{"id":27931,"date":"2026-01-22T08:52:16","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T13:52:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/?p=27931"},"modified":"2026-01-22T08:52:19","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T13:52:19","slug":"planning-commission-rejects-tenaskas-substantial-accord-request","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/2026\/01\/planning-commission-rejects-tenaskas-substantial-accord-request\/","title":{"rendered":"Planning Commission rejects Tenaska\u2019s substantial accord request"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Company plans appeal to supervisors<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Heather Michon
Correspondent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Planning Commission denied Tenaska\u2019s application for a finding that the company\u2019s plans to build the massive 1.5 gigawatt natural-gas-fired \u2018Expedition Generation\u2019 plant were substantially in accord with Fluvanna\u2019s Comprehensive Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Jan. 13 meeting was originally expected to focus not only on substantial accord, but also on Tenaska\u2019s special-use permit application and a waiver allowing taller towers planned for the proposed Branch Road facility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s agenda to focus on the substantial accord issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the meeting\u2013about two hours\u2013was devoted to public comments, as citizens stepped to the podium to share persistent and growing concerns about the plant\u2019s potential impact on the health of the county and its inhabitants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMany 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,\u201d said Jennifer Kingrea Ruffner. \u201cWe chose a rural county with a reasonable expectation of cleaner air, lower cumulative exposure, and land use decisions that reflect that character.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judy Spellman believed that Tenaska had not adequately responded to concerns about land, water, air, and health issues that might impact county residents, \u201cexcept 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.\u201d She asked commissioners to delay any decisions until all issues had been addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cCounty 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\u2019s construction of a second large-scale factory here in<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fluvana,\u201d said Sara Hernandez. \u201cIn that process, county leaders chose to disregard the known health impacts of these factories have on the surrounding communities. No, worse than that \u2013 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Substantial accord<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Virginia law, major public projects and some major private projects must undergo a \u201csubstantial accord\u201d review to allow governing bodies to determine whether a project aligns with the general spirit of the locality\u2019s Comprehensive Plan, a document that lays out community preferences for development over a 20-year period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSubstantial,\u201d 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commissioners had already received a staff report finding that Tenaska\u2019s proposal, which would preserve about 700 acres near the plant, aligned with the Comprehensive Plan\u2019s goals for rural preservation, supported rural areas through economic development, and would expand the county\u2019s tax base. However, the report concluded the project did not advance the plan\u2019s goal of growing the county\u2019s solar, wind, and geothermal energy sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAccordingly, staff finds that the proposed facility is substantially in accord with the Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan, or \u2018part thereof,\u2019\u201d the report concluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tenaska representatives argued to the commissioners that the plan met the standards set out by the Comp Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deliberations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in the commission\u2019s October meeting, discussion again centered on concerns about how to interpret \u201csubstantial accord,\u201d with Commissioners Kathleen Kilpatrick (Fork Union) and Lorretta Johnson-Morgan (Columbia) emerging as the most vocal critics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kilpatrick argued that the laws were so vague as to give them no guidence. \u201c’Partial accord’ and ‘parts thereof’ and bits and pieces here cumulatively do not define ‘substantial accord,’\u201d she said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johnson-Morgan took things a step further: \u201cThis county needs to halt all development until the comp plan is completed and the ordinances are completed and they\u2019re working together and stop trying to put a band-aid on this big cut that we have right now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, a clear majority of commissioners felt they could not approve the motion, voting 3-1 to deny Tenaska\u2019s application, chair Barry Bibb (Cunningham) voting to approve. Commissioner Bob Dorsey (Rivanna) was absent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tenaska quickly announced that they would appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe project would directly support the plan\u2019s stated goals of economic development and financial sustainability, rural area preservation and environmental resource protection,\u201d said company representative Timberly Ross in a statement released shortly after the meeting. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe 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\u2019s further prosperity,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supervisors had ten days to respond to the request, and have up to 60 days to hear an appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Company plans appeal to supervisors By Heather MichonCorrespondent The Planning Commission denied Tenaska\u2019s application for a finding that the company\u2019s plans to build the massive 1.5 gigawatt natural-gas-fired \u2018Expedition Generation\u2019 plant were substantially in accord with Fluvanna\u2019s Comprehensive Plan. The Jan. 13 meeting was originally expected to focus not only on substantial accord, but also […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":27845,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59,58,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business","category-government","category-latest_news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27931"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27931"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27932,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27931\/revisions\/27932"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27845"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fluvannareview.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}