Residents and officials press for deeper review of Tenaska project finances, traffic and noise

Public feedback intensified at the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors meeting on Feb. 20 as residents and board members pressed for a fuller, independently verified review of the proposed Tenaska energy project.

Ray Bassi, a resident who reviewed the developer's consultant report, told the board the widely cited "$247.7 million over 30 years" figure misleads the public because it blends high early years with a long, low tail. "If you cite the headline, you must cite the curve," Bassi said, urging staff to present a year-by-year schedule and an inflation-aware budgeting view so the county can see what revenue might be available each year.

Why it matters: The Tenaska proposal is large and front-loaded, critics say; relying on averages rather than an annual fiscal schedule could mask funding shortfalls for recurring county services when early-year payments decline. Speakers also urged the board to insist on logistics plans tied to construction-phase traffic and for independent peer review of applicant-funded technical studies, particularly noise modeling.

What was said and by whom: Bassi argued the applicant's fiscal table is static and expressed concern that the report assumes constant tax rates and no inflation adjustments. He and others urged the county to require a decision-grade logistics plan detailing truck movements and to commission independent peer review of the noise analyses because the applicant-prepared memos "stop short of a complete enforceable compliance regime the county controls." Board members acknowledged the requests, and staff said revised applicant conditions would be posted on the county website and could be discussed at the March 4 meeting ahead of a March 18 public hearing if the planning commission forwards the item.

Board and staff response: County staff told the board they had received revised conditions from the applicant and planned to post them and the redline changes on the website for public review. Supervisors signaled they wanted more time to consider traffic and noise recommendations and asked about the timing of peer review and whether specific logistics and operational modes (startup/shutdown) were addressed in the applicant's studies.

What comes next: Staff said the planning commission could make recommendations and the board could review conditions at the March 4 meeting; the public hearing would occur on March 18 if the planning commission advances the application. Several speakers urged the board to insist on enforceable, measurable conditions rather than promises.

The board later entered closed session to receive legal advice on related transmission and project-impact questions; no final decision on the Tenaska project was made at the Feb. 20 meeting.