Virginia § 15.2-2209.5 data center siting disclosure law (2026)

VIRGINIA — VA. CODE § 15.2-2209.5, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026, enacted by IDENTICAL COMPANION BILLS HB 153 and SB 94 of the 2026 session. THE OPERATIVE CONTENT IS PROCEDURAL AND DISCLOSURE-BASED, AND THE SOURCE IS EMPHATIC ABOUT ITS LIMITS: 'It forces developers to study noise and utilities to disclose substations. It sets no limits on either.' And: 'The law requires studies. It does not set a noise limit, a water cap or a setback.' TWO OBLIGATIONS, BOTH PRE-VOTE: (1) THE DEVELOPER MUST STUDY NOISE; (2) THE UTILITY MUST DISCLOSE SUBSTATIONS — each owed BEFORE A LOCAL BOARD VOTES on the largest data centers. WHY A DISCLOSURE STATUTE IS WORTH INDEXING AS A PROTECTION: this dataset repeatedly records local decibel ordinances that fix a dBA figure without specifying measurement methodology, receptor location, or who bears the cost of measurement — the dBA MEASUREMENT GAP. A statutory noise-study mandate supplies the evidentiary predicate those ordinances assume and do not create. Similarly, SUBSTATION DISCLOSURE addresses the recurring pattern where transmission and substation build-out surfaces only after entitlement (see Steuben County IN six-month data center moratorium (2026), where utilities' high-transmission routing discussions drove a county to pause). THE STATUTE ARMS LOCAL BOARDS WITH INFORMATION; IT DOES NOT ARM THEM WITH STANDARDS. `strength` is recorded as moderate for that reason and should not be read as a substantive cap on anything. SCOPE CAVEAT: the source says the law governs 'where the LARGEST data centers can go,' but THE APPLICABILITY THRESHOLD — square footage, megawatts, or otherwise — IS NOT STATED IN THE RETRIEVED TEXT and is NOT inferred here. This is the most important open question on this entry. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WHICH IS THE ANALYTICALLY RICH PART: BOTH PATRONS REPRESENT PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, the centre of the Northern Virginia buildout, 'where fights over noise, substations and water produced the legislation.' HB 153 carried NINE ADDITIONAL PATRONS, ALL DEMOCRATS (Thomas, Guzman, Helmer, McAuliff, Reid, Carr, Keys-Gamarra, Rasoul, Reaser, Singh). HB 153 INCORPORATED Del. McAuliff's HB 511; SB 94 INCORPORATED SB 130. RECORDED VOTES from the source: Senate passed with substitute 26-14; House REJECTED the Senate substitute 0-98; House conference report adopted 93-2 (a separate House tracker logs 91-4-0); Senate conference report adopted 29-10; House passed with substitute 80-14-0. A ROEM FLOOR AMENDMENT passed 24-16 the day before. Committee margins: Senate Local Government 8-5-1; Senate Finance and Appropriations 10-5; House Counties, Cities and Towns reported HB 153's substitute 15-6. The source itself flags that 'something shifted between February and March, and the conference substitute is where to look for it,' and states plainly that it has not pulled the individual roll-call names. THE VETO HISTORY IS THE KEY CONTEXT: in 2025 the General Assembly passed a BROADER version, HB 1601 and SB 1449, also patroned by Thomas. GOV. GLENN YOUNGKIN DECLINED TO SIGN IT, RETURNED IT WITH AMENDMENTS, AND VETOED IT ON MAY 2, 2025, CITING CONCERNS ABOUT REDUCED LOCAL AUTONOMY. GOV. ABIGAIL SPANBERGER SIGNED THE 2026 VERSION. THE NARROWING FROM 2025 TO 2026 — from a broader bill to a studies-and-disclosure bill — IS THE PRICE OF ENACTMENT, and it is the clearest documented instance in this dataset of a state data center bill surviving by shedding its substantive standards. VOLUME CONTEXT: more than 60 data center bills introduced in Virginia in 2026; about 15 passed, many as identical House/Senate pairs. LOCAL TRIGGER FOR THE REPORTING: a regional industrial board voted BEHIND CLOSED DOORS to buy land near the I-81/I-581 interchange three weeks before publication (Wood Haven, Roanoke area) — an unindexed lead.