Microsoft는 11월 이전에 버지니아 주 기업위원회(Virginia State Corporation Commission)의 일부 송전 비용을 데이터 센터에 직접 부과하는 명령에 대해 공식적으로 항소할 권리를 보류하고 있다.

Following the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s July 31 order directing Dominion Energy to directly assign certain transmission costs to large-load facilities, Microsoft filed a notice of appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court on August 28. In an email to Utility Dive, a company spokesperson clarified that Microsoft has not yet formally appealed the ruling, stating instead that the notice “preserves its ability to challenge” future implementations of the decision. “While Microsoft has not appealed the Commission's decision, it is preserving its rights to ensure that any rates ultimately put in place are transparent, fair, and reflect the costs each customer creates,” the spokesperson said.

The SCC’s July 31 ruling mandated that Dominion draft an amendment to its existing line extension policy requiring a mandatory contribution in aid of construction (CIAC) for defined types of transmission facilities. Dominion must file this proposed amended policy in a new docket within 90 days of the decision. The case centered on Dominion’s proposed changes to Rider T-1, a line-item charge used to recover transmission investment costs. The commission ruled in favor of a mandatory CIAC for “direct connect” facilities, which covers the cost of substations and the transmission lines connecting those facilities to the grid.

Under Virginia law, a formal petition for appeal must be filed within four months after the SCC enters its final order, placing Microsoft’s deadline in late November. Meanwhile, Dominion’s amended policy is scheduled for submission in October. Will Reisinger, a partner at Reisinger Gooch who represented The Piedmont Environmental Council during the SCC hearing, noted that filing a notice of appeal without intending to formally appeal would be “somewhat odd” or “unusual.”

During the SCC proceedings, Cliona Robb, a partner at ThompsonMcMullan representing Microsoft, raised concerns that impacted customers lacked sufficient input, questioning “who's in the courtroom when this direct assignment decision is being made.” Reisinger countered that the commission provided ample public notice, noting prior orders that signaled consideration of cost allocations in this long-standing Virginia issue. “One thing I said at the hearing is that it is difficult for me to imagine that the commission could have given more notice to the public, including the data centers,” Reisinger said. “I cited a number of different orders where the commission signaled that they would consider cost allocations in this particular case … this issue has been unresolved for a long time in Virginia.” PEC Senior Energy Infrastructure Policy Analyst Michael Barber disagreed with Microsoft’s position, stating the argument “holds water … if you were interested in this issue as a developer, you knew about this proceeding, and you had the opportunity to be at this proceeding. But that was the point that Microsoft was making — whether or not that will be part of the grounds they're appealing on, I don't know.”

Google, Amazon, and Meta also participated in the case. A Google spokesperson told Utility Dive the company cannot comment on Microsoft’s appeal “at this stage.” However, Hannah Coman, a strategic negotiator with Google’s Energy Market Development team, described the commission’s order as “thoughtful.” During hearings, Google advocated for voluntary CIACs rather than mandatory ones. “Google is committed to building data centers the right way, and we advocated for the direct interconnection costs to be allowed to be payable by the data centers, and we were comfortable with them making it mandatory,” Coman said. Regarding Dominion’s upcoming filing, she emphasized the need for precise definitions: “It would be important to see how the proposal defines the direct interconnection facilities.” Coman drew a clear distinction between direct costs and broader grid improvements: “I do think there is a line between our direct costs, including the radial lines and substations, and the separate bucket of general network upgrades. We need to clearly define the direct interconnection costs subject to CIAC and then have a separate proceeding to discuss how to address the more general network upgrades.”

Both Reisinger and Barber expressed confidence in the legal foundation of the SCC’s ruling. “Especially as limited in scope as they kept it — applying just to the substations and direct connect transmission lines,” Barber said. “If you're talking about a but-for cost, something that never would exist if not for that customer, I don't know how you could view that infrastructure as anything else. That stuff would never be built if not for that data center needing to go there.” Should Microsoft proceed with a formal appeal and the Virginia Supreme Court rules in its favor, Reisinger noted the court retains the authority to remand the decision and direct the commission to conduct further proceedings.