Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents flood Buckingham meeting to oppose proposed 765 kV Valley Link transmission line
Summary
A packed Buckingham County meeting on March 9 drew sustained public opposition after Valley Link presented plans for a 765 kV transmission line crossing roughly 20 miles of the county. Residents cited visual, environmental, health and property‑value concerns and urged the board to oppose the project before the State Corporation Commission review.
Felix Sarfo‑Kantanka, speaking for Valley Link Transmission Company LLC, presented an overview of a proposed roughly 115‑mile, 765‑kilovolt transmission line he said would connect AEP’s Joshua Falls substation to a planned Culpeper‑area substation and cross nine counties. The project team described a typical right‑of‑way of 200 feet, steel towers 135–160 feet tall and ongoing public open houses and online mapping tools. “We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience” caused by a mailing error that contacted some households outside preliminary corridors, Sarfo‑Kantanka said.
After the presentation, more than a dozen residents used the public‑comment portion of the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors’ meeting to oppose the project. The turnout was large enough that Vice Chairman L. Cameron Gilliam asked those in favor—and those opposed—to raise their hands; most in the audience signaled opposition.
Speakers raised a range of concerns. Joseph Patrick Anthony said the line would primarily serve data centers in northern Virginia and that the project posed environmental and historic‑landscape risks: “Buckingham is on the National Historical Registry,” he said, and the towers would “change forever” the county’s character. Resident Kelly Love‑Schwartz said the line would prevent rebuilding a near‑century‑old home on her property, and “no amount of reimbursement will allow us to replace what will be taken from us and our future generations.”
Other commenters highlighted health and wildlife worries. Kenda Hanuman said the towers would generate electromagnetic and sound effects she believes would harm pollinators and people; Amy Crawford warned of right‑of‑way herbicide use and impacts to well water and bee operations. Several speakers argued the county would get no direct power benefit because the line’s purpose is regional transmission. “It doesn’t create jobs or revenue. It doesn’t improve anything for us,” Crawford said.
Multiple residents asked the county to increase transparent, county‑sponsored outreach: Dawn Story requested clearer maps with road names on the county website, a timeline of local review steps, and information about what local approvals (if any) would be required. Kenda Hanuman urged Buckingham to coordinate with the other eight counties on a unified stance at the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
County officials and Valley Link reiterated public‑outreach opportunities: Sarfo‑Kantanka pointed to the GeoVoice mapping tool, virtual open houses on March 16 and other in‑person events at the county community center. Vice Chairman Gilliam asked those present to make their views visible and said the board had taken note of attendees’ concerns.
The board did not take a formal vote on Valley Link at the March 9 meeting. Several residents said they anticipate filing comments with the State Corporation Commission and urged the board to pass a formal resolution of opposition similar to actions taken by neighboring localities.
What happens next: Valley Link’s project will require regulatory review at the State Corporation Commission; the company said it will refine routes based on public input and then submit a formal filing. The board will consider whether to adopt a formal position in future public sessions.
