Planning commission defers decisions on Tenaska—s Expedition Generating Station after hours of public comment

The Fluvanna County Planning Commission spent the evening hearing a detailed presentation from Tenaska and its consultants about the proposed Expedition Generating Station and related regulatory requests, then deferred final recommendations so staff and commissioners could gather more information and respond to residents— concerns.

Tenaska presented technical studies on noise, air emissions and water use, a site concept and proffered conditions including a 300-foot landscape buffer and a commitment to place roughly 350 acres south of the site into perpetual conservation easement. Company representatives said the proposed combined-cycle plant would have a nominal summer capacity of up to 1,540 megawatts and a roughly 50-acre developed footprint on two parcels totaling about 414.05 acres (tax map 27-A-1 and 27-A-4). Tenaska said the project would use the same substation, natural gas pipeline and water system as the existing local plant and that construction could require about 800 workers at peak, with deliveries estimated at about 6 to 30 truck units per day during the multiyear work.

Why it matters: The commission considered three linked items: (1) ZTA 2509, a zoning text amendment to allow the Board of Supervisors to grant stack-height waivers for power plants; (2) SA 2501, the state code (15.2-2232) substantial accord review to determine whether the proposed plant—s general location and character conform with the county comprehensive plan; and (3) SUP 2504, the special-use permit to allow a major utility (the plant) in A-1 agricultural zoning. Each decision affects county land-use policy, environmental protections and the process for state permitting the plant will still need to obtain.

What Tenaska told the commission: Jared Pitts, Tenaska—s lead developer, and company engineers described the project as a modern, combined-cycle natural-gas facility sited adjacent to the existing plant. Tenaska said the new plant would be used to meet regional dispatchable electricity needs and noted the project was identified in PJM—s reliability resource initiative. Company statements to the commission and public materials included: - Estimated nominal summer capacity: up to 1,540 megawatts. - Proposed developed site: about 50 acres of the roughly 414.05-acre assemblage; the balance would remain as forest/open space and additional parcels to the south (about 354.82 acres) were proposed to be placed in conservation easement. Tenaska said preserving more than 700 acres (project site + additional conserved parcels) would further the county—s rural preservation goals. - Stack heights: Tenaska said modern combined-cycle equipment (including larger HRSGs) can require taller stacks for proper dispersion and compliance with Virginia DEQ modeling; the company initially said it expected a maximum stack height below 200 feet but noted the zoning text amendment draft allows up to 230 feet as an absolute cap and asks the Board of Supervisors the authority to grant case-by-case waivers (the present county code referenced a lesser limit tied to 145 feet or Good Engineering Practice and DEQ rules). - Water and discharge: projected operational water use of about 6— to 7— million gallons per day, average daily discharge around 1.5—million gallons per day; Tenaska said this is less than 1% of average James River flow and that the plant would seek DEQ water withdrawal and discharge permits and reuse water multiple times within plant systems. - Noise: Tenaska submitted third-party sound modeling and said it planned multiple mitigation actions (equipment-level attenuators, quieter fans, cooling-tower acoustic fill, and expanded evergreen buffers). The company proposed a 50-decibel limit at any existing dwelling and a 60-decibel L90 reading limit at property lines as permit conditions; Tenaska said its modeling predicted most properties in the sound-shed would be in the 40—to—45 dB range. - Economic impacts: Tenaska—s materials estimated construction and operational taxes and payments that could total about $250 million over 30 years and said the existing Fluvanna facility has generated roughly $35 million in property tax revenue for the county and provides 29 permanent jobs. The company said it was not seeking tax abatements.

Public concerns and technical questions: About two dozen members of the public spoke during two public-comment periods, with recurring themes: noise and long-term annoyance, health and air-quality risks (including concerns about PM2.5 and other pollutants), surface- and groundwater effects from large consumptive water use and discharge, traffic and road wear during construction (estimates of up to 800 workers and heavy truck deliveries during peak construction), the adequacy of buffers and landscaping, and whether conservation easements would be placed in strict public-holding instruments to prevent future diversion. Several citizens asked for independent health studies and more detailed, county-specific modeling and requested that commitments be black-and-white conditions of approval rather than voluntary assurances. Commissioners repeatedly asked Tenaska for more detail to document commitments in enforceable permit conditions.

Commission action: After several hours of presentations and public comment, the Planning Commission voted to defer its recommendations so staff can gather follow-up information and to give commissioners and the public time to review outstanding technical materials. The formal actions taken were: - ZTA 2509 (stack-height waiver authority): Motion to defer the zoning text amendment to the January 13, 2026, Planning Commission meeting; motion amended and carried (deferment recorded). (Action recorded: deferred to 2026-01-13.) - SA 2501 (substantial accord / Code of Virginia 15.2-2232 review): Motion to defer the 2232 review to the November 18, 2025 Planning Commission meeting; the commission voted unanimously to defer. (Action recorded: deferred to 2025-11-18.) - SUP 2504 (special-use permit for the Expedition Generating Station): Motion to defer action and request further information and enforceable conditions; commission voted to defer to the January 13, 2026 meeting (5—0). (Action recorded: deferred to 2026-01-13.)

Discussion vs. decisions: The commission explicitly separated discussion (technical questions, public concerns and staff analysis) from decisions: the commission made no substantive approvals tonight and moved to delay recommendations to allow time for additional information, potential condition language and independent studies requested by public and commissioners.

Clarifying details (from record): - Project site: tax maps 27-A-1 and 27-A-4; total ~414.05 acres; ~50 acres developed. - Additional conservation parcels proposed south of site: ~354.82 acres; Tenaska said it would place conservation easements on them and preserve >700 acres in aggregate. - Capacity: up to 1,540 MW. - Construction: peak ~800 workers (peak ~18 months); delivery ~6—to—30 large deliveries per day over some construction period. - Water use: projected 6—to—7 million gallons/day; average discharge ~1.5 million gallons/day; reuse 6—to—10 times; Tenaska said operational withdrawals would be <1% of James River average flow. - Noise limits proposed by Tenaska / staff conditions: 50 dB at existing dwellings; 60 dB L90 at property lines; proposed extensive vegetative buffers including 300-foot tree buffers in conditions. - Stack heights: current ordinance reference = lesser of 145 feet or Good Engineering Practice as determined by DEQ; proposed amendment would allow Board of Supervisors to waive/modify up to 199 feet in the recommended condition language, with an absolute cap of 230 feet in one draft of the proposed ordinance language.

Proper names (excerpts): Tenaska (Tenaska, Inc.) ; Expedition Generating Station; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); Virginia Department of Energy; PJM Interconnection; James River; Fluvanna County; tax parcels 27-A-1 and 27-A-4.

Ending: The planning commission did not vote to recommend the zoning text amendment, the 2232 substantial accord finding, or the special-use permit tonight; all three items were deferred to later meetings so staff and commissioners can review additional information and work on enforceable conditions in response to strong public interest.