050 and prescribed increasingly strict Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) for Virginia's investor-owned electric utilities.  The energy needs of the Commonwealth, its businesses and its families are changing – and growing at an unprecedented rate.

Virginia is already the data center capital of the world, and the industry is exploding along with the demand for more and more electricity 24 hours a day 7 days a week needed to run them. Data centers require power all the time even when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, requiring greater and greater amounts of solar panels, wind turbines and backup power supply and storage.  

Forests and solar energy are both critical to achieving a sustainable climate. However, large-scale deployment of solar farms requires vast land areas, potentially posing conflicts with other land uses. Solar farms have been built in forested regions with a direct reduction in the forest canopy. The clearance of forests and stripping of old growth woods appears to be an obvious source of land for the realization of climate mitigation through solar farm expansion and increased energy needs through data center construction. However, forests also provide climate mitigation as a nature-based solution.

Forests not only absorb approximately a third of the carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuel worldwide each year by sequestering carbon as woody aboveground biomass (Liang et al., 2023), but also provide abundant ecological services such as oxygen release, air purification, soil and water conservation, and biodiversity conservation.

Given the acknowledged importance of forests in shaping policies and decisions related to climate mitigation and achieving carbon neutrality, it becomes evident that building solar farms over forests and knocking down old growth trees for data centers entails substantial environmental expenses including visual impact, land use competition, reduced species richness and increased carbon emission (Ko, 2023; Oudes and Stremke, 2021; Rehbein et al., 2020; Turney and Fthenakis, 2011). 

We need to coordinate our goals and aspirations. Both capping the number of data centers allowed in the Commonwealth and recasting of the VCEA timeline and goals are now necessary.