Culpeper supervisors ask PJM to decline Joshua Falls scope change after residents warn of substation impacts

The Culpeper County Board of Supervisors voted June 2 to ask the PJM Board of Managers to decline a proposed scope change for the Joshua Falls—Yeet transmission project, after hearing detailed presentations from the Richardsville Coalition about routing and substation siting changes.

Michael Rean, speaking for the Richardsville Coalition, told the board the project has materially changed since PJM’s 2024 planning approval and that the revised plan would place a bulk-transfer substation and new circuits in Culpeper County. "This is not just about one transmission line. It's about whether Culpeper becomes a long-term regional bulk transfer corridor," Rean said, urging supervisors to treat the proposal as a major land-use decision and to seek answers before PJM votes on any scope change.

Frank Tumi, a lifelong Culpeper resident, focused on the local consequences of siting a major substation. Using PJM planning materials, Tumi outlined hypothetical buildouts tied to the site and said the substation — not only the line — would trigger extensive additional transmission infrastructure. "The worst case scenario for Culpeper County is allowing this substation to be built here in Culpeper County," he said, arguing the county would receive little local power benefit under the current configuration.

County staff had circulated a draft letter, prepared with legal and planning review, asking PJM to decline approval in the scope-change form presented, to release more information and to evaluate alternatives that clarify local benefit. After brief discussion, Supervisor Payne moved that the board send the letter to PJM; the motion carried by voice vote.

Board members emphasized urgency: PJM’s timetable includes a pending scope decision in July, and county staff were directed to send the letter promptly so the board’s concerns are on the record before any PJM action. The motion does not bind future local permitting outcomes; rather, it is a request for PJM to reconsider or provide fuller documentation prior to approval.

The board also heard technical questions about reliability timelines, transformer configurations and how a Culpeper endpoint might interact with other projects already in PJM’s queue. County staff and the Richardsville Coalition recommended that Dominion and PJM provide engineers to explain the proposed configuration in a later public setting. The board’s letter was described in the meeting as a procedural step intended to preserve the county’s ability to raise planning and siting concerns before regional approvals proceed.

The board’s action does not itself approve or deny any infrastructure; any future substation siting would remain subject to local permitting processes and, if required, state filings and conditional use procedures.

What’s next: staff will transmit the board’s letter to PJM in advance of the July consideration and will seek follow-on briefings by Dominion and PJM staff to answer detailed questions about interconnections and local impacts.