By Heather Michon
Editor
Following months of debate, deferrals, special meetings and public pressure, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Wednesday night (March 18) to approve Tenaska’s special use permit, clearing the way for the Nebraska-based energy company to move forward with its planned Expedition Generation power plant.
The decision came after a marathon meeting that stretched more than seven hours and ended in the early hours of Thursday morning.
Over the course of the evening, supervisors also voted to overturn the Planning Commission’s earlier finding that the project was not in “substantial accord” with the county’s Comprehensive Plan and approved a zoning amendment allowing increased height for the plant’s smokestacks.
The approvals marked a major turning point in a monthslong process that has divided the community and drawn scrutiny from regional environmental groups.
A divided room
The meeting began with a 90-minute public comment period that underscored the deep rift the project has created within the county.
A majority of speakers urged supervisors to reject the proposal, citing concerns about community health, air quality, water use, noise and the plant’s impact on the county’s rural character.
Others, including several Tenaska employees and their family members, voiced support, pointing to potential economic benefits.
That tension between economic development and rural preservation carried through the rest of the night.
The threshold question
The first vote of the night was also the most consequential: Tenaska’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s determination that the project was not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan, the county’s long-term blueprint for growth and development.
Without reversing the commission’s finding, supervisors would not have been able to move forward with the special use permit.
Tenaska’s legal counsel argued that the Planning Commission had misapplied the legal standard.
“No project can meet every goal, objective and policy in the Comprehensive Plan,” he told the board.
He said the plant aligns with the county’s broader economic development goals and that concerns about impacts should be addressed through permit conditions rather than used to block the project.
During deliberations, supervisors wrestled with how to balance competing priorities: maintaining Fluvanna’s rural character while growing its tax base.
“Is the proposed project, in my opinion, a perfect fit?” said Mike Goad (Fork Union). “No. But nothing ever really is when you’re trying to balance two things that seemingly conflict. When you consider the footprint of the proposed project, compared to many others that I’ve seen, I would tend to err on the side of substantial accord.”
Chris Fairchild (Cunningham), the lone dissenting vote throughout the night, disagreed.
“It’s called substantial accord, not partial accord,” he said. “You can’t see that plant when you drive past it, but the effect that it has on the households around it is substantial.”
Supervisors acknowledged the weight of the decision.
“Trust me, no decision is lightly made,” said Mike Sheridan (Columbia). “There have been a lot of sleepless nights. There will be a lot of sleepless nights in the future. But that’s the price we take when we decide to do this job.”
The board ultimately voted 4-1 to overturn the Planning Commission and find the project in substantial accord, clearing the way for the remaining approvals.
Economic promises,
environmental concerns
Supporters pointed to the project’s projected financial impact as a key factor.
Expedition Generation is expected to generate about $248 million in tax revenue over 30 years, potentially boosting county finances without increasing the burden on residential taxpayers.
Board Chair Tony O’Brien described the projected revenue as “a very significant improvement” for the county’s long-term financial outlook.
Opponents, however, argued that the potential benefits come at a high cost.
More than 1,300 residents signed a petition opposing the project, and speakers repeatedly raised concerns about emissions, health impacts, and the expansion of natural gas infrastructure rather than clean energy alternatives.
Some also cited a Harvard-affiliated public health analysis commissioned by opponents, suggesting emissions could increase rates of heart disease, asthma, and other health issues, contributing to up to 3.3 premature deaths each year – a claim Tenaska refuted during the meeting.
Conditions and concessions
As part of the approval process, Tenaska agreed to a series of concessions aimed at addressing community concerns.
What began as a relatively modest special use permit evolved into a more extensive set of proffers, including stricter standards for noise, lighting, vegetative buffers and traffic mitigation. The company also agreed to place hundreds of acres around the plant into permanent conservation easements.
Tenaska also proposed financial incentives, including a $5 million “Good Neighbor Fund” to provide payments over several years to nearby residents, as well as another $5 million to support emergency services.
One provision drew scrutiny for a potential conflict of interest.
At the start of the meeting, O’Brien disclosed that he owns property that could have been eligible for compensation from the Good Neighbor Fund, but said his parcel had been removed from consideration.
What comes next
With local approvals secured, the project will move into the state permitting process.
Before construction can begin, Tenaska must obtain permits from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the State Corporation Commission. Company officials estimate that process will take about two years.
If all goes according to their plan, the Expedition Generation could open as early as 2031.
