Buckingham residents urge supervisors to oppose Valley Link 765 kV transmission proposal

Felix Surfo Cananka, speaking for Valley Link Transmission Company LLC, presented a proposed regional project the company says was selected through PJM regional planning: an approximately 115-mile, extra‑high‑voltage (765 kV) transmission line supported by steel lattice towers typically 135–160 feet tall with an approximate 200‑foot right‑of‑way. Cananka apologized for a mailing error that he said had sent notices to some residents who would not be affected and said the company will refine routes based on public input before seeking approval from the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Cananka added the project would cross nine counties and that about 20 miles of the preliminary corridor run through Buckingham County.

The presentation prompted sustained public comment. “We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience,” Cananka told the board, and outlined public open‑house dates and an interactive route viewer residents can use. Residents pressed the board for additional steps beyond the company’s outreach: independent county‑sponsored meetings, clearer route maps that include road names, a county assessment of homes affected and potential health impacts, and closer coordination with neighboring counties.

Several speakers linked local harm to a broader regional purpose for the line. “I come before you … to speak out in strong opposition to the Valley Link transmission plan,” Joseph Patrick Anthony told the board, saying the line primarily serves data centers outside Buckingham and would scar historic landscapes and wildlife habitat. Kelly Love Schwarz described a proposed tower location that she said would cross the middle of her property and “prevent us … from building a home to replace our nearly 100‑year‑old home.” Amy Crawford, a small‑farm owner, criticized notice practices and described ecological concerns including tree clearing, well and livestock impacts and effects on pollinators; she said the project offers no local benefits and primarily enables out‑of‑county development. Other residents raised overlapping concerns about property values, noise, electromagnetic fields, road damage during construction and perceived lack of meaningful notice to affected landowners.

Residents asked the board to consider formal opposition, noting that nearby counties had already passed opposing resolutions; one speaker encouraged county leaders to contact the eight other counties affected by the proposal to coordinate a regional response. Some callers requested that the county post clearer maps and a timeline on the county website so residents could find information and provide input more easily.

The company representative reiterated that routes are preliminary and will be refined with public feedback before formal filings with the State Corporation Commission. Valley Link also listed upcoming informational events and an online mapping tool for residents to check addresses and proposed corridors. The board did not announce a final position during the meeting; residents asked supervisors to consider resolutions or other formal steps that could be offered to the SCC record.

What happens next: Valley Link said routing work will continue and that the company intends to submit refined corridors for regulatory review; residents asked Buckingham County leaders to consider county‑level assessments and public meetings to supplement the developer’s outreach.