Defers key actions for 90 days
By Heather Michon
Correspondent
Following weeks of increasing public concerns about energy giant Tenaksa’s plan to build a second gas-fired electrical power station near Scottsville, the Fluvanna County Planning Commission finally had an opportunity to weigh in at its monthly meeting on Tuesday night (Oct. 7).
Its decision?
Slow down. Wait.
After nearly six hours of presentations, technical debate, and often emotional public testimony, the five-member commission voted unanimously to defer action on two major permits until Jan. 13, 2026, giving staff and the public more time to evaluate the sprawling ‘Expedition Generation’ project.
The proposed 1.5 gigawatt facility would sit on more than 400 acres near Tenaska’s existing Branch Road plant.
Company representatives described the plan as a state-of-the-art, low-emissions natural gas installation designed to help stabilize Virginia’s strained electric grid.
But commissioners and residents alike questioned whether the company had earned the right to expand its footprint in Fluvanna, given ongoing complaints about noise and transparency.
Tenaska makes its case
The commissioners had three Tenaska-related items on the agenda: a special use permit for a major utility; a zoning amendment that would allow the Board of Supervisors to waive height restrictions and will enable the plant to build smokestacks up to 85 feet higher that the ordinance allows; and a “substantial accord” determination to test if the plant fits within the county’s Comprehensive Plan.
Tenaska representatives, led by project developer Jarrod Pitts, laid out a polished presentation designed to reassure both regulators and residents.
The company emphasized that the new facility would use existing natural gas lines, substations, and water infrastructure, minimizing land disturbance and avoiding new construction through sensitive areas. Of the roughly 400 acres involved, only about 50 acres would be developed; the remainder, they said, would be placed in conservation to protect the rural character of the site.
Pitts stressed that Tenaska has been a “good neighbor” since its first plant went online in 2004, paying over $35 million in property taxes to Fluvanna County and providing 29 permanent jobs, most of them local.
Expedition Generation would pay an estimated $250 million in taxes over 30 years, and create another 19 jobs.
But some answers left commissioners and residents uneasy.
When asked about ongoing complaints that the existing plant produces a low, mechanical hum audible for miles, Pitts conceded that Tenaska had studied mitigation measures but found no practical fix.
“Retrofitting the existing facility would cost hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said, “and we don’t believe it would result in a meaningful reduction of sound levels.”
Instead, the company floated a potential compromise: creating a fund for nearby homeowners to soundproof their own homes, including new windows and insulation at Tenaska’s expense.
The presentation also leaned heavily on regulatory assurances.
Pitts told the commission that the new facility would comply with all Virginia DEQ air-quality standards. The taller smokestacks, for example, were required by state to better disperse emissions. He cited the project’s alignment with the regional energy grid operations PJM’s reliability goals, positioning it as part of a regional effort to prevent rolling blackouts and meet rising energy demand driven by data centers.
Still, the company offered few specifics on emissions levels, monitoring plans, or long-term community oversight. While Pitts pointed repeatedly to DEQ and EPA standards, he offered no independent verification mechanisms or third-party studies—only the company’s internal modeling
Health and safety of our people
As the presentations ended and the commission began a series of three public hearings, the numbers and modeling gave way to questions of trust, health, and accountability.
Commissioner Lorretta Johnson Morgan capturing the unease that had been building throughout the night.
“I do understand the tax benefits that the county can receive from Tenaska,” she said. “But to me, the health and safety of our people are more important to me than the tax benefits we’re receiving.”
From there, a steady stream almost two dozen residents took turns at the podium, voicing frustration that the county was being asked to accept the potential environmental and health costs of a massive industrial expansion with limited local benefit.
“I didn’t move down here to live with my windows closed,” said Sarah Hernandez, who came with an audio recording of the hum she often hears from the existing plant. She said Tenaska’s offers of soundproofing were “not helpful at all.”
“Are they good neighbors?” Donna Daguanno asked. “Did they show up tonight prepared with their information for everybody that came here? And we had a good attendance. But I don’t think they did, because they’re a powerful corporation and they know that they are strong, and they thought they were going to waltz in.”
There were some supporters of the project. Amber Kidd stepped up to say that her husband’s employment at the existing plant had been “ a foundation for our family’s life,” a good paying local job that allowed them to good quality of life.
Not yet
Comment after comment raised issue after issue, about conservation easements that may never materialize, about air quality and water safety, about noise, transparency, and the long-term health risks of living beside another industrial plant.
As the clock ticked past midnight and then past 1 a.m., there was little left for the Planning Commission to do but hit pause.
After each public hearing, they voted unanimously to defer all three of Tenaska’s requests.
The substantial accord was deferred until the November meeting, and the special use permit and zoning text amendment until its Jan. 13 meeting, giving county staff, state agencies, and the public more time to scrutinize what would be the largest industrial projects in Fluvanna’s history.
For now, the message from the county was simple: not yet.