Residents demand answers as Tenaska filings reveal 500 kV tie, transmission corridor and new cooling plans

Hundreds of residents who spoke during two public-comment rounds on Aug. 5 urged the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors to press Tenaska for clear, binding answers after state filings and a public meeting described transmission and cooling changes to the Expedition project.

"Private negotiations between the board chair, Tony O'Brien, and Tenaska VP, Jared Pitts, over the water MOU before the special use permit vote," Jennifer Kingery Ruffner said, adding that the public record she received via FOIA contradicted the county's prior characterization of the project. Ray Bassi of Lake Monticello said the company's SCC filing shows a new 500 kV, roughly 1.8-mile generation tie line and estimated transmission costs, and he urged independent acoustical and site-specific review if Tenaska moves to air-cooled condenser fans.

Residents focused on three concrete concerns: (1) transmission scope and siting, including new towers and easement widths the SCC filing describes; (2) a reported move from water cooling to air-cooled condensers with potentially continuous fan noise; and (3) water sourcing and baseline testing for private wells during construction and operation. Tracy Smith asked the board to "force Tenaska to put in writing, identify the exact water source they'll use for construction, disclose the full project demand, submit a comprehensive publicly available water management plan, [and] mandate independent baseline testing for every private well that is at risk."

County staff acknowledged the filings and told supervisors they would compile a list of material changes since the SUP approval and request Tenaska representatives appear before the board to answer technical and fiscal questions. The board did not reverse prior approvals at the meeting; members asked staff to return with documentation about what changed since the SUP submittal and to seek direct answers from Tenaska on cooling technology, noise modeling, transmission routes, tower heights and easement widths.

The concerns prompted several supervisory requests for follow-up: a staff memo listing differences between the SUP application and subsequent SCC filings; a request for Tenaska to attend a future meeting or briefing; and a recommendation that, where appropriate, the county use remaining approval points and permit conditions to require vendor-validated testing, licensable performance standards, or binding supplemental agreements before key equipment or right-of-way work proceeds.

What happens next: board members said staff will assemble the list of changes and that the board will ask Tenaska to present detailed, vendor-level plans and data at a future meeting. Several residents said they will continue pressing the county for baseline well testing and enforceable construction-water commitments.