Richardsville residents press board to oppose PJM scope change; supervisors send letter seeking more analysis

Michael Rean, speaking for the Richardsville Coalition, urged the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors to treat a proposed PJM scope change for the Joshua Falls–Yeet transmission project as a major land‑use decision and to demand more information before the regional board acts.

Rean told the board the project has changed since its 2024 presentation and that relocating the Yeet substation into Culpeper County would turn the county from a minor pass‑through into the project’s endpoint, with “material” changes to routing and siting. He described the change as a formal scope change that requires PJM board approval and warned that once PJM models and planners adopt the new scope, future build‑outs could follow quickly. “Once a substation with two 765 transformers is established in Culpeper,” he said, “it alters the planning … adds additional lines and adds future industrial growth to the county.” (Michael Rean, Richardsville Coalition)

Frank Tumi, a lifelong Culpeper resident and consultant to the coalition, presented PJM planning materials and quantified local impacts the speakers say could follow if the substation is sited in Culpeper: large stretches of 500 kV and 230 kV line rebuilds, hundreds of towers and several hundred acres of private land in the county. Tumi said those estimates come from PJM documents and urged the board to stop siting the substation in Culpeper. “The worst‑case scenario for Culpeper is allowing this substation to be built here in Culpeper,” he said. (Frank Tumi, Richardsville resident)

Board members asked technical and land‑use questions during a follow‑up exchange; presenters repeatedly recommended that Dominion and PJM planners be asked to explain the routing, transformer configuration and local benefits in more detail before any scope approval. The presenters emphasized that the project’s revised configuration removes some local serving components (a 230 kV yard) and reframes the proposal as a regional bulk‑transfer node rather than a local distribution asset.

After discussion, Supervisor Payne moved that the board send a letter to the PJM Board of Managers requesting they decline the proposed scope change in its current form, ask for additional analysis of alternatives, and clarify the project’s local benefits. The motion passed by voice vote. The board instructed staff to finalize the letter and to act promptly given PJM’s calendar. (Motion by Supervisor Payne; vote: passed by voice vote)

What happens next: The scope change must be approved by PJM before regional planners model the new configuration; local land‑use approvals and any required State Corporation Commission filings remain separate processes. The board’s letter requests PJM withhold approval until the county receives clearer documentation of alternatives and benefits.

Provenance: Topic introduced SEG 435; topic finished SEG 779.