CCAN

Launch of $72.5 million Heat Pump Rebate Program provides opportunity to deliver immediate economic relief for Maryland households facing massive heating cost spikes

 

BALTIMORE, MD — As Maryland residents who rely on heating oil and propane are expected to see winter heating bills spike as much as 31%, the Maryland Clean Heat Coalition today submitted comments urging the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) to use more than $72 million in recently approved funding as part of its Heat Pump Rebate Program to target low- and moderate-income households on delivered fuels and electric resistance. The General Assembly included this funding in its fiscal year 2027 budget.

Delivered fuels such as propane and heating oil, used by roughly 10% of Maryland households, are some of the most expensive ways to heat a home in Maryland today. Thanks to the ongoing war in Iran, federal price estimates reveal heating oil prices have increased 120% since January. Residents who rely on inefficient electric resistance heating are likewise exposed to mounting energy bills due to data center demand and requests by utilities to increase profit margins. Targeting low-income residents for heat pump upgrades, who disproportionately rely on these technologies for home heating, can deliver $350 million in energy cost savings per year by 2050, according to the Sierra Club Maryland Chapter and the Center for Progressive Reform. 

“Ahead of the heating season, thousands of low- and moderate-income households across Maryland are experiencing sticker shock as they purchase delivered fuels for the winter,” said Anne Havemann, Deputy Director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “These households are facing the worst of the energy affordability crisis, and Maryland must work quickly to help. That’s why we are urging policymakers to ensure that $72 million in funding passed by lawmakers this past legislative session is used to upgrade households on delivered fuels and electric resistance with efficient heat pumps.”

To maximize savings, Maryland must ensure quality installations and build the pool of experienced contractors across the state. In their recommendations, advocates stressed the importance of investing in workforce development programs and streamlined processes to ensure contractor participation in the program. That includes a statewide heat pump contractor network, similar to one in Maine, where verified contractors can be matched with Maryland residents and access training resources.

“Contractors will be on the front lines of implementing Maryland’s Heat Pump Rebate Program,” said Sean Mallonee, of SM Mechanical and President of Heating and Air Conditioning Contractors of Maryland.“To ensure they are supported, policymakers must partner with manufacturers and educational institutions to provide contractors with the required technical training. The state must also create streamlined processes that ease the barriers to entry and participation for contractors while also ensuring those contractors are legitimate to protect homeowners as well.  By creating a Heat Pump Rebate Program that supports licensed contractors, Maryland will not only accelerate the adoption of heat pumps but also create good-paying jobs in the process with consumer protection in place.”

The coalition urged MEA to structure the Heat Pump Rebate Program to align with the state’s forthcoming Clean Heat Rules, a set of complementary policies that would phase in zero-emission heating equipment in Maryland households to lower energy bills and invest in healthier air statewide. MEA should also coordinate with other state and utility programs, including EmPOWER Maryland, to braid resources and offer households incentives for wrap-around services that can deliver greater savings, including energy efficiency upgrades and weatherization.

“A whole-house approach to electrification has been proven to lower energy bills, improve indoor air quality, and enhance comfort,” said Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative. “That is why policies such as the Heat Pump Rebate Program must be designed to work in tandem with Maryland’s upcoming Clean Heat Rules and energy efficiency program, EmPOWER. By doing so, Maryland can comprehensively address safety, structure, and energy-inefficiency issues in a home, delivering major economic benefits and quality of life improvements for residents.”

Failing to upgrade residents on the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland with zero-emission equipment risks locking in rising energy bills and long-term pollution impacts of fossil fuel heating. Gas utilities are working to expand their networks in these regions despite having some of the highest rates in the entire state—nearly $1 per therm higher than other Maryland utilities. Households will not only lose out on greater savings achieved by heat pumps, but be saddled with the mounting costs of maintaining Maryland’s aging gas system. If Maryland fails to quickly upgrade households on delivered fuels with heat pumps, they could be locked into the polluting gas system for at least another 15 years.

“Switching Maryland households on delivered fuels to methane gas isn’t a viable solution, especially as gas prices rise,” said Bryan Dunning, senior policy analyst at Center for Progressive Reform. “Letting utilities expand the polluting gas system to more households risks hooking residents on a stranded asset. Instead, the focus should be on switching to efficient electric systems that will bear long-term energy and health savings to ratepayers.”

Additional statements from organizations can be found below:

“Nearly 42% of Maryland households reported struggling to pay their utility bill last year, indicating the extent of the state’s energy affordability crisis,” said Rev. Catherine Manhardt, climate equity team leader at the Maryland Just Power Alliance. “As families struggle to get by, there are steps that policymakers can take to provide immediate relief. That includes transitioning low- and moderate-income homes with inefficient electric resistance systems or delivered fuels to efficient electric heat pumps, which can provide thousands of dollars in savings.”

“Households relying on delivered fuels and inefficient electric resistance to heat their homes are set to face skyrocketing energy costs this winter,” said Tony Sirna, deputy policy director at Evergreen Action. “It’s why advocates are urging policymakers to design and quickly distribute $72 in funding that targets these energy-burdened households with heat pump upgrades that are proven to lower energy bills.”

###

The post Maryland Clean Heat Coalition Urges Policymakers to Prioritize Upgrading Homes on Delivered Fuels with Heat Pumps  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Platform represents major improvement upon status quo, but communities in crisis need immediate relief through pause on data center development

 

RICHMOND, VA — Governor Abigail Spanberger released today her “Data Center Accountability Framework,” which includes a combination of executive actions and policy endorsements to protect communities and the environment from data centers. Several of the endorsed policies take notable steps to address on-site pollution, rising energy bills associated with data center infrastructure and demand, and community impacts. However, the platform does not include a pause on data center development or a ban on on-site gas generation for primary power. Communities around the Commonwealth are calling for a moratorium on data center approvals until comprehensive policy guardrails are in place to protect communities and the environment, a platform called “Pause to Protect.”

Victoria Higgins, Virginia Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), issued the following statement:

“We appreciate that the Governor’s platform takes several major steps forward, but also that communities facing data center development are in crisis right now. We need a pause on data center approvals until water-tight environmental and community protections are on the books and being enforced. Scientists are begging policymakers to take decisive action yesterday to stop runaway climate change, while the Trump Administration moves to allow limitless pollution. We must stop the madness and issue an immediate pause on approvals until these protections – and more – are fully implemented.”

CCAN is supportive of policy proposals to ensure that data centers pay for infrastructure they incentivize the incumbent utility to build, procure their own clean energy resources, ban Non-Disclosure Agreements, eliminate by-right development, and close regulatory loopholes that allow diesel generation to escape compliance with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. While the Governor’s platform suggests strong limits on behind-the-meter, or directly-connected, gas turbines as a means of primary power for data centers, CCAN advocates for an all-out ban on such on-site gas generation. 

#   #   #

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

The post Spanberger Data Center Platform Takes Steps Forward, But Communities Still Need “Pause to Protect” appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Blog by Plugin Solar US, published as part of their Behind the Bill series exploring how U.S. states are shaping plug-in solar policy.

Del. Paul Krizek and Virginia climate advocate Jamie Bacon show how one constituent email about Utah’s balcony-solar law helped spark a coalition, companion bills, and a new pathway for renters and homeowners.

It started with an article about Utah

Virginia’s plug-in solar story did not begin with a utility filing, an industry lobbying campaign, or even a bill draft.

It began with a constituent reading an article.

On August 17, 2025, Alexandria resident Jamie Bacon saw a Boston Globe story in the Climate Action Now app about Utah’s new plug-in solar law. Utah had created a legal pathway for small solar systems designed to connect through an electrical outlet, reducing some of the interconnection and installation barriers associated with traditional rooftop solar.

Bacon immediately saw the appeal.

A retired biologist who had spent 33 years working in Bermuda, including years studying the effects of pollution on wildlife, Bacon had become increasingly involved in climate advocacy after moving to Virginia. She serves as a volunteer climate lobby captain in her Northern Virginia district, teaches about climate change, and lives in a large condominium community where traditional rooftop solar is not an easy individual option.

She also had a personal reference point: her daughter lives in Germany, where balcony solar had already become commonplace.

The next day, Bacon emailed her delegate, Paul Krizek. She sent information about the Utah legislation and plug-in solar products and asked him to help Virginia pass something similar.

That email would ultimately become the first step in Virginia’s plug-in solar law.

From one email to a statewide conversation

The idea did not become legislation overnight.

About a month later, Bacon saw Krizek at a community ice cream social and asked him about balcony solar again. He asked her to resend the information. She did.

Then Bacon widened the circle.

After reading an article by Virginia clean-energy advocate Ivy Main about solar policy, Bacon contacted Main and shared the same material. Main circulated the idea among Sierra Club advocates. Bacon brought representatives from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, or CCAN, into the conversation. Other clean-energy advocates began discussing the concept.

By early October, the idea had reached Virginia’s Commission on Electric Utility Regulation and several legislators. Main told the group that Del. Rip Sullivan was interested. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell was interested as well.

Bacon then emailed Krizek’s office to let him know that other lawmakers were considering legislation. The response surprised her: Krizek’s chief of staff told Bacon that his office had already submitted a bill-drafting request based on the idea she had sent them and would coordinate with the other legislators.

For Bacon, October 9 became the moment when a constituent suggestion suddenly looked like a real legislative campaign. CCAN agreed to help lead advocacy. Sierra Club representatives offered to work alongside them. The idea had moved from Bacon’s inbox into Virginia’s clean-energy coalition.

One fellow advocate texted Bacon afterward asking, in effect, whether she had just helped move the entire state forward on balcony solar.

“I think I did.” — Jamie Bacon

The more complete answer is that Virginia’s law emerged from a network: Bacon brought the idea forward; Krizek’s office acted on it; Surovell and other lawmakers became legislative champions; Sierra Club and CCAN advocates helped build support; and stakeholders worked through the technical and political details.

But Bacon had unquestionably gotten the ball rolling.

A rare first-year legislative win

That grassroots origin is especially notable because the proposal moved unusually quickly.

Virginia ultimately advanced two companion measures: H.B. 395, with Del. Paul Krizek as chief patron, and S.B. 250, with Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell as chief patron. Both addressed what Virginia law calls a “small portable solar generation device.”

The legislation moved through committees, underwent revisions and stakeholder negotiations, passed the General Assembly, received recommendations from the Governor, and was ultimately approved on April 22, 2026.

For Bacon, the speed was surprising. She later learned that many new proposals spend their first legislative session simply being “socialized”—introduced so lawmakers and stakeholders can understand the concept before another attempt in a later year.

Virginia’s plug-in solar proposal did not need that second attempt.

“The fact that it did pass in its first year was pretty amazing.” — Jamie Bacon

Part of the reason may be the intuitive nature of the idea. Plug-in solar is easier to visualize than many energy policies. Instead of asking a resident to understand utility rate structures, transmission planning, interconnection queues, or wholesale electricity markets, the proposition is straightforward: put a small solar panel somewhere sunny, connect a properly certified system to your home, and use some of the electricity yourself.

That simplicity helped turn a relatively unfamiliar technology into a policy lawmakers and residents could quickly understand.

Krizek: solar that belongs to the person, not the property

Krizek did not sit for a full interview for this article, but he provided a written explanation of why he believes Virginia’s law matters.

His framing gets to the heart of the policy.

“The plug-in solar isn’t tied to the house but to the people.” — Del. Paul Krizek

Traditional rooftop solar is fundamentally tied to real estate. A homeowner invests in a system attached to a particular roof. If the homeowner moves, the solar typically stays behind.

Plug-in solar changes that relationship.

“You move to a new unit and you bring your energy maker with you.” — Del. Paul Krizek

For him, that portability is particularly important for renters. People who do not own their homes typically cannot decide to put a conventional solar array on the roof. They may support clean energy and want lower electricity bills, but the property decision belongs to someone else.

A portable solar device starts to separate access to distributed energy from ownership of real estate. Krizek described that as part of a broader evolution in consumer technology—from desktop computers to smartphones, and now, potentially, from fixed power generation toward personal energy equipment.

“Isn’t the best kilowatt of energy the one you actually make?” — Del. Paul Krizek

That philosophy gives Virginia’s law a distinctive consumer-access framing. Plug-in solar is not supposed to replace utility-scale renewable energy or rooftop solar. It creates another option for people who previously had few options at all.

What Virginia’s law actually does

Virginia’s enacted framework defines a small portable solar generation device as a movable photovoltaic system with a maximum output of 1,200 watts per customer, or per residential building unit in multifamily housing.

The device must:

• Connect to a building’s electrical system through an electrical outlet.
• Be located on the customer’s side of the electric meter.
• Primarily offset the customer’s own electricity consumption.
• Meet applicable National Electrical Code requirements.
• Be certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.
• Include a feature preventing the device from exporting power to the grid or affecting the building’s electrical system during a power outage.

Virginia also created an important distinction at 391 watts. A qualifying device with no more than 391 watts of maximum output to the receptacle is exempt from product-listing provisions that would otherwise require alterations to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panels.

In practical terms, Virginia has a broader pathway reaching up to 1,200 watts, while creating a simpler path for smaller systems that can operate without triggering certain building electrical alterations. The statutory framework becomes effective January 1, 2027.

Notification—but not utility permission

One of the most important parts of Virginia’s law is what utilities cannot require.

A qualifying customer does not have to go through traditional interconnection requirements or participate in net metering simply to operate a small portable solar device. Utilities may not require prior utility approval, an interconnection fee or other device-related charge, or additional controls or equipment beyond what is integrated into the qualifying device, subject to limited statutory circumstances.

Virginia did, however, preserve a notification process. Before installation, a customer must submit a simple form developed by the State Corporation Commission. The utility then has 15 days to review that form for accuracy and completeness. If the utility does not respond within that period, the customer is deemed to have satisfied the notification requirement and may proceed.

That distinction matters.

Notification is not permission.

A traditional rooftop solar project can involve an interconnection application, engineering review, utility approval, inspections, permitting, and significant soft costs. Virginia is trying to keep a small consumer device from automatically becoming that kind of project, while still giving utilities basic information needed for system awareness and safety.

Chapter 1052 directed the SCC to develop and publish a standardized online and printable notification form on or before September 1, 2026. Consumers should confirm the current form and utility process before installation.

Renters were not an afterthought

Virginia went further than simply changing utility rules. The legislation also amended landlord-tenant law.

For landlords above a specified ownership threshold, the law generally prevents them from simply prohibiting a tenant from installing a qualifying plug-in solar device on the exterior of the tenant’s premises. A landlord may still impose reasonable restrictions regarding the size, location, and manner of placement.

Tenants must also provide at least seven days’ notice and documentation showing that the proposed device meets the statutory requirements.

That renter language goes directly to the problem Bacon saw from the beginning. Renters may pay electricity bills every month, but they generally cannot order their building owner to install rooftop solar. Plug-in solar provides a potential piece of energy agency that moves with the resident.

“I think this is one way that renters…have some agency.” — Jamie Bacon

That word—agency—comes up repeatedly in Virginia’s story. It is not simply a question of how many kilowatt-hours one panel produces. It is about whether a consumer can make an individual energy decision at all.

The irony of the multifamily gap

Yet the law’s strongest access feature also contains one of its most important unresolved limitations.

Virginia excludes rental dwelling units operating under a ratio utility billing system, commonly known as RUBS. In those arrangements, the landlord or property may receive a master electricity bill and then allocate costs among tenants rather than each tenant having a direct utility account. Those tenants may not install a qualifying plug-in solar device under the new framework.

For Bacon, this issue is personal. She lives at River Towers, a large condominium community in Alexandria with pooled electricity. She is a condo owner rather than a renter, which creates a different legal question, but the building’s metering structure has left her seeking clarification about exactly how the law will apply to residents like her.

There is a certain irony in that. The person who helped introduce Virginia lawmakers to balcony solar may live in one of the housing configurations where implementation is most complicated.

Bacon said several residents in her community would like to install balcony solar even if the savings do not accrue directly to their individual bills.

“We don’t care that we’re not going to get the benefit. We want the whole building to benefit.” — Jamie Bacon

She is now pushing for greater clarity—and potentially future changes—to make sure multifamily residents are not unnecessarily excluded.

“Make sure you address multifamily units.” — Jamie Bacon

That may be one of Virginia’s most valuable lessons nationally. It is easy to say plug-in solar expands access for renters and apartment residents. It is harder to write legislation that accounts for every combination of renter, condo owner, landlord, HOA, common element, master meter, submeter, and ratio billing system.

Virginia made significant progress on renter access. Its implementation will now help reveal where the next round of policy refinement is needed.

Safety became part of the compromise

The bill was popular, but it was not frictionless.

Bacon said she learned from Krizek that utilities raised concerns during the legislative process and that fire-safety questions also entered the discussion. She was not directly involved in those negotiations and does not claim to know every detail of how they were resolved.

What the final law shows, however, is a substantial safety framework. Devices must comply with the applicable National Electrical Code and receive certification from a nationally recognized testing laboratory. They must include anti-islanding functionality so they do not energize the building or grid during an outage.

Virginia also created a formal stakeholder workgroup to examine the remaining safety questions. The Secretary of Commerce and Trade was directed to convene representatives from state agencies, utilities, electric cooperatives, clean-energy businesses, environmental advocates, the Department of Fire Programs, real-estate interests, and other stakeholders.

Among the issues the group must evaluate are national electrical standards, nationally recognized testing-laboratory certifications, the National Electrical Safety Code, and whether additional disconnect equipment provides safety benefits beyond existing standards.

The group’s recommendations are due November 15, 2026. That timing helps explain the implementation runway before the statutory framework takes effect January 1, 2027.

For deeper technical context, read our guides to anti-islanding and the UL 3700 testing framework.

The 391-watt pathway could matter most at first

Virginia’s 1,200-watt ceiling gets attention because it establishes the outer boundary of the new category. But the 391-watt provision may be equally important for early consumer adoption.

The distinction recognizes that a smaller device capable of operating without changes to the building’s premises, wiring, or electrical panel is fundamentally different from a larger system that may require additional electrical work.

Bacon sees that lower threshold as a potential way to get relatively simple systems into consumers’ hands. But she also emphasized that product availability remains a major unknown.

Consumers will need systems that clearly meet Virginia’s requirements. Retailers will need to know which products qualify. Manufacturers will need clarity on certification. Electricians, utilities, building managers, landlords, and consumers all need understandable guidance.

“The ones that are meeting the requirements for Virginia need to be available.” — Jamie Bacon

For plug-in solar to become an appliance-like category, consumers eventually need to be able to recognize a compliant product without becoming experts in electrical code. That market does not fully exist yet.

A small amount of electricity—and a larger sense of agency

Bacon is realistic about what balcony solar can accomplish. A few hundred watts on one apartment balcony will not solve Virginia’s electricity-supply challenges. It will not replace utility-scale solar, grid storage, transmission, energy efficiency, or conventional rooftop solar. And it will not, by itself, offset the growth in power demand associated with Virginia’s rapidly expanding data-center sector.

But Bacon argues that this misses part of the point.

“At least it may give people a sense of agency over their electrical bill.” — Jamie Bacon

That can matter politically as well as economically. Distributed solar is visible. A resident can see the panel, understand when the sun is producing power, and know that at least a portion of the electricity being consumed is being generated locally.

Bacon believes that visibility can be contagious. One rooftop solar installation can lead neighbors to consider solar. Balcony solar could have a similar effect in apartments and condominiums, particularly if future systems increasingly combine solar with small batteries.

“Is it going to solve everything? No. Can it help? Yes.” — Jamie Bacon

That may be the most realistic way to understand Virginia’s law. The kilowatt-hours matter. But so does participation.

A changing electricity landscape gives the idea urgency

Virginia’s plug-in solar law is arriving while the state faces a much larger debate about electricity demand. Data-center growth, new generation, transmission construction, utility costs, renewable-energy siting, and energy affordability have all become major political issues.

Bacon is deeply concerned about that trajectory. She does not present balcony solar as the solution to those structural problems. Instead, she sees it as one piece of a broader strategy that should include large-scale solar, storage, energy efficiency, agrivoltaics, and other clean-energy resources.

Plug-in solar does something those larger policies cannot do as directly: it lets an ordinary resident participate.

For a renter who cannot control a roof, that distinction is significant. For a condo resident who wants to contribute to clean-energy generation, it can be psychologically important even when the financial impact is modest. And for policymakers trying to build public support for a changing electricity system, millions of small consumer decisions may matter alongside gigawatts of utility-scale infrastructure.

What still needs to happen before January 1

Passing the law was one phase. Implementation is the next.

Several pieces still need to come together.

1. Clear safety guidance. The stakeholder workgroup is evaluating relevant standards and must report by November 15, 2026.
2. A simple notification process. The SCC was directed to publish a standardized form, and utilities need processes that preserve the law’s basic principle: notification, not discretionary approval.
3. Compliant products. Consumers need an easy way to determine whether a system satisfies Virginia’s certification, anti-islanding, output, and code requirements.
4. Consumer education. Residents need to understand placement, outlets and circuits, property rules, realistic savings, and when electrical work is required.
5. Multifamily clarity. The RUBS exclusion is explicit for tenants, while condo and common-meter situations may require additional interpretation depending on who the utility customer is and what private condominium documents allow.

For Bacon, these are not arguments against the law. They are what comes after success.

Lessons for other states 1. A constituent can start the process

Bacon was not a solar manufacturer or professional lobbyist. She encountered an idea, thought it made sense for her state, contacted a legislator, followed up, contacted advocates, and kept connecting people.

Virginia’s law is a reminder that policy diffusion does not always happen institution to institution. Sometimes it happens person to person.

2. Use another state as a starting point, not necessarily an endpoint

Utah gave Virginia a model. But Virginia added substantial provisions around renters, notification, multifamily housing, utilities, safety, and implementation. The states are building on one another.

3. Solve the utility question without recreating rooftop-solar interconnection

Virginia preserved utility notification while explicitly removing utility approval, interconnection fees, and conventional interconnection requirements for qualifying systems. That is an important distinction if the product category is supposed to remain consumer-accessible.

4. Address renters explicitly

Virginia recognized that simply legalizing a device does not guarantee renters can use it. Its landlord provisions create meaningful protections. At the same time, the pooled-billing exclusion shows why multifamily policy requires even more careful attention.

5. Make safety rules understandable at the point of purchase

If ordinary consumers need to interpret competing electrical standards themselves, plug-in solar will struggle to become mainstream. The long-term goal should be straightforward: compliant products should be clearly identifiable, properly certified, and installed according to clear rules.

6. Do not measure the category only by megawatts

A small system will not transform a state grid by itself. But it can broaden clean-energy ownership, create consumer familiarity with distributed resources, and bring renters and multifamily residents into a market that has historically centered homeowners.

That participation has value of its own.

A message to Virginia residents

When asked what she would tell a Virginia resident who becomes interested in plug-in solar once the law takes effect, Bacon did not hesitate.

“Get it!” — Jamie Bacon

Her enthusiasm comes with an important qualifier: wait for Virginia’s implementation process to be completed and use products that actually meet the state’s safety and certification requirements.

But the underlying message is clear. Bacon believes residents should be able to produce some of their own clean electricity—even if they do not own a detached house, even if they cannot afford a rooftop installation, and even if the amount of electricity produced is relatively small.

Krizek reaches the same conclusion from a policymaker’s perspective. For him, the significance is that the energy resource can belong to the resident rather than the building.

A renter can move. The solar can move too.

That is a subtle but important shift in how Americans have traditionally thought about distributed energy.

Why Virginia matters nationally

Virginia became one of the first states in the country to enact an explicit plug-in solar framework. But its larger contribution may be the way it combined several ideas in one law:

• A 1,200-watt portable-solar category.
• A simpler pathway at 391 watts.
• Exemption from traditional interconnection and net-metering requirements.
• Notification instead of utility permission.
• Explicit renter protections.
• Limits on local prohibitions.
• Nationally recognized product certification and anti-islanding protections.
• A formal state process to continue resolving safety and implementation questions.

Just as importantly, Virginia shows how quickly plug-in solar has moved from a European curiosity into American statehouses.

In August 2025, Jamie Bacon read about what Utah had done. The next day, she emailed her delegate. Eight months later, Virginia had a law.

That timeline captures what is happening with plug-in solar nationally. States are watching one another. Constituents are asking questions. Advocates are sharing language. Legislators are adapting earlier bills. Manufacturers and standards organizations are responding.

And a category that barely existed in U.S. energy policy a few years ago is beginning to develop its own legal architecture.

Virginia’s story suggests that the most consequential part of that architecture may not be the wattage limit. It may be the idea behind it:

You should not necessarily have to own a roof to make some of your own electricity.

Blog by Plugin Solar US, published as part of their Behind the Bill series exploring how U.S. states are shaping plug-in solar policy.

The post Behind the Bill: How Virginia Turned a Constituent Idea Into a Plug-In Solar Law appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

By Zachery Suaco, Communications and Social Media Intern at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN)

I grew up knowing what climate disaster looked like before I had a word for it. My family is Filipino, and Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 was not a news story for us. It consisted of phone calls we were afraid to answer. It was waiting to hear if people we loved were okay. I was in elementary school, and I already understood that the climate was not some future problem, but rather something that had already taken things from people I knew.

That understanding is what led me into climate advocacy. It felt like the most honest thing I could do with the anger and frustration I had been carrying. And I genuinely believed that my generation, Gen Z, was different. That we had grown up with enough awareness to actually do something about it.

But what I did not expect was to look at my utility bill and find out that I was part of the problem in a way I had never considered.

Data centers, part of the physical infrastructure behind every AI tool my generation uses constantly, are one of the biggest drivers of energy demand in the DMV right now. Virginia alone has over 600 data centers, more than any other state in the country, and those data centers already consume more than a quarter of the Commonwealth’s entire electricity supply. That’s not a national statistic spread thin across the country. That’s our grid, and our overall region. And when demand that big gets added to a system, the costs cannot be absorbed quickly or painlessly.

Virginia residents have already seen their monthly bills go up $11.24 in 2026 partly because of the infrastructure being built to support that demand. And regulators had to create an entirely separate rate class just for data center customers to stop the cost-shifting from getting worse. That’s how significant the footprint has gotten.

Here’s the part that is hardest to accept. Gen Z did not build these data centers. But we are the first generation to normalize using AI for everything — from generating images to answering questions we could have Googled to having full conversations with chatbots. And that usage has a physical cost that most of us have never once thought about. Every 20 to 50 queries to a large language model uses roughly 500 milliliters of water, about the size of a standard plastic water bottle, just for cooling the servers and powering the grid that runs them. And by 2028, the onslaught of AI data centers worldwide is projected to consume over a trillion liters of water annually. That’s eleven times what all data centers used just a year ago.

We are the generation that grew up going to climate strikes. But we are also the generation that made ChatGPT the fastest-growing consumer product in history. Those two things are in real tension, and I don’t think we talk about it enough.

Packed room at a Data Center Town Hall at Studio 2,3 in Richmond, VA.

I am not saying AI is irredeemably bad or that we need to stop using it. That is not a realistic or even useful approach. But I do think my generation has been sold a version of climate consciousness that is more about identity than behavior. We recycle, we carry reusable bags, we post in opposition to fossil fuel companies on platforms that run on fossil-fuel-powered infrastructure. And we have mostly gotten a pass on interrogating the digital habits that are now reshaping energy grids in our own backyard.

The good news is that there is already pushback happening. In Virginia alone, 42 community groups and more than 12,000 people have signed petitions pushing back against unchecked data center expansion. People are paying attention. The question is whether my generation is going to show up to that fight the same way we showed up to the ones that felt easier.

Growing up Filipino and watching what Haiyan did taught me that climate change does not wait for people to feel ready. It just arrives, and it arrives when we least expect it. And the least we can do is be honest about where our own consumption fits into that picture, and then actually do something about it. That’s why I’m calling on my peers to show up to local hearings and demand a pause on new energy and water-guzzling data centers. Until we have the right solutions, “build first, figure it out later” is not an option.

About the author: Zachery Suaco (he/him) is a Communications and Social Media Intern at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) for spring/summer 2026. He is a recent graduate of Towson University where he received a bachelor’s degree in Communication Studies.

Zachery’s connection to climate justice is personal, rooted in his Filipino heritage and the devastation Typhoon Haiyan brought to his family’s home country in 2013. That experience shaped his belief that climate change is not a future problem but a present one, and drives his commitment to using communications as a tool for advocacy. In his free time, Zachery enjoys music, exploring DC, and finding new ways to blend creativity with strategy.

The post Your Feed Is Warming the Planet: Why Gen Z’s Next Climate Move Is Data Center Accountability appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Controversial decision undercuts New York law that sought $75 billion from the largest historical emitters to fund climate resilience, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for extreme weather impacts

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Despite a controversial ruling out of New York State, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) vowed to continue efforts to make polluters, not taxpayers, pay for mounting climate damages.  A federal circuit court judge ruled Monday that New York could not enforce its Climate Change Superfund Act. This ruling, which will likely be appealed, was based on a controversial decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and does not amount to a national rejection of climate superfund laws.

New York’s Superfund law, enacted in 2024, would have required the world’s largest fossil fuel companies responsible for significant historical greenhouse gas emissions to contribute to a $75 billion fund supporting climate resilience and adaptation in the Empire State. The fund was designed to help frontline communities address the escalating financial burdens of flooding, extreme heat, infrastructure damage, and other climate change-related impacts. 

“Communities should not be forced to shoulder the enormous costs of a climate crisis they did not create,” said Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “For decades, fossil fuel companies have profited from selling products that drive climate change, while families are left paying for flooded homes, damaged infrastructure, extreme heat, and rising costs. The industry’s preferred outcome is that the public pays all the costs of their pollution. We cannot accept a system where polluters keep the profits and taxpayers are left with the bill.”

As communities across the country face mounting costs from climate-driven disasters and extreme weather, climate superfund laws are an effort to establish a simple principle we all learn as children: those who helped make the mess should help clean up the mess. 

This is NOT the final word on state superfund bills. The result is a reflection of one judge’s interpretation of a controversial precedent from a fundamentally different case. That controversial precedent is not binding across most of the rest of the country, and states should not be discouraged from pursuing innovative approaches to climate accountability. CCAN will continue to pursue Superfund policies in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC and beyond.

The post New York Climate Superfund Court Ruling Not the Final Word on State Superfund Laws appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.