Resident Dina Hayes warns Tanasca power plant and Valley Link towers could transform Fluvanna County landscape and health risks

Dina Hayes, a resident of 10 Barefoot Lane in Lake Monaceel, told the Fluvanna County Planning Commission that the proposed Tanasca power plant and the Valley Link high‑voltage transmission towers form "a chain of industrial infrastructures" that could "permanently change our community." Hayes said she was concerned about pollution, long‑term health risks to children and seniors, and the visual and habitat damage that long transmission corridors would require.

"Once a plant like this is built, the emissions don't go away. They become part of the environment that we live in forever," Hayes said, adding that an approved plant would require "enormous amounts of water" for cooling; she asserted the project might withdraw "11 million gallons per day" and return a fraction of that volume.

Planning staff had told the commission earlier in the meeting that three related items connected to the Tanasca proposal (ZTA2509, SUP254 and SA2501) are scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, March 18, at the high school. The planning commission's previous recommendations on those items varied: ZTA2509 was recommended 3–1 with one abstention, SUP254 was recommended for denial 5–0, and the substantial‑accord case SA2501 was found not in substantial accord by a 3–1 vote with one absence.

Not all public speakers opposed the project. Resident Ron Barie later told the commission that, in his view, plant discharge monitoring shows the plant outflow is comparatively clean: "The water coming out of the plant is factually cleaner than the water coming out of the river," he said. Other commenters and commissioners discussed transmission‑line widths, EMF fields, and the technical and cost challenges of burying very high‑voltage lines.

The meeting record shows a range of views: local residents raised precautionary concerns about air emissions, cumulative industrialization, groundwater withdrawals, and the potential for reduced property values, while other residents pointed to technical data and argued on grid‑reliability or comparative‑pollution grounds. The commission did not take formal action on the Tanasca cases at this meeting; staff reiterated that the three matters have been appealed to the Board of Supervisors and will be considered there on March 18.

What happens next: the three Tanasca‑related items are scheduled for the Board of Supervisors hearing on March 18 at the high school. Comments in the meeting record attribute claims to individual speakers; the water‑withdrawal figure and many health assertions in public comment were presented as residents' concerns or interpretations and were not verified by planning staff during the meeting.