Buckingham supervisors adopt unanimous resolution opposing Valley Link 765-kV transmission route

The Buckingham County Board of Supervisors on April 23 adopted a resolution expressing strong opposition to Valley Link, LLC’s proposed 765-kilovolt transmission line as routed through Buckingham County.

The board voted unanimously with the six members present to approve the resolution after County Administrator Karl R. Carter introduced the draft and said the full text would be made available to the public. Supervisor Paul W. Garrett moved to adopt the measure; Supervisor Michael E. Palmore seconded. Carter S. Allen, the absent supervisor, submitted a written statement read into the record expressing support for the resolution.

The resolution says each of Valley Link’s proposed alternative routes would traverse Buckingham County farther than any other jurisdiction and would “effectively bisect the County,” requiring clearing of agricultural and forested land, altering rural viewsheds and depressing property values. It states the board’s view that the project, as routed, provides no direct electricity benefit to Buckingham residents and that the need for this routing has not been adequately demonstrated.

The measure directs the county to assert its rights in any Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) proceeding on the project, to seek a formal briefing from Valley Link about route selection and alternatives, and to press for a rigorous independent demonstration of need, a full evaluation of routes that follow existing corridors and of underground placement as a mitigation option in viewshed-sensitive areas. The resolution also requests meaningful conditions addressing environmental protection, agricultural preservation, viewshed mitigation and a community benefit agreement if the project is approved.

More than a dozen residents addressed the board during an extended public-comment period following the vote. Commenters described a range of local impacts they said would follow the line’s construction: higher household electricity costs tied to regional PJM market dynamics (Robert Fish); property devaluation and routes that would bisect family parcels (Aree Reinhardt, Andrea Danforth, Thomas Schwartz); risks to water supplies and local infrastructure (Spencer Adams); and health concerns tied to electromagnetic fields (Christine Elfstram, Karen Kreps, Dan Schneider). "The proposed route would cut our property in half," said Aree Reinhardt, describing two family homes and outbuildings that would be separated by the corridor. "We have not even been notified," she said.

Commenters urged concrete next steps beyond a paper resolution: appointing a county representative to monitor filings, hiring legal and technical counsel, coordinating with neighboring counties and setting aside funds for advocacy. Several speakers cited other counties that have appropriated funds for legal opposition and asked Buckingham to do likewise. Supervisor Palmore and Vice Chairman L. Cameron Gilliam acknowledged those requests and said the board would consider how to proceed within the county’s fiscal limits.

Gilliam said Dominion Energy had been invited to the meeting but did not attend. The board noted that the SCC has exclusive authority to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity and that any county action must align with the SCC process. The county plans further coordination with state legislators and neighboring localities as it prepares for potential regulatory proceedings.

The board’s resolution directs the clerk to transmit a certified copy to the governor, the county’s congressional delegation and state legislators, the SCC chairman, Valley Link and other appropriate parties. The board recessed at the close of the meeting and said it would reconvene April 27 to adopt the FY26/27 operating budget.