Company plans appeal to supervisors
By Heather Michon
Correspondent
The Planning Commission denied Tenaska’s application for a finding that the company’s plans to build the massive 1.5 gigawatt natural-gas-fired ‘Expedition Generation’ plant were substantially in accord with Fluvanna’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Jan. 13 meeting was originally expected to focus not only on substantial accord, but also on Tenaska’s special-use permit application and a waiver allowing taller towers planned for the proposed Branch Road facility.
However, following a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors focused on the special use permit on Jan. 7, Tenaska requested that debate on the permit and waiver be deferred until Feb. 24. The commissioners agreed with the delay, and removed other, unrelated items from Tuesday’s agenda to focus on the substantial accord issue.
They also moved the meeting to the Carysbrook Performing Arts Center to accommodate the anticipated audience. The auditorium was almost full for much of the meeting, which lasted over three hours.
Much of the meeting–about two hours–was devoted to public comments, as citizens stepped to the podium to share persistent and growing concerns about the plant’s potential impact on the health of the county and its inhabitants.
“Many of us chose to live in Fluvanna precisely to avoid chronic exposure to industrial-scale pollution. We did not choose to live in New York or Los Angeles,” said Jennifer Kingrea Ruffner. “We chose a rural county with a reasonable expectation of cleaner air, lower cumulative exposure, and land use decisions that reflect that character.”
Judy Spellman believed that Tenaska had not adequately responded to concerns about land, water, air, and health issues that might impact county residents, “except for building taller towers and adding more trees. I’d like for the Planning Commission to adamantly require Tenaska to come up with alternatives and remediations for these issues.” She asked commissioners to delay any decisions until all issues had been addressed.
“County leaders would choose the easy path, a single large income revenue stream, rather than the true local economic development that this county needs. It would be the easy path, but not the right path in green-lighting Tenaska’s construction of a second large-scale factory here in
Fluvana,” said Sara Hernandez. “In that process, county leaders chose to disregard the known health impacts of these factories have on the surrounding communities. No, worse than that – they decide that they would double down on the danger to these citizens in the immediate vicinity as an acceptable tradeoff for an easy win of income that brings almost no real economic benefit to the citizens of this county.”
Substantial accord
Under Virginia law, major public projects and some major private projects must undergo a “substantial accord” review to allow governing bodies to determine whether a project aligns with the general spirit of the locality’s Comprehensive Plan, a document that lays out community preferences for development over a 20-year period.
“Substantial,” however, is one of those words that leaves room for interpretation. The law does not require a plan to be 100% in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, which is itself designed to be general in nature.
Commissioners had already received a staff report finding that Tenaska’s proposal, which would preserve about 700 acres near the plant, aligned with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for rural preservation, supported rural areas through economic development, and would expand the county’s tax base. However, the report concluded the project did not advance the plan’s goal of growing the county’s solar, wind, and geothermal energy sector.
“Accordingly, staff finds that the proposed facility is substantially in accord with the Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan, or ‘part thereof,’” the report concluded.
Tenaska representatives argued to the commissioners that the plan met the standards set out by the Comp Plan.
Deliberations
Early in the discussion, commissioners raised concerns that signaled skepticism about approving the motion, with the vagueness of the law emerging as a central issue.
As in the commission’s October meeting, discussion again centered on concerns about how to interpret “substantial accord,” with Commissioners Kathleen Kilpatrick (Fork Union) and Lorretta Johnson-Morgan (Columbia) emerging as the most vocal critics.
Kilpatrick argued that the laws were so vague as to give them no guidence. “’Partial accord’ and ‘parts thereof’ and bits and pieces here cumulatively do not define ‘substantial accord,’” she said.
Johnson-Morgan took things a step further: “This county needs to halt all development until the comp plan is completed and the ordinances are completed and they’re working together and stop trying to put a band-aid on this big cut that we have right now.”
The Comp Plan has been in limbo for several years. A required five-year update was due in 2020 but was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors. In September 2024, the Board of Supervisors re-adopted the 2015 plan with minor revisions, and while advisory committees continue work on a full rewrite, a draft will not be complete until later in 2026.
In the end, a clear majority of commissioners felt they could not approve the motion, voting 3-1 to deny Tenaska’s application, chair Barry Bibb (Cunningham) voting to approve. Commissioner Bob Dorsey (Rivanna) was absent.
Appeal
Tenaska quickly announced that they would appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors.
“The project would directly support the plan’s stated goals of economic development and financial sustainability, rural area preservation and environmental resource protection,” said company representative Timberly Ross in a statement released shortly after the meeting.
“We understand the level of scrutiny and diligence the county is putting forth. But we also believe the facts demonstrate the alignment of the proposed Expedition project with Fluvanna County’s further prosperity,” she wrote.
Supervisors had ten days to respond to the request, and have up to 60 days to hear an appeal.
