Latest news with #JLARC
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate panel kills effort to track English learner funding
A cup of pencils sit on top of a classroom desk in Virginia (Photo by Nathaniel Cline/Virginia Mercury) A push to examine how Virginia funds English language learners (ELLs) in public schools was shut down Monday, as the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee rejected a proposal for data collection on the issue. The effort stemmed from a 2023 report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), which found that Virginia has been underfunding schools under the Standards of Quality (SOQ) — the state's funding formula for public education. Lawmakers had requested the report to identify gaps in school funding and determine whether ELL students were receiving adequate resources. The funding gap is stark. A 2022 study from EdTrust, an education advocacy group, showed that Virginia school districts serving the highest number of ELL students receive 48% less revenue per student than districts with fewer ELL students, VPM first reported. 'I think it's important for us, as a commonwealth, to provide funding for the requirements that we set forth, so that local appropriations are not needed to close that gap,' Del. Atoosa Reaser, D-Loudoun, the legislation's sponsor, said Monday. 'That's money that belongs to the taxpayer; and the state should be, in my opinion, funding its fair share, which the House budget works toward.' Reaser's House Bill 2032 would have directed the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to collect data on expenditures and proficiency levels for ELL students. The measure also called for the identification of additional support strategies and a status report to lawmakers later this year. However, the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget found no expected fiscal impact, as data on proficiency is already collected. Reaser's proposal cleared the House on Jan. 28, but not without changes. Lawmakers stripped out a provision that would have allocated additional state funding for ELL students, instead folding that language into HB 1954, sponsored by House Education Committee Chair Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke. That bill also failed but could resurface during budget negotiations in the coming days. Last year, the legislature created the Joint Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education to review JLARC's recommendations with the goal of replacing the outdated formula. Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, the committee chair, on Monday urged the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to shelve the English learner funding bill, arguing that the panel's work isn't finished. 'It's important we do this in a manner that we are looking at all of the JLARC recommendations,' Locke said, adding that some of the commission's proposals have already been addressed in the state budget. The bill also coincides with recent changes from the Virginia Board of Education, which now require more English learner test scores to be included in school accountability calculations — a shift that could have significant consequences for schools that serve large ELL populations. However, some Democrats are pushing to delay the rollout of the new accountability system, citing concerns about fairness and accuracy in measuring student performance. For now, the debate over English learner funding remains tied to the larger fight over how Virginia funds its schools. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
K-12 cap removal stumbles, but remains alive in budget
Virginia State Capitol on Jan. 8, 2025. Charlotte Rene Woods / Virginia Mercury Lawmakers are trying to lift the decades-long cap on state-funded support positions for public schools through budget negotiations after legislation that would end the restriction failed earlier this week. Senators have proposed spending $758.1 million for K-12 public education, which includes an additional $208.8 million over the state's current biennium budget. To remove the cap, senators recommended adding $222.9 million from the general fund. The proposed Senate budget also called for $52.8 million for special education. 'Our goal with these investments is to provide additional resources to support our schools so that teachers are able to spend more time on instruction and less time on other administrative responsibilities,' said Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, during the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee's Feb. 2 meeting. Last session, lawmakers formed a joint committee to overhaul the Standards of Quality (SOQ), the state's funding formula determining the financial needs of school divisions. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) found that Virginia's local governments are shouldering a disproportionate share of K-12 education costs compared to the state's contributions. The more affluent a locality, the more its share, while those with less revenue contribute less to schools. In 1993, the General Assembly changed how much state and localities should pay, with the state's share at 55% and localities providing 45%, according to JLARC's 2023 report. The change was prompted after lawmakers asked localities to start paying for K-12 fringe benefits. The contributions had been split evenly since 1972. But in 2009 during the Great Recession, lawmakers implemented a 'cap' or state-imposed limit on spending for support staff. On Tuesday, the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee killed House Bill 1954, introduced by House Education Committee Chair Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke. The proposal would have provided additional support for students with special needs and created a program for at-risk, or low-income students and English language learners. Democrats carried two bills to address removing the cap. Last month, the House version was incorporated into Rasoul's bill. Then on Feb. 5, the Senate version died in Senate Finance & Appropriations. Senate Education and Health Committee Chair Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond, told her colleagues earlier in the session that Virginia schools have been shortchanged by the commonwealth by over $6.6 billion in recent years. Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration has opposed the legislation, instead calling for a broader funding formula overhaul. While Youngkin and the General Assembly partially eased the cap last year by increasing the funding ratio from 21 support positions to 24 per 1,000 students, they agree more needs to be done after localities have had to pick up the shared cost. The state uses the local composite index (LCI) to determine each locality's ability to pay. It also determines the local and state split of funding. The House budget bill redirected $50 million earmarked for the proposed Virginia Opportunity Scholarship Program to removing the cap. The change would boost the funding ratio from 24 support positions per 1,000 students to 27.89 per 1,000 students. Opponents criticized the 'vouchers' program, which would have paid for students to attend private schools and other educational expenses. Dean Lynch, executive director for the Virginia Association of Counties, wrote in a letter to the House and Senate money committees that the association appreciates the proposal in advancing 'critical investments' in K-12 education. 'The elimination of the 15-year-old support cap represents a transformative step forward, allowing school divisions to hire additional support staff and better meet the needs of students,' Lynch wrote. 'Additionally, the investments made in special education funding and compensation for instructional and support positions will further enhance educational outcomes across the commonwealth.' The Senate and House budget bills are on track to pass and advance to the governor for review. Youngkin's proposed budget did not include any plan to remove the cap. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Facing data center sprawl and an energy crisis, Virginia lawmakers leap into action. Just kidding.
In an aerial view, an Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes on July 17, 2024 in Stone Ridge, Virginia. (Photo by) This was supposed to be the year the General Assembly did something about data centers. Two years ago, it crushed the first tentative efforts to regulate construction, choosing instead to goose the pace. Last year it again killed all attempts at regulation, punting in favor of a study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC). JLARC's report was released in December to a soundtrack of alarm bells ringing. Unconstrained data center growth is projected to triple electricity demand in Virginia over just the next 15 years, outstripping the state's ability to build new generation and driving up utility bills for everyone. On top of the energy problem, the industry's growth is taxing water supplies and spawning billions of dollars worth of transmission infrastructure projects needed to serve the industry. Yet the most popular strategy for addressing the biggest energy crisis ever to face Virginia is to continue the status quo – that is to say, to keep the data center sprawl sprawling. Of the two dozen or so bills introduced this year that would put restrictions on growth, manage its consequences, or impose transparency requirements, barely a handful have survived to the session's halfway point this week. The surviving initiatives do address important aspects of local siting, ratepayer protection and energy, though they will face efforts to further weaken them in the second half of the session. Even if the strongest bills pass, though, they will not rein in the industry, provide comprehensive oversight, require transparency or address serious resource adequacy problems. HB1601 from Del. Josh Thomas, D-Gainesville, is the most meaningful bill to address the siting of data centers. It requires site assessments for facilities over 100 MW to examine the sound profile of facilities near residential communities and schools. It also allows localities to require site assessments to examine effects on water and agricultural resources, parks, historic sites or forests. In addition, before approving a rezoning, special exception or special use permit, the locality must require the utility that is serving the facility to describe any new electric generating units, substations and transmission voltage that will be required. Existing sites that are seeking to expand by less than 100 MW are excluded. HB1601 passed the House 57-40, with several Republicans joining all Democrats in favor. SB1449 from Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, is similar to HB1601 but does not include the language on electricity and transmission lines. SB1449 passed the Senate 33-6. Typically, when the House and the Senate each pass similar but different bills, they each try to make the other chamber's bill look like theirs, then work out the differences in a conference committee. If that happens here, the House will amend SB1449 to conform it to HB1601 before passing it. The Senate might amend the House bill to match its own or they could recognize that HB1601 is better and pass it as is rather than watering it down to match their own; otherwise, the bills will have to go to conference. Only two ratepayer protection bills passed. SB960 from Sen. Russet Perry, D-Leesburg, is the better of the two. It requires the SCC to determine if non-data center customers are subsidizing data centers or incurring costs for new infrastructure that is needed only because of data center demand; if so, the SCC is to take steps to eliminate or minimize the cross-subsidy. The bill incorporates a similar measure from Sen. Richard Stuart, R-Westmoreland. It passed the Senate by a healthy 26-13, but leaves the question of why those 13 Republicans voted against a bill designed to protect residential customers from higher rates. Over in the House, HB2084 from Del. Irene Shin, D-Herndon, started out similar to Perry's bill but was weakened in committee to the point that its usefulness is questionable. It now merely requires the SCC to use its existing authority during a regular proceeding sometime in the next couple of years to determine whether Dominion and Appalachian Power are using reasonable customer classifications in setting rates, and if not, whether new classifications are reasonable. It passed the House 61-35. Hopefully the House will see the wisdom of adopting the Senate's bill, but again, these could end up going to conference. The only data center legislation related to energy use to have made it this far is SB1047 from Sen. Danica Roem, D-Manassas. It requires utilities to implement demand-response programs for customers with a power demand of more than 25 MW, which could help relieve grid constraints. It passed the Senate 21-17. The data center industry and its labor allies were successful in killing all other data center initiatives, including the only bills that dealt with the energy issues head-on. This included legislation that basically called on the industry to live up to its sustainability claims. SB1196 from Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Charlottesville, and HB2578, sponsored by Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, would have conditioned state tax subsidies on data centers meeting conditions for energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy and cleaner back-up generators. Sullivan's bill also set up pathways for data center developers to meet the energy requirements and work toward cleaner operations. None of this mattered. Republicans were united in their determination not to put anything in the way of continued data center sprawl, and they were joined by a number of Democrats who were persuaded that requiring corporations to act responsibly threatens construction jobs. HB2578 died in subcommittee, with Democrats Charniele Herring and Alfonso Lopez joining Republicans in voting to table the bill. SB1196 was never even granted a committee hearing. Yet the idea of adding conditions to the tax subsidies is not dead. Deeds put in a budget amendment to secure the efficiency requirements that had been in his bill. His amendment takes on a House budget amendment requested by Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, that extends the tax subsidies out to 2050 from their current sunset date of 2035, with no new conditions whatsoever. It seems like a reasonable ask for the tech industry to meet some efficiency requirements in exchange for billions of dollars in subsidies and the raiding of Virginia's water and energy supplies. Indeed, the industry could have had it worse. Stuart had introduced a Senate bill to end the tax subsidies Virginia provides to data centers altogether. Alas, like several other more ambitious bills intended to bring accountability to the data center industry, it failed to even get a hearing in committee. Now, maybe Virginia will get lucky — or unlucky, depending on how you look at it — and the data center boom will go bust. The flurry of excitement around China's bid to provide artificial intelligence at a fraction of the cost of American tech joins other news items about efficiency breakthroughs that could mean the tech industry needs far fewer data centers, using far less energy and water. That would be good for the planet, not to mention Virginia ratepayers, but it would leave a lot of empty buildings, upend local budgets, and strand potentially billions of dollars in new generation and transmission infrastructure. A little preparation and contingency planning would seem to have been the wiser course.
Axios
06-02-2025
- Business
- Axios
Richmond's data center boom could raise your power bill
The Richmond region continues to welcome new data centers, the vital yet sometimes controversial facilities underpinning our digital lives and the AI explosion. Why it matters: The data center growth could end up costing locals more in their energy bills, according to a recent report from the state watchdog agency. The big picture: The massive server complexes that allow you to connect to a Zoom meeting or stream videos are driving a surge in electricity demand in Virginia, especially amid the rapid growth of new AI tools. That's according to a report out late last year from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the state's watchdog group. If unconstrained, the state's demand for power could double within the next 10 years, JLARC found. That would likely end up costing Virginia residents, and Dominion Energy customers specifically, $14 to $37 more a month in their power bill by 2040. Zoom in: Virginia's data center market is still "growing rapidly," and not just in NoVa, JLARC found. "Significant new market growth is expected in counties outside of Northern Virginia and along the I-95 corridor to Central Virginia," according to the report. Roughly a third of all data centers in the state are near residential areas, a trend the report's authors expect to continue. In Chesterfield and Henrico, 38% of data centers are within 500 feet of a residential area, and now some residents have started to fight against proposals to add more near their homes. By the numbers: There are 53 data centers in the Richmond area, according to That's a fraction of the 537 across the state with the vast majority concentrated in Northern Virginia. But it still gives Richmond the second highest concentration of data centers in Virginia, the data center capital of the world. The latest: Denver-based development firm Tract recently filed an application to rezone 700 acres in Chesterfield to allow for the construction of up to 11 data centers, BizSense reported this week. The site is next to Chester Solar Technology Park, another data center (and solar energy) project in the works in Chesterfield. It comes from the same development group that last year successfully rezoned 1,200 acres in Hanover for " dozens" of data centers. Last year, even more data centers were approved in Chesterfield, Henrico and even Powhatan, which okayed a $2.7 billion project to bring the first data centers to that county. The other side: Data centers aren't all bad, JLARC found. While they tend to only support a small number of long-term jobs after initial construction, those jobs tend to pay well. Plus, the centers can also pump millions in tax revenue into local economies. Some places, like Henrico, are using the money to help residents by funding an affordable housing trust. What we're watching: A handful of bills attempting to regulate data centers in the state are still working their way through the General Assembly, including one that would require developers to submit noise and electrical infrastructure studies if being built near homes or schools.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Data centers fuel energy debates as lawmakers seek ratepayer protections
Data centers in Ashburn. (Photo by Getty Images) With data centers placing an ever-growing strain on the grid, Virginia legislators are introducing measures to ensure residents don't bear the brunt of rising energy costs caused by the booming industry. However, the proposals are facing stiff resistance. One bill targeting large electric load businesses has been tabled, while another initially singling out data centers was amended. Lobbyists for the data center industry have pushed back, warning that these measures could hinder economic growth and unfairly single out a sector that, according to Gov. Glenn Youngkin, contributes $9.1 billion to Virginia's gross domestic product. Legislators also renewed, but once again failed in a push to shed some light on the proceedings of PJM — the nation's largest regional power transmission organization. Utility companies, such as Dominion, are voting members of the organization, whose decisions on major transmission projects directly impact costs passed on to customers. Lawmakers are faced with balancing the economic opportunities brought by data centers with protecting consumers and meeting clean energy mandates, in the face of rising energy production and transmission costs, says Del. Irene Shin, D-Fairfax. 'Virginia has enjoyed relatively flat load growth, and I think right now we're in that moment of hockey sticking, primarily driven by the data center industry,' Shin says. 'We're looking out for our constituents and making sure they're paying their fair share and not more than that. It is up to industry to pay their fair share of what we know are the incredibly exorbitant costs to service data centers.' Shin introduced House Bill 2084, which directs the State Corporation Commission (SCC) to review the rate classifications of phase I and phase II public utilities to ensure fairness to all ratepayers. The bill's original version, which explicitly required Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to establish separate rate classifications for data centers, was met with fierce opposition in subcommittee. The revised bill now leaves the decision about reclassifying customers entirely to the SCC, with no specific mention of data centers. While data centers are currently paying their fair share under existing utility rate structures, their rapidly growing energy demand 'will likely increase system costs for all customers,' according to a report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC). The report suggests that creating separate rates for data centers could shield other customers from rising costs. Without such measures, the JLARC study projects that utility bills for the average residential customer could increase by as much as $444 annually by 2040, excluding inflation. Virginia leads the nation in the number of operational data centers. The industry is rapidly expanding in neighboring states. Last year, Duke Energy in North Carolina introduced new rate structures for data centers to address rising power demands. Before references to data centers were removed from House Bill 2084 last week, Kate Smiley, a spokesperson for the Data Center Coalition, argued that decisions on raising rates for data centers should begin with the SCC, not legislators. She also contended that creating separate rates for data centers would be discriminatory. 'Rate classes should ultimately be established based on load characteristics rather than the business in which the customer is engaged,' Smiley said. 'These costs caused by a rate class are driven by its aggregate load shape, the volume of power it consumes, the number of customers served — not the business end use.' Del. Candi Mundon-King, D-Prince William, pushed back on the notion of discrimination against data centers. 'This idea of poor data centers being discriminated against is really something we should shy away from,' she said. 'We have a responsibility to be great partners with people who are investing in the commonwealth, but our first responsibility is to the safety and wellbeing of citizens of the commonwealth.' House Bill 2027, which failed in a subcommittee vote earlier this month, sought to require new facilities with power loads of 100 megawatts or more — amended from the original threshold of 25 megawatts — to obtain a certificate to operate. Glenn Davis, director of the Virginia Department of Energy and a former Republican state senator from Virginia Beach, opposed the legislation, arguing it would unnecessarily slow the permitting process handled by the SCC and create unfair competition among businesses for power capacity. '[The SCC is] going to be picking winners and losers,' Davis said. 'How do they decide between two 100 megawatt facilities when only 100 megawatts are available?' Del. Joshua Thomas, D-Prince William, who sponsored the legislation, cited the JLARC report to emphasize the urgency of placing limits on power consumption. He warned that without constraints, Virginia faces 'an unconstrained load environment where we have an 183% increase of load over the next few decades, which is unsustainable.' House Bill 2003, which aimed to increase transparency in the voting process for PJM, the regional organization coordinating power transmission and generation for Virginia and much of the eastern U.S., failed in committee last week on a 10-12 vote. The legislation would have required PJM to publish an annual report detailing the committee votes of its public utility members and to provide a statement explaining how each vote served the public interest. These votes have significant implications, including determining market rules and the approval of large-scale transmission projects — factors that directly impact electric bills. For example, in 2022, a PJM committee rejected a proposal to freeze prices during periods of high electricity cost, but there was no public record on how utility companies voted. 'As our own energy needs are growing with data centers, rate payers deserve to know that the rate they are paying for their energy needs is not subsidizing large industry,' said Del. Amy Laufer, D-Albemarle, who sponsored the bill. Laufer drew parallels to the General Assembly's recent move to live stream and record subcommittee votes, emphasizing the need for transparency at all decision-making levels. 'PJM does publish the upper-level votes, but we know that the policies and proposals voted on at the lower-level meetings have a large impact on what happens at the upper-level meetings, which directly impact 65 million ratepayers,' Laufer said. Christine Noonan, a lobbyist representing Dominion Energy, expressed concerns that publishing committee votes could discourage open discussions with PJM. 'We want to ensure that this quest for transparency doesn't hamper collaboration,' Noonan said, adding that any transparency requirements 'should apply equally to all entities that either generate [power] or have [power] transmission in the commonwealth.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
