About Us

Protecting Our Community and Our Future

We are a united group of neighbors advocating for a healthier, more equitable, and sustainable Fluvanna. Fluvanna Horizons Alliance exists to ensure that citizen voices are heard, public process is respected, and land-use decisions honor the Comprehensive Plan. We support development that aligns with Fluvanna’s values, and oppose development that advances without transparency, shifts risk onto residents, or undermines those protections.

This industrial expansion would impose harmful, cumulative impacts on public health, the environment, rural roads, and nearby homes, costs that outweigh any projected tax benefits. Throughout the review, residents sought transparency, independent analysis, and meaningful public input, yet citizen concerns were sidelined as projected revenues were prioritized over land-use compatibility and community protection.

We thank the Planning Commission for upholding the Comprehensive Plan and finding the proposal not in substantial accord.

As the decision moves to the Board of Supervisors, economic benefits and proposal refinement have been emphasized while the Plan’s rural land-use protections have been given limited weight, raising concerns about procedural fairness and adherence to the Plan.

Join us in calling on our elected leaders to protect Fluvanna’s future and uphold the finding of no substantial accord.

SIGN A PETITION

Not in Substantial Accord

On January 13, the Planning Commission found the Tenaska proposal to build a second gas-fired power plant in rural Fluvanna is not in substantial accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

The developer has appealed that decision.

Why the Proposal Is Not in Substantial Accord

The Planning Commission’s finding reflects fundamental conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s controlling land-use policies:

Industrial Expansion in a Rural Designation - The proposal would place a second major industrial facility in an area designated for rural use on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map—doubling industrial intensity where the Plan is designed to limit it.
Land-Use Incompatibility - The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes compatibility between uses. Expanding heavy industrial activity adjacent to rural homes and farms conflicts with policies intended to protect rural character and minimize incompatible land uses.
Infrastructure and Transportation Conflicts - The project would require permanent changes to rural roads and infrastructure never designed to function as industrial corridors, contrary to Plan policies that link infrastructure capacity to appropriate land use.
Public Health and Quality-of-Life Impacts - The Plan emphasizes protecting public health, safety, and quality of life. The cumulative impacts of a second gas-fired power plant—including air pollution, traffic, noise, and increased industrial activity—conflict with those priorities.
Cumulative and Precedent-Setting Effects - The Comprehensive Plan evaluates land use in context. Adding a second major industrial facility intensifies impacts beyond what the Plan contemplates for rural areas and sets a precedent for further industrial expansion, undermining long-term planning goals.

For these reasons, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposal does not align with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole and therefore is not in substantial accord.

What the Board Must Decide

The Board of Supervisors must deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s finding.

For months, residents have raised legitimate concerns about health, land use, traffic, and infrastructure. As the Board considers whether to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, it must listen to residents and uphold the community values embodied in the Comprehensive Plan.

This decision will have real, lasting impacts on public health, the environment, property values, rural roads, and overall quality of life. Yet the proposal has moved forward without meaningful public access to information or genuine opportunities for community input. Notably, most visible support for Tenaska has come from members of the Board, Tenaska employees and their families, and representatives of the power and technology industries—not from the residents who will be directly and permanently affected.

Call to Action: Tell the Board of Supervisors to deny the Tenaska appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s finding.

Community Priorities at Stake
Following the Comprehensive Plan

The county and Tenaska emphasize projected tax revenue.

However, the Board of Supervisors is required to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, which prioritizes land-use compatibility, protection of rural areas, public health, environmental safeguards, road safety, and quality of life over economic benefits when evaluating development proposals

This is not opposition to development; it is opposition to development that violates the Comprehensive Plan, undermines community land-use values, and sets a harmful precedent for Fluvanna’s future.

Process Concerns
Why the Review Process Raises Red Flags

These procedural failures aren’t minor details. They affect the fairness and integrity of the process and raise real concerns about transparency and accountability.

The County’s handling of the Tenaska proposal shows serious procedural and transparency failures that undermine public trust and create legal risk.

Key issues include:

The required § 15.2-2232 public facilities review for Phase I was not conducted
The County entered into a non-disclosure agreement with a regulated applicant (2025)
A special-called BOS/PC meeting was effectively controlled by the applicant
The Comprehensive Plan was temporarily amended in 2000 to allow industrial use in A-1 for Tenaska, then later reversed
Board members made public statements of support during active review
Ex parte communications occurred during the Planning Commission SAR review process
Petitioning and neighbor notification were prohibited by county staff in a public park
The County Attorney wrongly advised the PC that it could not request independent studies.
County leadership routed resident questions to Tenaska, which was later used in public relations materials.

Health Impacts of a Second Gas Power Plant

What the Health Analysis Shows

An independent public health analysis finds that the proposed second gas-fired power plant would significantly increase harmful air pollution across Fluvanna County and central Virginia. The analysis focuses on fine particulate matter (PM2.5), a pollutant with no safe level of exposure, and links the project to widespread and measurable health harms.

Documented Health Risks

According to the health analysis, increased PM2.5 pollution is associated with:

•Higher rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses

•Increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death

•Disproportionate impacts on children, older adults, and people with existing health conditions.

The study estimates $27–50 million in health damages every year, with cumulative costs reaching hundreds of millions to more than $1 billion over time.

Who Would Be Most Affected

The highest pollution impacts would occur in Lake Monticello and Palmyra, with effects extending to Columbia, Rivanna, Scottsville, and Keswick. Pollution would spread across Fluvanna, Louisa, Goochland, Cumberland, Powhatan, and Buckingham, with nearby counties including Albemarle, Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Richmond collectively bearing a significant share of the health burden.

This means the consequences would not be limited to the immediate project area, but felt regionally across central Virginia.

Only Part of the Picture

This analysis evaluates health impacts only. It does not account for other well-documented risks associated with large gas-fired power plants, including:

•Increased water withdrawals and wastewater discharge

•Methane leakage throughout the gas supply chain

•Heavy truck traffic, major road changes, and road degradation

•Industrial noise and light pollution

As a result, the true costs to the community would likely be substantially higher than those quantified in the health study alone.

Why This Matters

This is a long-term decision with real and lasting consequences for our air, our health, and our quality of life. Fluvanna’s Comprehensive Plan was designed to protect residents from exactly this kind of harmful industrial development in rural communities.

The Planning Commission has already found the proposal not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Upholding that finding is essential to protecting public health and respecting the safeguards the community put in place.

READ THE REPORT

Traffic Impacts on Fluvanna’s Rural Roads

Findings from the County-Commissioned Traffic Impact Study

The proposed industrial expansion would permanently convert rural roads into industrial corridors, with impacts spreading Fluvanna’s road network, reshaping county infrastructure long after construction ends.

This project would fundamentally alter how Fluvanna’s roads function. Accommodating sustained heavy truck traffic would require road widening, intersection modifications, and ongoing maintenance across multiple districts. Rural two-lane roads would be repurposed for industrial use, congestion would increase on key corridors, and emergency response reliability would be compromised. These changes would be countywide, permanent, and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for rural roads, residential safety, and infrastructure aligned with land use.

Roads and Intersections Affected

Primary impact corridors include:

Route 53
Ruritan Lake Road (SR 619)
Branch Road (SR 761)
US 15 and US 250 intersections

These are narrow, two-lane rural roads with limited shoulders and little redundancy.

What Must Be Built or Modified

To prevent congestion and safety failures, the study recommends:

New and extended turn lanes, some hundreds of feet long
Lane extensions at multiple intersections
Potential traffic signals or roundabouts
Time-of-day restrictions and staggered construction shifts

Safety Concerns

The study identifies intersections with documented crash histories, including one location with 27 recorded crashes. Increased heavy truck traffic would raise risks for:

School buses
Emergency responders
Farm equipment
Residents traveling rural roads

Costs and Who Pays

The traffic study does not provide a single total cost, but identifies mitigation measures that typically cost:

$50,000–$150,000 for construction traffic control
$150,000–$400,000 per location for turn lanes or roadway widening
$200,000–$500,000+ for pavement repair and bonding
Up to $1 million for intersection upgrades

Why This Matters

The traffic study does not show “no impact.” It shows impacts that must be actively managed, mitigated, and enforced for years to make the project function. These changes would permanently alter Fluvanna’s rural road network and conflict with the Comprehensive Plan’s vision for rural roads, safety, and infrastructure aligned with land use. Because Virginia law does not allow cash proffers, any mitigation not explicitly required through permitting risks becomes a taxpayer obligation.

What This Means for Residents, Commuters, and Visitors

Bottom line: Fluvanna’s rural roads are not built for industrial-scale traffic. Approving this project would mean:

Residents: more heavy truck traffic, added pollution, noise, and increased safety risks on local roads
Commuters: longer travel times, delays from road work, and unpredictable daily routes
Visitors & tourists: a degraded rural experience during multi-year construction
The public: costly road modifications, long-term maintenance impacts, and risks shifted to taxpayers

Findings from the report raise serious questions about safety, public cost, and whether community planning still guides decisions when large developers apply pressure.

READ THE TRAFFIC STUDY

Tenaska’s “Environmental Report” Falls Short

Meeting Air Standards Is Not the Same as Protecting Rural Fluvanna

Meeting federal air standards does not mean a project is safe, appropriate, or compatible with rural Fluvanna.

Residents are being told the proposed second gas-fired power plant poses no environmental concern because it complies with federal air rules. That claim confuses permit eligibility with real-world impact.

Federal air standards regulate regional pollution levels. They do not evaluate whether doubling heavy industrial infrastructure is appropriate, compatible, or acceptable in a rural community.

Compliance does not eliminate:

construction pollution and diesel emissions
water demand and wastewater
land disturbance, noise, and lighting
heavy truck traffic on rural roads
cumulative impacts of two power plants operating side by side

Regulatory compliance alone does not protect Fluvanna’s health, land, or rural character.

What Tenaska Submitted

Tenaska submitted a regulatory air-permitting memo focused on whether the proposed plant can meet federal air standards under the Clean Air Act.

This determines whether the project can be permitted, not whether it belongs here.

The memo addresses:

•modeled air emissions relative to federal limits

•permitting thresholds and compliance criteria

•developer critiques of third-party health studies

This is a permitting document, not a full environmental review.

What’s Missing From the Review

The submission does not meaningfully evaluate impacts that matter most to local land-use decisions, including:

•cumulative impacts of operating two gas plants side by side•construction-phase impacts, including diesel exhaust, dust, noise, and traffic

•water use, wastewater generation, and thermal discharge

•impacts on nearby homes, schools, farms, and rural land uses

•long-term environmental risk and precedent for rural Fluvanna

Why This Matters

Regulatory compliance answers one narrow question:

Can this project be permitted?

Local leaders must answer a different one:

Should it be built here?

Fluvanna’s Comprehensive Plan is the community’s land-use contract.

It prioritizes:

•public health

•land-use compatibility

•rural road safety

•environmental protection

•quality of life -- not short-term revenue claims

The Plan does not contemplate siting or expanding large-scale industrial facilities in A-1 Agricultural/Rural Residential areas, which are intended to protect rural character and compatible land uses. A conservation easement does not eliminate or offset the environmental, health, traffic, water-use, or land-use impacts of constructing and operating a second gas-fired power plant.

Because the project conflicts with these core priorities, the Planning Commission correctly determined that it is not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.

Call to Action: Uphold the Planning Commission’s Finding

The Board of Supervisors must uphold the Planning Commission’s finding. A second gas-fired power plant would impose harmful cumulative environmental impacts, construction-phase disruptions, health risks, traffic burdens, water impacts, and conflicts with rural land-use compatibility.

As a result, the project does not meet the standards required for approval under the Comprehensive Plan.

Sources

•Tenaska Supplemental Environmental Memo

•Harvard Health Impact Analysis

•Fluvanna County-commissioned Traffic Impact Study

•Fluvanna County Comprehensive Plan

The Problem

Tenaska aims to double its footprint in Fluvanna County

Tenaska, a Nebraska-based energy company and one of the largest privately held companies in the United States, aims to leverage our rural resources to boost its considerable profits. The company intends to construct a second gas power plant near its existing methane plant. If this project is approved, these gas-fired power plants would become the largest in Virginia, significantly affecting Fluvanna County and the surrounding region.

Tenaska's materials conceal the health risks associated with methane gas plants and fail to acknowledge the actual reason for building a new one. They aim to sell energy on the open market, primarily to meet the rising demand from data centers, rather than serving our community.

Tenaska's community engagement has been minimal, initially binding local officials to a Non-Disclosure Agreement. They held an invitation-only meeting that excluded the media and the public. In a Special Meeting called by the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors, Tenaska only accepted written questions, and a representative chose which ones to answer. When asked about health impacts, Tenaska stated that it has not conducted specific local health impact studies and has not conducted air pollution modeling for its proposed plant.

While Tenaska highlights potential tax revenue and economic benefits, these need to be weighed against environmental and public health costs. The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) estimates the proposed plant's annual health impact costs at $13.6 million, increasing to

$21.1 million by 2040, totaling $275 million over the period.

Gas-fired plants emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to smog and respiratory problems, presenting health concerns for local communities. (EPA: Power Plants and Neighboring Communities.) The 2019 MAPP2Health Community Health Assessment shows increased rates of asthma and chronic pulmonary diseases in Fluvanna County.

Gas-fired plants harm water sources, disrupt ecosystems, and contribute to climate change, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities. Additionally, neighbors have long voiced complaints about the noise from the existing plant.

Since 2004, Tenaska has operated the Tenaska Virginia Generating Station, but local property owners have not experienced significant tax reductions; in fact, tax rates rose in 2025.

Gas-fired power plants present significant health and environmental risks to nearby communities.

Health and Environmental Impacts

Gas-fired power plants emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), and various hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), even with controls in place.

There is no safe level for fine particulate matter, and Tenaska's plant would release these pollutants, leading to higher illness and death rates among nearby residents.

The existing plant uses 3 to 4 million gallons of water daily from the James River. It discharges 1.5 million gallons of "hard water" daily into Cunningham Creek, which flows into the Rivanna River.

The new plant would draw an additional 6 to 7 million gallons from the James River daily, with an anticipated daily discharge of 1.5 million gallons per day.

Water for the plant would be pulled from the James River and, after being used, released into the Rivanna. Mixing waters from different rivers can pose significant dangers to ecosystems and human health.

Methane leaks are unavoidable in gas plants, and methane is over 25 times more potent than CO₂.

Good Community Partner?

Claims of tax benefits for Fluvanna are overstated. Despite the tax income from Tenaska’s current gas-fired plant, local taxpayers have not seen relief; in fact, property taxes increased in 2025.

Despite the tax revenue generated from Tenaska, our local government still faces challenges in adequately supporting our schools, service providers, and nonprofit organizations.

Impact costs to the community outweigh the claims of tax benefits, including increased public health costs, environmental impacts, and decreased property values.

Proximity to power plants often results in a decline of at least 11% in property values.

A similar proposal in Wisconsin projected health-related costs of up to $58.9 million annually, something to keep in mind with Tenaska’s claimed benefits.

Tenaska claims that job creation would benefit Fluvanna, but the Richmond Building and Construction Trades Council accused them of hiring out-of-state workers for their first plant. Tenaska admits this would also apply to the proposed plant.

Currently, only 19 of the 29 employees at the Tenaska Virginia facility live in Fluvanna, casting doubt on their claim of generating $8.8 million in local wages for the new plant.

Whose Power?

Tenaska cites "growing power demand" for the facility, but residential energy use is expected to remain stable. The true source of this demand stems from the numerous power-hungry data centers operated by wealthy corporations. Electricity demand in the commercial and industrial sectors is declining, with growth primarily coming from data centers.

The proposed plant will not supply power to our community. Tenaska sells electricity to the regional grid operator (PJM Interconnection), not directly to local consumers served by Dominion Energy. As a result, building a second gas plant won't reduce energy costs for Fluvanna County residents. Virginia's regulations allow Dominion to pass fuel costs to customers, exposing them to the volatility of natural gas prices. Virginia has seen significant rate increases recently due to high fossil fuel costs.

Fluvanna County will bear the health and environmental impacts, while Tenaska and other corporations will profit.

Other Communities

Pittsylvania County Successfully Opposes Natural Gas Plant

After months of public protests, the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors denied Balico LLC's request to rezone land for a large data center and gas power plant. Residents expressed concerns about pollution, noise, traffic, and the potential impact on the rural quality of life.

Just before the Board meeting, Balico withdrew its application. This decision followed a report from the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Harvard Data Science Initiative, and the Dominici Lab.

The report indicated that the power plant would release high levels of air pollution, potentially leading to millions of dollars in healthcare costs. It noted that 17,500 people in Pittsylvania County would be exposed to extreme levels of PM2.5, a pollutant linked to serious health issues. Many others in neighboring counties would face moderate exposure. Experts agree that there is no safe level of PM2.5, and the plant would emit at least 326.53 tons of this pollutant each year.

Additionally, the report estimated that healthcare costs for residents could reach $31 million annually due to the pollution from the proposed plant.

Even after Balico withdrew its application, the Board still voted against the request, which would have allowed the company to present a new plan with fewer negative consequences.

READ THE REPORT

Dozens of residents from Central Virginia attended a state briefing regarding Dominion Energy's proposed Chesterfield Energy Reliability Center (CERC). Dominion plans to build CERC adjacent to the Dutch Gap Conservation Area, on land formerly occupied by the old Chesterfield Power Station, a coal plant.

The briefing provided an opportunity for the public to pose questions to state regulators about the project. Community members expressed frustration that Chesterfield County chose not to hold public hearings, arguing that the existing special use permit for Dominion covers the proposed plant.

Many speakers raised concerns about whether the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) air quality monitoring plan would be adequate to assess the health impacts on nearby residents. Additionally, residents questioned whether Dominion and DEQ could justify introducing more pollution into a community that has already endured decades of pollution from Dominion's decommissioned coal plant.

READ THE REPORT

Sign a
Petition

SIGN

About Us

Protecting Our Community and Our Future

Not in Substantial Accord

Community Priorities at Stake
Following the Comprehensive Plan

Process Concerns
Why the Review Process Raises Red Flags