Residents press Fluvanna supervisors for enforceable protections before any Tenaska vote
Loading...
Summary
Residents urged the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to require enforceable, bonded protections, complete studies and independent monitoring before scheduling any vote on Tenaska's proposed power project; planning review was deferred to January and Tenaska is funding technical reviews.
Public concern over a proposed Tenaska power project dominated public comment at the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors meeting, with speakers urging the board not to schedule a vote until independent studies and enforceable safeguards are in place.
Multiple residents told the board they want evidence, not assurances, before the county considers any approval. Ray Vassy asked the board to "state publicly that the board will not schedule any vote until these items are fully defined, enforceable, and posted for public review," and he recommended a conditions-and-oversight package that would include intake and discharge locations for cooling water, automatic drought-triggered curtailments tied to objective thresholds, and continuous independent monitoring with a public dashboard funded by the applicant.
Other public commenters raised related environmental and health concerns. Erin Weisackenbaum told the board, "I vote to deny Tenaska's special use permit," saying the plant would withdraw millions of gallons per day from the James River for cooling, risk water and air pollution, and primarily sell electricity to data centers rather than local residents. Patty Reynard added that the county should prioritize jobs and local tax fairness and questioned whether the project would deliver meaningful local economic benefit.
Planning staff told the board that the planning commission deferred substantial-acord/zoning action to Jan. 13, 2026, at the applicant's request. Staff said Tenaska has agreed to pay for a traffic study and has authorized an environmental consultant, Potesta, to perform work for the applicant (billing was quoted in the meeting as $300 per hour; the transcript showed a not-to-exceed figure that was not fully legible).
Board members did not vote on the project at the meeting. Several supervisors asked staff to return with clearer data and written proposals about what the county can legally require and enforce, including which monitoring, fiscal assurances, and bonded requirements would be allowed under state and federal authority. Legal and planning staff were asked to compile a list of what the county can and cannot require from applicants and to bring that guidance back for discussion.
The matter remains before the planning commission and the board. Members of the public said they will continue submitting technical recommendations and urged the board to preserve leverage by doing the regulatory homework before any permit comes to a vote.
