The energy landscape across the Potomac River basin varies by jurisdiction. Washington, D.C., leads in per capita income and the share of electricity generated from renewable sources. Pennsylvania stands out as the region’s largest energy producer and emitter, while Virginia has developed strong electric vehicle infrastructure and exhibits moderate adoption of renewable energy. West Virginia, in contrast, maintains high coal production and associated emissions, with a relatively low share of renewable energy in its portfolio.

Table: Energy & Environmental Snapshot by State (2023–2025)

Source: U.S. Department of Energy’s U.S. States Comparison.

Data centers are a rapidly growing part of the water–energy nexus in the Potomac River basin, as described in a which was also highlighted in an ICPRB webinar in November 2025. These facilities operate around the clock and require large amounts of electricity to power servers, cooling systems, and backup infrastructure. Nationally, data centers are projected to consume up to 130 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, about 12 percent of total U.S. demand (EESI, 2025). In Virginia, nearly all projected electricity demand growth through 2045 is attributed to data centers, and major power generators in the basin have stated they cannot meet this demand without continuing coal use and expanding natural gas facilities (PECVA, 2025).

Water use is another important consideration. Depending on the type of cooling system, a single large data center can consume millions of gallons of water per day to maintain optimal server temperatures. While the Potomac basin is not arid like the U.S. Southwest, where data centers are projected to use 7 billion gallons annually by 2035, enough for nearly 200,000 people, localized water withdrawals can still strain supplies and affect ecosystems (WRA, 2025). In addition, the large buildings and impervious surfaces associated with data centers, such as paved lots and rooftops, can increase stormwater runoff into nearby waterways. Unmanaged runoff has implications for local water quality for drinking water, recreation, and aquatic habitats.

Managing the growth of data centers offers both challenges and opportunities for the region. Their combined energy and water demands can overwhelm local electric grids, increase residential energy bills, and hinder progress toward reducing fossil fuel use. However, there are promising paths forward. Strategies such as siting facilities near renewable energy resources, adopting air-cooled or closed-loop cooling systems to reduce water use, and shifting operations to off-peak hours can help lessen environmental impacts. Policy innovations like tax incentives, zoning tools, and market access for clean energy can further encourage sustainable data center development that supports both resource conservation and regional climate objectives.

Webinar: Water Impacts from Data Centers in the Potomac River Basin >>>

Supporting Sustainable Solutions for Data Center Development

Additional resources, maps and details on data centers in the Potomac region:

• Piedmont Environmental Council’s Existing and proposed data centers web map
• Data Center Map has maps by state for Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia
• Maryland Data Center Analysis Group has formed to inform policy. View the press release or email MDAnalysisGroup@gmail.com for more information.

Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is a hidden environmental threat in the Potomac River basin. AMD occurs when minerals like pyrite in abandoned coal mine lands (AMLs) are exposed to water and oxygen, producing sulfuric acid that contaminates nearby streams and groundwater with toxic metals. This acidic water can harm aquatic life, damage vegetation, and make water unsafe for drinking or recreational use. The heavy metals in AMD also pose long-term health risks, including carcinogenic effects, and create substantial economic costs due to land degradation and expensive restoration efforts.

Treating and managing AMD requires careful coordination of energy and water resources. Active treatment methods, such as lime dosing, aeration, sludge handling, and pumping water from deep mines, are energy intensive. Even though automated monitoring systems use relatively little energy, they are essential for ensuring treatment effectiveness. At the same time, AMD contaminates both surface and groundwater, while treatment ponds can lose significant volumes of water to evaporation. On the positive side, properly treated AMD can be reused for industrial cooling, dust suppression, and other purposes, highlighting the potential for integrated water management strategies.

Sustainable solutions for AMD balance energy use with environmental outcomes. Passive treatment systems, including constructed wetlands and limestone drains, harness natural processes to neutralize acidity with far lower energy requirements, though they operate more slowly than active systems. Innovations such as solar-powered pumps, water reuse strategies, and combining renewable energy with treatment operations can help reduce the environmental footprint. By carefully managing these water–energy trade-offs, stakeholders can restore abandoned mine lands, improve water quality, and protect ecosystems while supporting broader sustainability goals.

Coal ash, also known as Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) or Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCB), is the waste material produced when coal is burned in power plants. It includes fly ash, fine particles captured from flue gases; bottom ash, heavier material collected at the bottom of boilers; synthetic gypsum, a byproduct of flue gas desulfurization often reused in wallboard; and wastewater treatment sludge from FGD systems. While some byproducts can be safely reused, coal ash can contain toxic elements such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, lead, cadmium, chromium, boron, and thallium. If not properly managed, these contaminants can pollute groundwater, surface water, and air as dust, posing serious environmental and public health risks.

Coal ash is typically stored in surface impoundments, landfills, or mine reclamation sites, each carrying different levels of risk. Many older ponds are unlined, allowing contaminants to leak into groundwater, while some landfills are lined and monitored but legacy sites can still pose hazards. To address these risks, the EPA’s 2015 Coal Ash Disposal Rule established national standards for safe management. The rule requires groundwater monitoring, closure of unlined impoundments, structural assessments of storage sites, dust control plans, and public transparency through online reporting. It also distinguishes between safe, beneficial uses, such as in concrete or wallboard, and disposal, and restricts new disposal units in sensitive areas including wetlands, floodplains, and fault zones.

Coal ash poses significant health and environmental threats. Its toxic constituents, including mercury, lead, and arsenic, are linked to cancer, heart and thyroid disease, reproductive failure, and neurological damage in children. Disposal in unlined ponds or landfills allows these toxins to migrate into groundwater and surface water, threatening drinking water sources and ecosystems. Oversight has increased in recent years: in April 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld EPA regulations that closed loopholes previously allowing coal-burning power plants to avoid cleaning up inactive coal ash sites, addressing hundreds of unremediated ponds and landfills. Ongoing monitoring, public access to compliance data, and state-level alignment with federal standards are key to reducing coal ash risks while supporting safer, environmentally responsible energy production.

Hydroelectric power generates electricity by harnessing the energy of flowing water. Water from a river or reservoir is directed through an intake toward turbines, where the force of the moving water spins the turbines connected to generators, converting mechanical energy into electricity. After passing through the turbines, the water is released back into the river downstream. Many hydroelectric facilities use dams to store water and create potential energy, though some operate as run-of-river systems with minimal storage. Pumped storage plants move water between reservoirs to store energy and release it as needed, providing additional flexibility for the grid.

Hydroelectric power is a renewable and clean energy source that produces electricity without air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. It is reliable, particularly in dammed systems, and can quickly adjust output to meet fluctuating energy demands. While small hydro plants may contribute modestly to overall energy production compared to fossil fuel or large pumped storage facilities, they enhance grid diversity and support local energy independence. Hydroelectric projects are carefully designed to minimize impacts on water resources, using real-time flow monitoring and run-of-river designs to preserve natural flow regimes, reduce habitat disruption, and maintain river health.

Beyond energy production, hydroelectric facilities provide important environmental, educational, and cultural benefits. Projects comply with state and federal water quality standards and can incorporate features such as fish passage and riparian buffers to protect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including migratory species like the American eel. Facilities like Burnshire serve as STEM learning sites for local universities, with public access and interpretive signage promoting recreation and awareness. Historic plants, such as the Waterpower at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, highlight the longstanding role of water power in regional industry, originally supplying electricity to a musket factory, rolling mill, and local communities, and operating in various capacities until 1991.

Transportation of energy and materials in the Potomac River region relies on a combination of trucks, rail, and pipelines, each with distinct energy, water, and environmental implications. Trucks are the least energy-efficient mode, consuming more fuel per ton-mile than rail or pipeline (Hansen and Dursteler, 2021), and they can contribute to water quality concerns through road runoff, particularly near river crossings. Stormwater from heavily trafficked roads can carry pollutants into local waterways. Truck transport also produces high greenhouse gas emissions. Despite these drawbacks, trucks remain vital for short-distance delivery, areas without rail or pipeline access, and emergency or construction support for larger infrastructure projects.

Rail transport offers a more energy-efficient alternative to trucks, although it is generally less efficient than pipelines (National Waterways Foundation, 2022). Rail infrastructure, such as the Long Bridge project spanning the Potomac River connecting Washington D.C. to Arlington, Virginia, must carefully manage stormwater runoff and erosion control, especially near sensitive waterways. While rail carries lower emissions per ton-mile and can access remote areas at scale, it also poses risks in the event of hazardous material spills. Projects like the Long Bridge replacement enhance commuter and intercity rail service, improve regional connectivity, and include environmental mitigation measures, demonstrating the potential for infrastructure upgrades to balance efficiency, resilience, and environmental stewardship.

Pipelines provide the most energy-efficient means of transporting oil and natural gas over long distances (Hansen and Dursteler, 2021), but they require careful management at waterway crossings (Nussdorf and Dunn, 2019). The Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project, for example, uses horizontal directional drilling to minimize surface disruption and protect aquatic ecosystems while delivering millions of cubic feet of natural gas per day to support homes and businesses (see press releases here and here). Pipelines carry environmental risks from leaks or ruptures that could impact groundwater and surface water, as highlighted by the 1993 Colonial Pipeline spill, which released over 408,000 gallons of fuel oil into Sugarland Run and the Potomac River, disrupting drinking water supplies for nearly two weeks. In response, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) developed regional spill response tools, including the Emergency River Spill Model (ERSM), which helps estimate spill movement, concentration levels, and duration of contamination exposure. Ongoing collaboration among the Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership (DWSPP), federal and state agencies, local water suppliers, and emergency responders promotes energy transport in the region that balances reliability with safety, environmental protection, and public health.

Table 1: Summary of Trade-offs

Websites

• Northern Virginia Technology Council. Data Center Report.NVTC, 2025. Accessed 6 Aug. 2025.
• Piedmont Environmental Council. Data Centers & Energy Demand. Revised June 18, 2025. Accessed 7 Oct. 2025.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.” EPA, 1 Aug. 2025. Accessed 22 Aug. 2025.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Frequent Questions about the 2015 Coal Ash Disposal Rule.” EPA, 8 Sept. 2025. Accessed 20 Aug. 2025.
• S. Geological Survey. “The Energy-Water Nexus.” U.S. Department of the Interior, 26 Sept. 2024.

Publications

• Ahmed, S.N., K. Bencala, S. Nummer, C.L. Schultz, and A. Seck. 2025 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study: Demand and Resource Availability Forecast for the Year 2050. ICPRB Report No. 25-X, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, July 2025. [LINK COMING SOON]
• Federal Railroad Administration. Long Bridge Project Fact Sheets. U.S. Department of Transportation, Aug. 2020. Accessed Aug. 2025.
• Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2023 Updates: Potomac River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan. ICPRB, Mar. 2024.
• National Waterways Foundation. Final 2022 NWF TTI Study Press Release. 20 Jan. 2022. Accessed Aug. 2025.
• Nussdorf, Ben, and Maria Dunn. Lessons Learned: Case Studies of Select Infrastructure Projects. U.S. Department of Energy, Oct. 2022, . Accessed Aug. 2025.
• KEYSTONE XL Pipelines. Petroleumag, Feb. 2021. Accessed Aug. 2025.
• Schultz, Cherie. Colonial Pipeline Oil Spill: A 30-Year Retrospective.ICPRB Quarterly Meeting, 7 Mar. 2023, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. PDF presentation. Spotlight_ColonialPipeline_2023-03-07.pdf.
• Western Resource Advocates. Data Center Impacts in the West: Policy Solutions for Water and Energy Use. July 2025. Accessed 6 Sept. 2025.
• Widas, Melissa, et al. Pennsylvania Water Resources: Assessing the Impacts of Acid Mine Drainage Reclamation in Pennsylvania. NASA DEVELOP National Program, Analytical Mechanics Associates, Nov. 2024. Technical Report. Prepared for the NASA Ames Research Center.

Articles

• As Data Centers Multiply in the Chesapeake Region, Water Use Increases Too Bay Journal, 28 July 2025. Accessed 7 Oct. 2025.
• Shunney, Kate. “Embattled Gas Pipeline Project Is Now a Go.” Morgan Messenger, 30 Dec. 2024. Accessed Aug. 2025.
• Yañez-Barnuevo, Miguel. “Data Center Energy Needs Are Upending Power Grids and Threatening the Climate.” Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 15 Apr. 2025. Accessed Aug. 2025.