Goochland supervisors host Valley Link presentation as residents press for transparency on proposed 765 kV line

Valley Link representatives, speaking for Dominion Energy and its partners, presented their refined routing maps for the Joshua Falls–Yeet 765 kilovolt transmission line and defended the project as part of a regional ‘‘backbone’’ needed to relieve load on existing 500 kV facilities.

"In the next 15 or 20 years, by 2035, we're going to get to more than double that according to the PJM forecast," Dominion spokesman Rob Richardson told the Goochland Board of Supervisors, summarizing PJM's growth projections and the company’s case for large‑scale transmission investment.

Why it matters: Goochland supervisors stressed that the county has formally opposed the project and set aside $250,000 to support advocacy and technical review. Residents said the May route refinements — which Dominion says reduced the footprint in parts of Goochland to about 1.25 miles — have not answered broader questions about possible substations, land option agreements and cumulative impacts across the nine‑county corridor.

Presentation and technical details
Dominion said PJM selected the Joshua Falls–Yeet line in its competitive open‑window planning process; the project is about 115 miles long, built to 765 kV, and would use lattice towers roughly 135–160 feet tall with an approximate 200‑foot typical right‑of‑way. Dominion told the board it reviewed thousands of routing alternatives, documented over 2,000 public comments, and released refined routes in May 2026.

Lane Carr, Dominion’s siting and permitting lead, described the routing methodology: a wide initial study area, public meetings in March, and iterative engineering and constructability reviews that led to the current refined corridors. Carr said the March routes were ‘‘permanently expired’’ after public feedback and that further refinements will be considered following the June open houses.

Board questions and company answers
Supervisors pressed Dominion on key local concerns: whether the project is a standalone line or an expandable backbone (Dominion said it is a backbone to relieve congestion and support future interconnections), whether new substations are planned inside Goochland (Dominion said none are currently proposed along the line but the project could tie into existing EHV substations), and whether Dominion options to buy large parcels in the county are tied to the transmission project (Dominion said such options are routine for future flexibility and are not directly connected to this filing).

Dominion also described typical mitigation steps for farms under transmission corridors — including bonding/grounding to address ‘‘stray’’ or nuisance voltage and National Electric Safety Code clearances for tall farm equipment — and said easement compensation and engineering solutions are used to address site‑specific issues.

Public comment: maps, substations, health, farms and fairness
When the floor opened for public comment, dozens of residents questioned the scale and drivers of the project. Common themes:
- Transparency and scope: Multiple speakers said revised maps and apparent changes to endpoints — including references to new parcels near the Joshua Falls substation — suggest related facilities may be being pursued via separate filings. They urged the board and Valley Link to disclose all substations, switching yards, laydown areas and land option agreements before the SCC process advances. "Citizen involvement matters. Public pressure matters," resident Christy Payne told the board.
- Environmental, historic and agricultural impacts: Speakers urged stronger protection for Century Farms, cemetery and church sites, and watersheds (Muddy/Slate/James River). Several said the visual and land‑use impacts of a 765 kV overhead corridor are effectively permanent.
- Health and safety: Residents asked about electromagnetic fields (EMF) and cited studies they said indicate possible health concerns; Dominion replied that EMF modeling and available research are part of the State Corporation Commission review and that regulators have generally not found causal links but that the topic is taken seriously and modeled in applications.
- Costs and fairness: Commenters asked how costs will be allocated and whether incentives or FERC recovery mechanisms could expose local customers to higher bills or ‘‘abandoned plant’’ risk; Dominion said cost‑recovery rules and allocation are governed by FERC/PJM and state proceedings and that some protections and rate classes for high‑load customers already exist, but final allocations depend on regulatory outcomes.

Next steps and procedural timing
Dominion said the refined routes are available on its GeoVoice tool, that it will hold a virtual community open house on June 10 and in‑person open houses across the region June 15–25, and that it plans to file a proposed route with the State Corporation Commission this fall. Dominion estimated an SCC decision could come in fall 2027 and stressed the SCC process will include additional opportunities for public input.

Formal board stance and county actions
The board reiterated that it adopted a resolution opposing the Valley Link transmission project earlier in April and has appropriated $250,000 for advocacy, technical review and legal support. Those actions were cited repeatedly by public commenters as essential to the county’s ability to engage in the SCC and federal processes.

What to watch next
Public outreach events in June and Dominion’s proposed‑route filing to the State Corporation Commission are the next concrete milestones. Residents want any proposed substations, land options and cumulative project maps disclosed before the SCC record matures so local governments and the public can evaluate tied facilities and long‑term impacts.

The board closed the meeting asking Dominion for written follow‑up on unanswered technical questions; the meeting was adjourned with reminders about upcoming county meetings and the continuation of public engagement.