Virginia resource planning,
what the 2026 law now requires

What changed in Virginia's 2026 IRP framework

Virginia's 2026 amendments changed both the content and process of integrated resource planning. Section 56-599 now says that beginning in 2027 for a Phase II Utility and in 2028 for a Phase I Utility, updated integrated resource plans are filed on a triennial schedule, with annual updates in between. The annual updates must refresh core planning assumptions such as energy and demand forecasts, fuel-price inputs, energy-efficiency assumptions and projected retirement dates, and explain how those changes affect the most recently approved resource plan.

The same section now requires each integrated resource plan to identify a single preferred portfolio spanning generation, transmission, distribution infrastructure and energy-efficiency measures. The statute also directs the utility to consider rate stability, energy independence, economic development involving energy-intensive industries and service reliability. These requirements make the planning document broader than a generation-only forecast.

Sources for this sectionCode of Virginia § 56-599 ↗2026 Chapter 608, SB 249 ↗

The law adds a more formal public-modeling process

Section 56-599 requires utilities to conduct annual stakeholder outreach while preparing an integrated resource plan. The process must provide opportunities for the public to contribute information, ask relevant questions and comment on methodology, modeling inputs and assumptions. The stakeholder process is to be facilitated by an independent third party selected by the State Corporation Commission from candidates submitted by the utility.

The statute goes further than a general invitation to comment. It says stakeholders are to receive reasonable access to the same modeling software, assumptions, inputs and data used by the utility to evaluate supply and demand resources, subject to confidentiality protections where appropriate. Stakeholders may use that access to create scenarios for the utility's consideration. This establishes a process right to inspect and test planning assumptions; it does not mean that every confidential project-level customer record becomes public.

• Public participation is part of IRP development, not only a post-filing comment period.
• Modeling access can be conditioned on confidentiality agreements.
• Access to planning inputs is not the same as access to every customer-specific operating record.

Sources for this sectionCode of Virginia § 56-599 ↗

Where data centers appear in the statutory planning record

The current § 56-598 requires integrated resource plans to include at least one modeling scenario that exceeds statutory energy-savings targets through a set of possible measures. Among the measures expressly listed are known data-center efficiency efforts and innovative data-center tariffs approved by the Commission, or offsetting investments in offsite energy-efficiency upgrades. The same scenario can also include dynamic pricing, storage, grid-enhancing technologies, virtual power plants, managed vehicle charging and transmission optimization.

That language establishes that data-center efficiency and approved tariff design are legitimate variables in Virginia resource planning. It does not establish that a particular data center has achieved a specific efficiency level, that a proposed tariff has been approved, or that one customer class caused a particular generation or transmission project. Those stronger claims require the applicable tariff order, utility filing, project record or operating data.

Sources for this sectionCode of Virginia § 56-598 ↗

At least three scenarios are required, but a scenario is not a forecast outcome

Chapter 608 requires the planning record to include at least three modeling scenarios for energy capacity, supply and demand over the planning period. It also requires utilities to explain annual or cumulative limits they place on particular generation technologies in modeling scenarios. This is designed to make the structure of the model and the consequences of different assumptions easier to examine.

A modeled scenario is still conditional. It shows what the utility model produces under a defined set of assumptions. It is not an observed future load, a construction commitment or proof that the preferred portfolio will be built exactly as modeled. The Commission reviews an IRP for reasonableness and public interest, but individual generation, transmission, tariff and cost-recovery decisions may require separate proceedings and records.

Sources for this section2026 Chapter 608, SB 249 ↗Code of Virginia § 56-599 ↗

What is still unfinished as of October 19, 2026

The General Assembly did not leave implementation entirely to the statutory text. Chapters 607 and 608 direct the State Corporation Commission to convene a stakeholder work group on the IRP guidelines required by § 56-599. The SCC says the work group is meeting from July through December 2026 and will make recommendations on topics including transmission integration, modeling software, data access, confidentiality, stakeholder training and the use of outside modeling expertise.

The work group's recommendations are due by March 1, 2027. The Commission is then required to establish IRP guidelines by regulation no later than September 1, 2027. As of October 19, 2026, that means the statutory framework is enacted and the work group is active, but the future SCC guidelines are not yet final. Reporting should not describe draft discussions or work-group recommendations as adopted Commission rules.

Sources for this sectionVirginia SCC IRP rulemaking page ↗2026 Chapter 608, SB 249 ↗

What this record does not establish

The 2026 IRP statutes do not establish the actual electricity demand of a named data center, the accuracy of a specific utility forecast, or whether an announced facility has been built or energized. They do not prove that a transmission project is primarily caused by one customer class, and they do not determine actual emissions, water use, land-use effects or health impacts. Those questions require different records.

The statutes also do not themselves approve an innovative data-center tariff, assign costs to a specific project, authorize construction of a generation facility or resolve a future rate case. A statute can require a planning method or a category of analysis while leaving specific approvals to later Commission proceedings. Likewise, stakeholder access to modeling data does not erase lawful confidentiality limits.

• Planning requirements are not project approvals.
• A modeled load scenario is not actual operating demand.
• Mention of an innovative tariff is not evidence that a tariff has been approved.
• IRP analysis does not substitute for permits, meter data, cost-allocation orders or environmental records.

What additional record would support a stronger claim

A stronger facility-level statement about a data center would require the record that answers the specific question. Actual electricity use would require meter or utility operating data. A claim about who pays for infrastructure would require the relevant tariff, rate case, line-extension policy or cost-allocation order. A claim that a transmission project is driven by data-center growth would require the utility's project-specific planning filing or a Commission record addressing the need driver.

For the statewide planning process itself, the next controlling records will be the SCC work-group recommendations, the Commission's proposed and final IRP guidelines, and the first filings made under the new framework. Those documents will show how the statutory requirements are translated into modeling access, scenario design, transmission treatment and public-review procedures in practice.

Sources for this sectionVirginia SCC IRP rulemaking page ↗