Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Tenaska Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fluvanna residents press board for town halls, studies over proposed Tenaska gas expansion
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to hold countywide meetings, publish project documents and require environmental and health studies before approving any expansion by Tenaska. Speakers said many residents say they learned about the proposal too late and described local health, noise and quality-of-life concerns.
Several residents spoke during public comment at the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors meeting, pressing the board to require more public outreach and independent studies before approving what they described as a proposed Tenaska natural-gas generation project in the county.
Alvin Hickman, a Scottsville resident, told the board that “there are thousands of Fluvanna County residents who do not know of a proposed generating plant coming to Fluvanna County,” and he asked supervisors to instruct staff to set up a countywide town meeting and a public website with project information. Hickman said public notice and paperwork were not available in time for residents to prepare for upcoming Planning Commission consideration.
Jennifer Kingery Ruffner, who identified herself as a county parent and organizer of a recent community meeting, said she used to believe natural gas was clean but said local health data raised concerns. “In the first four years after the plant opened, cancer prevalence in Fluvanna increased by 36 percent,” she said, adding that rise in asthma and other pulmonary cases “raises red flags and definitely warrants health and environmental studies.” She also said Tenaska’s compliance with regulations does not necessarily mean the project is safe.
Other commenters including Gareth (a resident), Don Rainer and Eddie Greenberg raised similar themes: many residents said they had not been told about the proposal, they described inconsistent notice and asked for more transparency about financial benefits to the county. Several asked the board to require an environmental-impact study before any rezoning or related approvals and to provide clearer information about tax revenues, jobs and environmental safeguards.
Board members did not take a formal vote on the matter during the meeting. Supervisors noted that several of them had attended or organized recent town-hall events and that some outreach had occurred, but speakers said that outreach had not reached all neighborhoods and urged broader countywide notice and independent studies.
The board later discussed unfinished business related to Tenaska and noted that company representatives had met privately with members of the board. According to remarks on the record, Tenaska representatives told at least one supervisor that they were not prepared to change current mechanical noise mitigation on the existing plant and were not committing to lower decibel limits on a proposed second facility. The board and residents discussed other mitigation options raised by the public, including third-party sound monitoring and vegetation buffers, but no enforcement or proffer agreement was adopted at the meeting.
