Lesson 6 examines the rapidly expanding electricity demands associated with artificial intelligence and hyperscale data centers. The central case is a 2026 energy-supply study for a large data center campus in Virginia. The report estimates facility demand, compares grid electricity, solar photovoltaic systems, virtual power purchase agreements, renewable energy certificates, natural-gas generation, and battery storage, and recommends several combined energy strategies.

The report is also an example of how technical analysis embeds ethical choices. The authors must define the problem, select a study boundary, estimate an operating load, choose technologies for comparison, forecast costs and emissions, determine what counts as reliable power, and decide how much weight to give deployment speed, environmental impacts, public costs, corporate commitments, and community concerns. Each choice affects which strategy appears feasible and defensible.

The report was prepared as an independent academic project using public information and modeled assumptions. The project team did not represent QTS Realty Trust, and measured operating data from the selected facility were unavailable. Those limits are part of the case. Students should evaluate the strength of the evidence, the role of uncertainty, and the difference between observed data and modeled claims.

Central Question: How do assumptions, system boundaries, accounting methods, and comparison criteria shape which data-center energy strategy appears feasible and ethically defensible?

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish measured, estimated, assumed, and projected claims in a technical report.
• Explain how facility capacity, load factor, reliability requirements, and study horizon shape an energy-supply analysis.
• Distinguish physical electricity supply from contractual renewable-energy claims.
• Evaluate whether cost, emissions, and risk comparisons use compatible boundaries and methods.
• Identify stakeholders who receive detailed treatment and stakeholders who remain weakly represented or outside the analysis.
• Apply Ethics Matrix C to consequential methodological choices in the report.
• Assess whether the report’s recommendations follow from the evidence, assumptions, and weighting of decision criteria.

Core Case Report

Baldasare, Kevin; John Gossman; Neelesh Ramseebaluck; and Christopher Simon. 2026. Power and Energy Supply Strategy for Hyper-Scale Data Centers in Virginia. Final Project Report, EME 589, The Pennsylvania State University.

The report models the QTS Richmond 1 campus as a 238 MW facility and uses a 95 percent base-case load factor to estimate annual electricity consumption of approximately 1.98 TWh. Students should treat the load estimate, hourly demand curve, future costs, emissions trajectories, and implementation timelines as analytical claims that require close reading.

Two-Week Lesson Structure

Week 1: Constructing the Data-Center Energy Problem

Required Reading:

• Executive Summary, pp. 2–4
• Overview of the Problem and Study Scope, pp. 7–9
• Stakeholders for Data Center and Energy Projects, pp. 9–11
• Data Center Load Profile, pp. 17–21
• Final Comparison Table, p. 80, read as a preview of the report’s conclusions

Companion reading: International Energy Agency, Key Questions on Energy and AI, Executive Summary

Reading Focus: Week 1 asks how the report establishes the scale and character of the energy problem. Students should identify the evidence supporting the 238 MW facility capacity, the assumed load factor, the annual energy estimate, the modeled hourly load profile, the reliability requirements, the 20-year study period, and the selection or exclusion of energy options. Mark important claims using four categories: measured, estimated, assumed, and projected. The categories help separate direct evidence from calculations, modeling choices, and future scenarios.

Week 1 Work: Complete the Assumption and Scope Audit in Canvas. Identify three consequential assumptions, two major exclusions, one term that requires clearer definition, one stakeholder who is absent or weakly represented, and one reasonable alternative assumption that could change the analysis.

Week 2: Comparing Strategies and Producing a Recommendation

Required Reading:

• On-site solar scale and output, pp. 31–34
• Off-site solar contribution to demand, pp. 45–46
• VPPAs and Renewable Energy Certificates, pp. 54–60
• On-site Natural Gas Power Plants, pp. 60–69
• Energy Storage, pp. 69–74
• Comparison Analysis, Recommendations, and Conclusions, pp. 74–85

Companion reading: Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Scope 2 Guidance Executive Summary

Reading Focus: Week 2 asks whether the report compares the energy pathways through compatible methods and whether the recommendations follow from the evidence. Pay particular attention to differences among physical electricity supply, annual renewable-energy matching, contractual renewable attributes, direct emissions, life-cycle emissions, generation, storage, facility reliability, and grid resilience.

The GHG Protocol reading distinguishes location-based emissions, which reflect the grid serving the facility, from market-based emissions associated with qualifying contractual instruments. Use that distinction to evaluate the report’s treatment of VPPAs, RECs, grid electricity, and the proposed natural-gas-plus-VPPA strategy.

Week 2 Work: Complete Ethics Matrix C and the Recommendation Audit in Canvas. Select three to five consequential choices in the report. For each choice, identify the technical or methodological decision, the rationale, the value embedded in the decision, the affected stakeholders, a reasonable alternative, and the likely effect of that alternative on the final recommendation.

How to Use the Lesson Pages

The Lesson 6 webpages provide analytical tools for reading the report. The webpages do not reproduce the report’s technology descriptions, cost tables, or calculations. Use the report for the case evidence and the webpages for distinctions, questions, and methods of close reading.

Assignment 6 Summary

Assignment 6 asks you to apply Ethics Matrix C to three to five consequential methodological choices in the report. The analysis should explain how assumptions, boundaries, evidence, accounting methods, and decision criteria influence the preferred energy-supply strategy. The complete instructions, word count, submission requirements, and evaluation criteria are provided in Canvas.

Main Point

Technical reports do not produce recommendations from data alone. Recommendations emerge from choices about what to measure, what to estimate, what to assume, what to exclude, how to compare alternatives, and which values receive priority. Lesson 6 uses the data-center energy case to make those choices visible and available for ethical analysis.

Source Notes

• Core report: Power and Energy Supply Strategy for Hyper-Scale Data Centers in Virginia (2026), selected sections listed above.
• International Energy Agency: Key Questions on Energy and AI (2026), Executive Summary.
• Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Scope 2 Guidance, Executive Summary.