Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
While the Trump administration spent 2025 rolling back climate policies – increasing harmful pollution and driving electricity costs higher for families – states led with solutions that protect consumers, expand clean energy and advance more affordable, equitable electricity choices. These wins didn’t happen on their own. They happened where governors, regulators, consumer advocates, environmental organizations and community partners fought for cleaner air and lower bills – and where utilities were held accountable for delivering modern, reliable, cost-effective solutions. Here are some of Environmental Defense Fund and our partners’ most meaningful victories from the past year:
Illinois curbed rate hikes and expanded access to clean, affordable electricity
Illinois regulators cut gas utilities’ proposed rate increases in half, trimmed the utilities’ profit rates, and rejected renewable natural gas proposals that would have raised costs without providing environmental value. EDF and Illinois PIRG were involved for months, urging regulators to require cleaner, cheaper alternatives – and the decision sends a clear message that utilities must modernize and offer cleaner, more affordable alternatives rather than double down on yesterday’s gas infrastructure.
Illinois regulators also unlocked more than $250 million for an electrified clean energy future: EV charging, fleet electrification, small business support and customer benefits. When the Illinois Attorney General challenged the Commission’s authority to approve these programs, EDF and partners intervened and won on all contested issues, protecting this progress.
EDF secured a landmark agreement with a utility to add new and expanded transmission lines – one of the most powerful tools for keeping electricity clean and affordable – and deploy grid-enhancing technologies to boost the performance of existing lines. These advanced hardware and software tools can cut the time and cost of connecting renewable energy to the grid. The agreement is expected to create up to 32,000 jobs, support power for 1.8 million homes, and deliver long-term savings for customers across the Midwest and beyond.
In Illinois, a new electricity rate called Rate BEST helps Commonwealth Edison customers save money using more renewable energy by shifting electricity use to times of day when power tends to be more affordable and cleaner. Since 2015, EDF and the Citizens Utility Board have championed time-of-use rates in Illinois, working with ComEd to design, pilot, and bring Rate BEST to customers in the new year.
New York advanced heat pump affordability and modern grid planning
EDF and partners secured an agreement with Con Edison to expand access to simpler, fairer electric rates designed for heat pumps – helping households cut heating bills and realize the full benefits of clean, efficient heating. These types of rates can save an average customer around $500 per year in energy costs. The utility will also expand outreach and education programs to help customers understand their options.
At the same time, the New York Public Service Commission advanced 29 critical electric grid upgrades to support electric vehicle (EV) charging and building electrification, then adopted a proactive planning framework that speeds interconnection of new loads while cutting costs. EDF’s recommendations helped drive these reforms.
Texas advanced EV charging and smarter grid planning
Texas also saw meaningful progress in 2025. EDF secured commitments from the utility CenterPoint to improve EV forecasting and modernize distribution system planning – essential steps for cost-effective electrification in one of the country’s fastest-growing EV markets. CenterPoint also committed to bolster its efforts to support the Port of Houston’s ongoing electrification, a move that will cut pollution and improve public health in surrounding communities.
Massachusetts helped customers reduce energy bills with clean heat
Massachusetts utilities – Unitil, National Grid, and Eversource – cut winter electricity rates for homes using heat pumps, saving these households about $540 on average this winter, a 17% reduction in heating bills. Adopted by the Department of Public Utilities, the rates fix long-standing inequities in how heat pump customers are charged. EDF intervened in National Grid’s rate case to secure the heat pump rate for all heat pump homes and a tiered discount rate of 32-71% for income qualifying households regardless of whether their home has a heat pump.
Looking ahead to 2026, EDF and partners are pushing for deeper seasonal delivery-charge discounts to better align winter electric heating costs with natural gas. New analysis commissioned by EDF shows that fairer rate design could enable more than 80% of Massachusetts homes to save an average of $687 in a single season – unlocking even greater benefits from clean electric heating and providing a model for other states.
In addition, Massachusetts began implementing landmark siting and permitting reforms adopted by the state legislature in late 2024. These reforms streamline and speed up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure, while helping ensure robust community engagement and careful consideration of project impacts. This year, the state released draft guidance and proposed regulations on site suitability assessments, cumulative impacts, and related issues. EDF has actively engaged at every stage of this process and remains committed to supporting the successful implementation of these critical reforms.
New Jersey protected customers and stopped costly hydrogen blending experiments
New Jersey regulators rejected a utility proposal to make customers pay for unproductive experiments blending hydrogen and biomethane – rebranded as “renewable natural gas” –into the gas system. EDF helped negotiate a settlement that scales back Public Service Electric & Gas’ (PSE&G) planned infrastructure spending, protecting households from unnecessary costs and keeping the state focused on cleaner, proven, and more affordable solutions. EDF also commissioned a study showing that PSE&G’s proposed hydrogen blending is far less efficient than helping customers electrify home heating with heat pumps.
A year of progress despite Washington’s attempts to reverse course
In a year when the Trump administration focused on undermining climate progress and helped drive up electricity costs, states showed what real leadership looks like. They cut unjustified rate hikes, rejected wasteful gas spending, required utilities to invest in modernizing the grid, expanded clean energy and secured fairer, more affordable electric rates for millions of families.
The message from 2025 is clear: a cleaner, more affordable, and fairer electricity system is possible, and EDF is committed to helping states deliver on this promise for everyone.
As 2025 comes to a close, we’re looking back on several significant moments of climate leadership (and a few examples of backsliding we’d rather forget) in state-level cap-and-invest programs which kept us moving forward even in the face of a hostile and anti-science federal government.
Across the country, governors, legislators and regulators doubled down on cap and invest programs as one of the most powerful tools at our disposal to reduce household costs while cutting pollution and investing in local communities.
States like California and Washington showed how climate leadership and cutting costs can go hand-in-hand with major progress on carbon pricing policies that cut pollution and put more money into their residents’ pockets. As we look ahead to 2026, these states (and others that follow their lead) have the chance to meaningfully deliver for the climate and for their constituents.
This fall, after championing cap-and-invest as a tool to fight climate change and address affordability challenges, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation extending the state’s program through at least 2045, with supermajority support in each chamber of the legislature. California’s cap-and-invest program continues to deliver major benefits for communities: the program has raised nearly $33 billion for climate projects and community investments, including affordable housing, wildfire resilience, expanding public transit, and vehicle electrification. Reauthorization ensures California can continue to invest in climate and affordability solutions – with the legislation projected to save $3.9 billion for households earning less than $70,000 per year, equivalent to nearly $700 per household. It also builds momentum toward a broader interconnected West Coast market as leaders in California and Washington state are preparing to move towards linking their states’ cap-and-invest markets together.
For over a decade, California’s cap-and-invest program and other landmark climate policies have made the state a national leader. As the Golden State has charted its path forward — cutting pollution and lowering costs for households — other states have followed suit with similar strategies that pair climate progress with affordability.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the nation’s longest running cap-and-invest program, and spans across 10 states delivering economic and climate benefits. Since its inception in 2009, RGGI has raised over $9 billion for clean energy and efficiency, provided direct benefits for over 8 million households and generated over $20 billion in projected energy bill savings. This year, RGGI states completed their Third Program Review and announced updates that significantly strengthen the regional cap on climate pollution beginning in 2027.
And in November, voters sent a powerful message: they want more of this progress not just because the program is ensuring the power sector decarbonizes at a faster rate than the rest of the country, but because the program itself is a powerful tool for driving down energy costs. In Virginia, voters elected the candidate who explicitly committed to staying in RGGI, handily defeating an opponent who campaigned on abandoning the program. Virginia Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger supported the state rejoining RGGI as part of her platform to make energy bills more affordable, and defeated her opponent, a vocal opponent of RGGI, by roughly 15 points.
Washington’s cap-and-invest program continued to demonstrate its strength in 2025, generating roughly $1.2 billion this year in revenue that will be invested in climate resilience, communities, and the clean energy transition while also ensuring that covered polluters in the state are reducing their pollution in line with the state’s climate targets. Following the 2024 election where Washingtonians voted to defend their cap-and-invest program by a whopping 23 point margin, 2025 offered a clearer picture of what that vote secured: major climate and economic benefits for communities, and momentum toward linking Washington’s program with California and Quebec.
Some key states affirmed their climate and affordability goals in 2025 and now face the task of turning commitments into measurable results. In 2026, follow-through is critical to ensure emissions are reduced, households benefit, and community investments are delivered.
California had a big year for climate in 2025 with the reauthorization of cap-and-invest, but the work is far from over. In order to actually implement the important updates made to the program and align the emissions cap with California’s climate targets, California needs to finalize a rulemaking that’s been in the works for years. Draft regulatory text from CARB remains under development, with release expected in late 2025 or early 2026. The agency needs to act swiftly and ambitiously as soon as possible in 2026 to finalize these long-awaited program updates.
The other major climate resolution on California’s list this year is taking concrete next steps toward a unified carbon market with Washington. California’s program has been linked with the cap-and-invest program in Quebec for over ten years now, and when Washington lawmakers were designing their own cap-and-invest program, they did so with the goal of linking to this broader existing market.
A linked market would bring real advantages — improving price stability, reducing emissions at a greater rate and at lower cost than could be achieved alone, and creating a model for durable, multi-state climate leadership. Washington has made steady progress towards linkage with their ongoing rulemaking, and in 2026 should finalize their rulemaking and work collaboratively with California and Quebec on a linkage agreement.
Colorado is facing rising energy costs, federal attacks on clean energy progress, and worsening climate impacts — while remaining off track from its statutory emission reduction goals. Colorado Senator and candidate for Governor, Michael Bennet, released his plan for a statewide cap-and-invest program as a key pillar of his climate and affordability strategy if elected Governor. This type of program could complement Colorado’s existing climate and energy policies and accelerate pollution reductions to close the gap between pollution levels and statewide targets. For Colorado, adopting a cap-and-invest program could reduce a cumulative one billion tons of climate pollution through 2050, relative to the state’s estimate for emissions under existing policy. And Colorado would also stand to gain the affordability benefits already seen in other cap-and-invest programs around the country, like the $16 billion California households have received on their electricity and natural gas bills thanks to utility bill credits funded by cap-and-invest.
Colorado can strengthen its climate toolkit with policies that protect family budgets, limit climate pollution, and support clean-energy jobs. A well-designed cap-and-invest program would accomplish all three– and a solution that’s ripe for all candidates for Governor and state legislature to embrace.
Virginia faces unprecedented energy demand growth, driven in part by a boom in data center construction that is putting upward pressure on electric bills for families. New analysis shows that volatile fossil fuel costs and heavy investment in grid infrastructure are major drivers of rising power costs, and that shifting investment toward lower-cost, price-stable renewable energy is key to stabilizing rates while cutting pollution. Participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative previously helped Virginia cut carbon pollution by 22% and raised over $800 million in funding for energy efficiency programs that cut household energy costs, as well as community resilience programs. Rejoining RGGI in 2026 would help ensure that as demand for electricity accelerates, the state keeps energy affordable, accelerates cuts in pollution, and delivers community investments rather than locking in costly fossil infrastructure. Virginia needs action next year to restore the climate, consumer, and environmental benefits that Virginians clearly want. And with a new Governor-elect who understands how RGGI can deliver for Virginians, the time is right for progress.
Other states stepped back in 2025 from proven climate solutions, vacating a climate leadership role and leaving significant consumer savings on the table. They need to reset their approach, and in the new year have the opportunity to learn from what other states have done to deliver big on both climate and affordability. Ambitious policies can deliver cuts in pollution alongside much-needed investments to drive down household energy costs..
In 2026, New York should follow through on its climate commitments by standing up the cap-and-invest program — now known as the Clean Air Initiative — after years of delay. Unlike households in California and Washington that are seeing savings today on their utility bills because of cap-and-invest revenue, the delay is costing New Yorkers at the same time many are looking for relief. Moving the program forward will unlock billions in community investments and meaningful savings for working families across the state, and help get the state on track to meeting its climate targets.
Cap-and-invest is expected to generate at least $3 billion annually that can save New Yorkers money on energy bills, create family-sustaining jobs, and deliver health benefits, particularly in communities most impacted by climate and air pollution. Research shows the program could deliver substantial affordability benefits, with nearly all households earning under $200,000 — about 85% of households in the state — projected to see net savings.
The Hochul administration is currently appealing a court decision in a lawsuit brought by environmental justice organizations, which found that the state is violating its climate law after failing to advance rules to limit emissions. 2026 is a year for action, not further delay. Governor Hochul has the opportunity to join other Governors who are slashing pollution, shielding families from rising energy costs, and pushing back against federal rollbacks that would stick New Yorkers with dirty, expensive energy sources. The sooner New York’s Clean Air Initiative gets back on track, the sooner New Yorkers will benefit from lower electricity bills and cleaner air.
Pennsylvania took a significant step backward in 2025 when Governor Shapiro abandoned the Commonwealth’s plan to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This decision means Pennsylvania forfeited its most powerful tool to lower electricity bills for households and cut pollution. The decision was a result of a months-long budget impasse. Pennsylvanians had not yet seen the benefits from the program as the state’s participation was pending the outcome of a legal challenge brought by fossil fuel interests. In fact, estimates suggest that delayed implementation of the program from its intended start date in 2022 amounted to $5 billion in foregone investments in energy efficiency and clean energy that should be providing relief on household energy bills today. By walking away when resolution was imminent, Governor Shapiro has further delayed the opportunity to unlock those benefits.
Yet, despite walking away from RGGI, Governor Shapiro has promoted a Pennsylvania-led cap-and-invest proposal throughout 2025 as part of his Lightning Plan. And, a working group he convened upon taking office with representatives from labor, the energy industry, consumer advocates, and environmental organizations reached consensus that a cap-and-invest approach to regulating power sector pollution is the optimal approach for PA to protect and create energy jobs, take real action to address climate change, and ensure reliable, affordable power for consumers. Governor Shapiro must consider every avenue to enact new policies that reduce climate pollution and deliver cleaner air, healthier communities, and lower bills for Pennsylvanians at the same scale as promised by RGGI.
As federal leaders continue to undermine climate science and exacerbate the causes of climate change, states have shown what real climate leadership looks like. In 2025, cap-and-invest programs specifically were among the state level efforts that delivered the most tangible and high-impact results — cutting pollution, lowering energy bills and investing billions back into communities — while earning strong public support at the ballot box. These successes make clear that climate ambition and affordability are not in tension; in fact, with the right policy approach, going big on climate can deliver cost savings benefits to households that need it most.
Looking ahead to 2026, the opportunity is twofold. Leading states like California, Washington, and the RGGI region can build on proven programs by strengthening caps, finalizing rulemakings, and expanding collaboration across state lines. At the same time, states like Colorado and New York have a clear chance to turn momentum into action by taking critical steps towards standing up cap-and-invest programs that will deliver required pollution reductions, concrete economic benefits, and meaningful energy bill savings for households. Together, these efforts can push back against federal backsliding, protect families from rising costs, and chart a durable, state-led path toward a cleaner, more affordable energy future.
This blog is co-authored by Abhinav Guarav, Lead Advisor-Sustainable Dairy, Environmental Defense Fund, and Meredith Ryder-Rude, Associate Vice President for Global Engagement and Partnerships.
India is home to 80 million smallholder dairy farmers and nearly 300 million bovines, making it the world’s largest milk producer. The Indian dairy industry is responsible for a quarter of global milk supply and soon approaching one-third.
Dairy is not only culturally significant in India, but also the backbone of its agricultural economy, contributing significantly to GDP and rural livelihoods. But this sector is on the frontlines of climate change.
Summers that once lasted three months now stretch to five, bringing extreme heat and humidity that threaten milk production. Studies warn that without corrective action, India could lose 20–30 percent of its milk production by mid-century. The Lancet projects a 25% decline by 2085 under business-as-usual scenarios. Smallholder farmers—most owning just 3 to 5 animals—are especially vulnerable. They lack access to improved technologies, knowledge, and financing.
The Indian government has launched programs like NICRA (National Innovation for Climate Resilient Agriculture) and invested in research on heat stress and resilience. But scaling solutions to 80 million farmers remains a challenge. Knowledge exists, yet translating it into affordable, accessible technologies and services is the missing link.
Adaptation cannot rely solely on public funding. To get adaptation technologies—like shade barns, misting fans, and climate-smart feed—into the hands of vulnerable farmers, private sector investment and market mechanisms are essential.
This is where India has a unique opportunity. With strong dairy cooperatives, global dairy giants like Nestlé and Danone, and national development banks, India can lead in creating a market for adaptation solutions. (more…)
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts quashed the Trump administration’s federal permitting ban on wind energy projects issued on Day One, striking it down entirely.
For nearly a year, the order recklessly held up the build-out of clean, affordable power for millions of Americans – and led to significant investment and job loss – just as the country’s need for electric power reached new heights.
Attorneys General from 17 states and Washington, D.C., along with ACE NY (a nonprofit association of companies that develop wind and solar projects and supply technology for those projects) challenged the order in May. Public interest groups, including Environmental Defense Fund, supported their challenge with an amicus brief.
In its final ruling, the Court concluded that “…the Wind Order constitutes a final agency action that is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.”
But what exactly does “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law” mean in this context? And how may it apply to other Trump administration actions to limit energy projects moving forward?
Courts commonly review challenges to a final agency action – a government agency’s ‘last word’ on a decision – by applying the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Bear with us a second on the legal background: This standard is from a federal law governing how agencies create and implement regulations, called the Administration Procedure Act (APA). The goal of the APA is to ensure a transparent and fair process of creating and reviewing regulations.
Under this framework, the court may invalidate final agency actions where an agency fails to “…examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for [the] action including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
A court may find a final agency action is arbitrary and capricious for a number of reasons including: if the agency relied on factors that Congress did not intend for the agency to consider; entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or offered an explanation for its decision that conflicts with the evidence before the agency.
So, how did “arbitrary and capricious” apply to the Wind Order? The Federal District Court offered three key reasons:
Under the APA, a final agency action is “contrary to law” when the action conflicts with regulations or if the administrative agency abdicates its duty to move forward on a matter presented to it “within a reasonable time.”
In this case, the Trump administration offered no timeline for when they would actually review wind permits – projects were left in limbo with no end in sight. When asked how much longer it would take the government to finish the review of wind permits directed in the Wind Memo, the administration’s lawyers had no answer, more than 10 months after the Memo had been issued. The Court explained that halting the permitting review of all wind-project permits with no set end date violates the law’s requirement that agencies must make decisions “within a reasonable time.”
The bottom line: The agencies failed to show their work on why they were holding up wind permits, and they failed to give a timeline for reviewing them.
In their challenge, the state Attorneys General claimed that the halt on federal permitting approvals “[creates] an existential threat to the wind industry.” If left in place for the duration of the President’s term, they explained, the ban could wipe out nearly $100 billion in investment and cost as many as 40,000 jobs.
Those warnings weren’t hypothetical. During a nearly year-long pause in approvals, the Center for American Progress estimated that roughly 17,000 offshore wind jobs tied to about a dozen projects — along with nearly 2,000 onshore wind jobs — were left in limbo. For states counting on wind projects to deliver and sustain good-paying jobs and local investment, the economic stakes were high.
The uncertainty was so severe that economic analysts slashed projected offshore wind installations in the U.S. by more than half over the next decade.
The states’ case underscored that wind power isn’t some unproven technology. It already supplies 10% of U.S. electricity, and many states see it as central to their energy future. Wind energy and battery storage are a proven way to meet rapidly growing electricity demand with power that is reliable, affordable and clean.
Offshore wind is particularly critical for the Northeast’s energy supply because the region gets most of its electricity from natural gas, which is subject to major price fluctuations. In fact, Vineyard Wind, located off the coast of Massachusetts, is already displacing the need for additional natural gas, saving ratepayers roughly $2 million a day during a recent cold snap.
And, of course, there’s the tremendous pollution impacts too. By displacing polluting fossil fuels like gas and coal, wind energy reduces health harms like asthma, bronchitis and heart attacks; not to mention, the greenhouse gas pollution that is altering the climate.
The Trump administration has 60 days to appeal the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts decision to the First Circuit. This decision, along with the September court ruling lifting the stop-work order that the administration had placed on the Revolution Wind project, sends a strong message that the Trump administration cannot selectively obstruct clean energy projects. However, EDF, along with the states and the clean energy industry, will closely monitor whether the federal government starts issuing permits and approvals for wind projects. If they do not, we will request court enforcement of this decision, or consider further legal challenges, as appropriate.
Unfortunately, the wind permitting ban was not an isolated move – it’s one of many of the administration’s attacks on clean energy. Others include the recission of funding for clean energy and grid resilience projects in states that voted for a different presidential candidate in the 2024 election, and the Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Order blocking the buildout of clean energy on public lands.
Against that backdrop, the Court’s ruling — that the wind permitting pause was “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law”– reaffirms a basic principle: clean energy projects deserve fair, comprehensive review and must be allowed to move forward under the law.
At COP30, countries agreed within 10 years to triple support provided to developing nations for their adaptation priorities to increase resilience to climate change. This commitment comes at a critical moment. As progress to reduce planet-warming pollution from burning fossil fuels lags behind what scientists say is necessary, money is urgently needed to adapt to a warming world. And it’s worth the investment: every dollar spent on resilience yields ten times the return in avoided losses and economic benefits.
We need more decision-makers to understand this return on investment—and to do that, we need to build a market for adaptation solutions.
Climate impacts are accelerating faster than systems and societies can handle. This year alone, we witnessed 14 winter wildfires in Southern California and floods displacing millions from Texas to Nepal. At the same time, slow-onset impacts—like extreme heat, rising seas, and desertification—are reshaping cities, driving up food and energy costs, and threatening jobs and livelihoods. The adaptation gap and the affordability crisis are closely linked.
The reality is clear: climate change is already costing us. What we need now is a shift in mindset. Investing in adaptation today—proactively—will make our economies and communities safer and more prosperous well into the future.
One reason adaptation lags behind is market failure. Traditionally, adaptation has relied almost entirely on public funding. While essential, public dollars alone won’t get us where we need to go. We must mobilize private capital and create market conditions that reward resilience.
Moreover, right now, markets don’t adequately price climate risks or value climate resilience. Risks remain invisible, resilience isn’t rewarded, and proven adaptation technologies and services fail to reach the people who need them most.
The market challenges we face on adaptation are not new. In fact, we faced similar barriers when building clean energy markets. But today, renewable energy is often cheaper than fossil fuels because we created incentives, set standards, aggregated demand, and raised awareness. We can apply pages from this market-building playbook to drive access to and affordability of adaptation solutions.
Think about what drove clean energy adoption: electric vehicle mandates, Energy Star certification, LEED building standards, and tax incentives for solar. These tools spurred investment, scaled demand, and brought down costs. Adaptation needs its own version of these market drivers.
To make resilience visible, valuable, and investable—and do it at scale—will require shifting adaptation from primarily an emergency response to a more proactive, long-term economic strategy. Here’s what that looks like:
Imagine a world where adaptation is fully integrated into economic and policy decisions. The climate-resilient choice becomes the common sense, economically sensible choice. That means:
To achieve this, we need to start with data: high-confidence, high-precision climate risk data for specific locations and industries. Then we pair it with economic modeling to understand the benefit-cost implications of adaptation options. This approach isn’t new, but what’s different now is the quality of data we have to act on. If companies, community and government decision makers can better understand the risk they face, the resilient choice can become the obvious and economically sensible choice.
To go beyond pledges and negotiations, governments, businesses and investors must work together to make resilience visible, valuable, and investable. True success means factoring in the real costs of climate impacts today, so we don’t just survive a changing climate—we protect lives, strengthen economies, and unlock opportunity. Because when we invest in resilience today, we secure a safer, more prosperous tomorrow.
Virginians are facing rising costs on multiple fronts, and electric bills are no exception. Virginia’s electric bills are increasing at a pace faster than general inflation and, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), bills have increased nearly 30% since 2021. It’s easy to understand the growing frustration, as some Virginians are forced to choose between paying for doctor’s visits and prescription drugs – or even food – over their electric bill.
Drawing on Dominion Energy’s and Appalachian Power’s own filings at the State Corporation Commission (the agency that oversees utility investments and regulates ratemaking in Virginia), a new analysis from EQ Research underscores that volatile fossil fuel prices and skyrocketing utility investment in power system infrastructure are the primary drivers behind surging electricity costs for Virginia households.
While not explicitly addressed in this report, we’d be remiss, as we consider cost drivers, not to highlight that data centers represent a significant element of the need for new power system infrastructure. As the Joint Legislative and Review Commission (JLARC) data center report pointed out, this booming industry brings economic benefits to the state, but comes with cost impacts to Virginia’s electric customers. Just recently, the SCC issued an order aimed at corralling transmission and distribution system costs brought on by data center energy demand. By requiring data centers and other large users to pay a minimum of 85% of contracted distribution and transmission demand, and 60% of generation demand, among other requirements, the SCC order seeks to protect Virginia ratepayers from those costs.
While the SCC’s order is notable, the consequences to customers in a more fossil-fuel focused future are clear: the more utilities seek to invest in gas power plants and associated infrastructure, the more Virginia households will remain financially tethered to a price-volatile and increasingly expensive energy system. Meanwhile renewable energy, particularly solar paired with battery storage, is the most affordable, most rapidly-scalable energy resource available to meet Virginia’s energy needs while keeping electricity prices in check. (more…)
