By Heather Michon, Editor
Representatives for Tenaska’s Expedition Generation power plant appeared before the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday night, where they were pressed on the switch to dry cooling, plans for a new transmission line, and whether the county understood the full scope of the proposed gas-fired power plant when it approved it in March.
Since receiving county approval, the company has filed state applications for an air permit and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN). Representatives said they filed a wastewater discharge permit application with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality shortly before Wednesday’s meeting.
Much of the discussion focused on Tenaska’s decision to use dry cooling rather than the water-intensive cooling system discussed during the county review.
Tenaska said dry cooling, which uses fans rather than water to cool the plant, would reduce water use by more than 85% and eliminate the need to build a 17-mile pipeline and a new intake station on the James River.
Company representatives said the earlier water figures of 6-7 million gallons drawn from the James per day represented a worst-case wet-cooling design. They also maintained that the noise studies and visual simulations presented to the county considered both the wet- and dry-cooled systems.
Several supervisors questioned why the final cooling decision was not made until after the special use permit was approved.
Tenaska representatives cited cost and performance studies and the limited capacity of the existing water system. Shifting to dry cooling also opens the opportunity to bring the plant online sooner.
“You didn’t know this well before?” Cunningham supervisor Chris Fairchild.
“No,” the Tensaka representative replied. “We don’t have all the answers on Day One for these projects. It takes a significant amount of engineering to get the information.”
Residents and supervisors also raised concerns about construction water. Tenaska said it would not use wells on the project site for construction, although it could use well water for restrooms, handwashing, and similar potable purposes.
The company offered to memorialize changes in a memorandum of understanding with the county. County Attorney Dan Whitten said the restriction might instead be added to the special-use permit as a minor amendment, potentially creating enforceable conditions without requiring another public hearing.
Noise remains a significant point of contention. Residents asked the company to fund continuous monitoring near neighboring homes, arguing that periodic testing might miss short but disruptive events.
Tenaska declined to make that commitment, saying permanent monitors could also register unrelated sounds like airplanes and road traffic and could not, by themselves, establish whether the plant was violating county standards.
Representatives did acknowledge that startup and shutdown could be the facility’s loudest periods and that water cooling is generally quieter, but argued silencers and other engineering controls would allow the dry-cooled plant to meet the county noise abatement requirements.
Tenaska said it has acquired or obtained options on approximately 250 to 300 additional acres around the site. Tenaska described the property as additional visual and sound buffer, although representatives said portions could also carry transmission, water, gas, or access easements.
The company also provided new details about the project’s electrical infrastructure, which will include an on-site substation and an approximately 1.8-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line connecting the new plant to the existing Cunningham substation.
Tenaska said the line would remain on company-owned property and would not connect to the proposed Valley Link transmission project. However, its exact route has not been finalized.
Some supervisors said they did not remember a detailed public discussion of the substation or transmission line during the county’s review. Tenaska and county staff said both were shown in application materials and covered by the project’s restrictive covenants.
Public comment was dominated by residents who argued that the county approved the plant before its full impacts were known. Speakers called for baseline air and well testing, continuous noise monitoring, stronger construction traffic controls and additional review of the transmission facilities.
In a separate action later in the meeting, supervisors unanimously approved new zoning rules requiring special-use permits for electrical substations, switching stations and related transmission facilities. The SCC retains authority over Valley Link’s proposed transmission-line routes; counties can regulate the supporting facilities needed to operate them.
