Buckingham County planning commission debates utility-corridor policy ahead of next week's vote

The Buckingham County Planning Commission on July 20 reviewed draft policy language meant to guide where large, high-voltage transmission lines could be encouraged or discouraged in future county planning.

Commissioner Dohier said the work session materials felt “a little overwhelming” and asked commissioners to focus on the discussion questions in the July 10 staff handout as a shared starting point. Miss Edmondson and Mr. Wright described the packet as a framework developed after a public hearing and staff research; Mr. Wright said staff was holding the session as a "sounding session" to get direction from the commission before drafting final language.

The discussion centered on four options in the staff matrix: a 'preferred corridors' approach (Option A), a 'disfavored' approach (Option B), a hybrid option and further modifications. One commissioner worried that the preferred designation could have unintended effects on conservation easements, saying the wording "did trigger possible disqualifies qualifications, with some of the conservation easement companies." That commissioner said they personally favored the hybrid because it "takes a preferred language out" while still giving the county midterm guidance.

Several commissioners and staff emphasized the limits of county authority over transmission siting. Mr. Wright told the commission that while county policy can identify preferred or disfavored locations and require applicants to "jump through the hoops," regulatory decisions about route location ultimately rest with state or federal permitting authorities. "You don't have the right to decide where it is," Mr. Wright said, explaining that filings to secure certificates of public convenience and necessity will trigger state review and other agencies' determinations.

Commissioners also pressed staff on timing and practical impacts. A commissioner asked whether the draft policy would affect the ValleyLink project; commissioners and staff clarified the policy is intended for future projects and that ValleyLink's immediate routing decisions are largely beyond the county's ability to change at this stage. Staff reported they expect further public announcements about ValleyLink's routing later in the calendar year.

The packet framed trade-offs: making corridors "preferred" could steer future lines toward existing utility corridors and align with elements of the comprehensive plan, but some commissioners noted that very large transmission lines may not be able to follow existing co-location routes. Commissioners also asked whether expansions of older lines would be subject to modern environmental, cultural and historic studies; staff said expansions would be required to meet current study and permitting requirements.

One commissioner who attended the June public hearing and reviewed public comments urged commissioners to consider the size of the public response and the overall public interest in their decision. "Public hearing... there was a lot of pushback," the commissioner said, but added that the people who spoke represented a small fraction of registered voters. Other commissioners warned the commission will not make everyone happy and emphasized that the comprehensive plan should remain the guiding standard in weighing policy choices.

The commission did not take formal action at the work session. Chair reminded members that the policy had been tabled previously and that any formal vote will occur at the commission's regular meeting next week after the required advertisement. A motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the commission voted unanimously to end the session.

The commission will consider the draft corridor-language options at its next regular meeting, where commissioners said they will decide whether to adopt preferred, disfavored, hybrid, or altered language into draft plan guidance for transmission siting.