Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to require local review of large data centers; related proposals split
Summary
The Senate Committee on Local Government advanced a bill directing localities to require studies and disclosures for high-energy-use facilities while several companion measures—defining data centers as industrial uses and imposing noise and other requirements—failed or were amended after debate.
Senate Committee on Local Government — Richmond, Jan. 13, 2025 — The committee voted to report a bill from Senator Mark Evans that asks localities to require developers of high-energy-use facilities to submit studies and information about potential local impacts before siting decisions. The bill defines those projects by electrical demand and aims to standardize review of projects whose energy and water use can affect neighboring communities.
The bill, Senate Bill 1449, would direct local governments to collect studies addressing impacts on sound, water, and other nearby resources before approving projects that use large amounts of electricity. “It directs localities to require that project developers conduct and submit a sound study before a high energy use facility,” Senator Evans said, describing the measure as one that “strikes a reasonable balance” between local control and industry needs.
Why it matters: Lawmakers and witnesses repeatedly cited the JLARC (Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission) study on data centers, which prompted the bill series. Supporters said the state needs clearer rules so localities can weigh water, noise and infrastructure impacts; opponents warned that prescriptive state requirements could harm Virginia’s competitiveness for economic development projects.
What the committee did: The committee reported SB 1449 (ayes 12, noes 3). Separate bills in the same package saw mixed results. An effort to define data centers as an industrial use in zoning code, SB 1045, failed in committee (ayes 5, noes 10). A proposal to require local review of water use estimates for large facilities (SB 899) was reported as amended after debate (final tally recorded in the transcript as ayes 7, noes 6, 2 abstentions). A separate, more prescriptive notification-and-noise bill (SB 1046) ultimately failed to report.
Debate and testimony: The Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Department of Energy said the bills risked discouraging targeted investment. Vince Barnett of VEDP testified that the measures could “portray to the marketplace that Virginia is not supportive of some of our key, targeted industries,” and Glenn Davis of the Virginia Department of Energy said the bills treated all localities the same even though conditions differ.
Environmental and conservation groups, local governments and regional advocates supported reporting authority for localities. Julie Bolthouse of the Piedmont Environmental Council, who led JLARC staff on site visits, told the committee she supported the senator’s bill and that the JLARC recommendation was borne of observed siting problems. “I really appreciate them putting this forward in their report,” she said.
Labor and industry views also diverged. Don Slamman of IBEW Local 26 urged caution but said the industry has partnered with unions and training programs, while opponents from the Data Center Coalition urged the committee to avoid overly prescriptive requirements.
Next steps: SB 1449 was reported for further consideration; other bills in the package will move forward separately where they received majority support or be revisited in committee discussions or conference as the session continues.
