Fluvanna’s Gas Plant Decision: Questions Remain Unanswered
Fluvanna Was Told to Fear Blackouts
Real Issues Ignored
A closer look at how blackout fears shaped the decision and what comes next for Fluvanna.
By Sharon Harris | Community Voices
​
Fluvanna County recently approved a new gas plant amid concerns about grid reliability and potential blackouts. This op-ed examines how those claims align with how the regional grid actually operates and what the decision means for local impacts, long-term planning, and accountability.
​
Fluvanna County was told it faced a simple choice: approve a large new gas plant or risk rolling blackouts.
That message shaped the decision. It created urgency and narrowed the field of options before a full analysis could take place.
​
Electric demand is rising. Grid reliability matters. The question is how to meet that demand and who bears the impact.
​
Where the demand is coming from
​Virginia is beginning to answer that question differently. Lawmakers now require utilities to examine how much of the existing grid is actually being used and to fix inefficiencies before building new infrastructure. The system is built for rare peak conditions, leaving significant capacity unused most of the time. Reliability depends as much on managing demand and using what already exists as it does on building more.
​
That perspective was missing from the local decision.
​
The demand behind this project is not coming from Fluvanna homes or small businesses. It is driven by the rapid expansion of data centers elsewhere in the region. Those facilities require enormous amounts of power, while the impacts of supplying that power are placed on communities like this one.
​
Cumulative impacts
​Those impacts do not occur in isolation.
​
Large power plants require substantial volumes of water and raise unresolved questions about withdrawal, discharge, and long-term effects on the Rivanna watershed and downstream communities. These effects accumulate over time.
Land use follows the same trajectory. A heavy industrial facility in a rural county shapes what comes next. Surrounding land use begins to shift. Each additional project builds on the last. Families and farms experience that change incrementally, but the direction is clear. The comprehensive plan that calls for protection of natural resources, preservation of community character, and responsible growth has now been weakened. Air quality, noise, traffic, and visual impacts reinforce that shift. Taken together, they define the long-term character of a place.
​
Who benefits
There is also the question of who benefits.
The electricity generated will enter the regional grid operated by PJM Interconnection and flow to areas of highest demand. That demand is not centered in Fluvanna.
Even so, the case for approval returned to a narrow choice: approve the plant or risk losing power for essential needs.
In practice, reliability is maintained through a network of generation, transmission, reserves, and contingency planning.
Better options already exist
Other tools exist. Demand-side management can reduce or shift peak usage. Grid-enhancing technologies and storage can unlock existing capacity. Aligning growth with infrastructure can reduce stress before it builds.
​
These are not theoretical options. They are already part of state policy discussions.
​
Oversight and track record
Oversight and track record also matter. Subsidiaries of Tenaska, Inc. have entered into settlements with federal and state regulators involving market conduct, including penalties and the return of revenues tied to bidding practices and emergency period transactions.
​
Operational history adds another layer. The Tenaska Westmoreland Generating Station, a 940-megawatt natural gas plant in Pennsylvania, has faced scrutiny over permitting status and emissions, including a period of operation without a finalized Title V permit and cited violations involving pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds.
​
These examples involve different facilities, but they point to a consistent conclusion: what happens after approval matters.
​
What comes next
Permitting, regulatory review, and compliance will determine how impacts are managed and how closely commitments are followed. For a project with decades-long consequences, those details carry weight.
​
The special use permit has been approved. The consequences are now set in motion.
​
What happens next will determine how much of that impact is borne by this community and how long it lasts.
​
More projects will follow. Each one will add to the cumulative strain on water, land, and quality of life.
Reliability matters. Accountability must be enforced.
​
The standard going forward is straightforward: use what exists, manage demand at its source, and fully account for cumulative impacts.
​
This decision set a direction. What follows will shape the county for years to come.
​Stay engaged as the permitting process moves forward.
What This Means for Fluvanna​
​
• Industrial-scale development in rural residential and preservation land
• Millions of gallons of water withdrawn daily from the James River
• Increased air pollution and regional health risks
• Noise, truck traffic, and infrastructure impacts
​
Residents near the existing Tenaska facility have already raised concerns about noise, air pollution, and water impacts, and the proposed expansion would significantly increase those burdens.
​
This scale of industrial expansion raises serious questions about compatibility with Fluvanna County’s rural land-use vision.
%20(1).png)
Fluvanna Horizons Alliance
Protecting Our Community and Our Future
​​​
Fluvanna County is facing one of the most important land-use decisions in its history.
​
Tenaska is seeking approval to build a 1,540-megawatt industrial gas power plant next to its existing facility, creating one of the largest gas-fired power generation complexes in Virginia.
The project would expand heavy industrial infrastructure in an area designated for rural residential and preservation land use under the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
​
Placing a second facility of this character and extent in a rural preservation area directly conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan’s intent to protect rural landscapes from large industrial development.​ If Fluvanna's Comprehensive Plan means anything, it must guide decisions like this one. A project that conflicts with the Plan in its location, character, and extent cannot be considered in substantial accord.
​
Fluvanna Horizons Alliance is a citizen coalition working to protect our rural community, our health, and our future.
​
Join us in calling on our elected leaders to protect Fluvanna’s future and uphold the finding of no substantial accord.
Fluvanna's Land Use Values
Rural Protections vs Industrial Expansion
​​​Why the Proposal Is Not in Substantial Accord
​
Location: The project would place a second large industrial power plant in an area designated for rural use on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The Plan directs industrial-scale development to designated growth areas, not rural preservation areas intended for agriculture, forestry, and low-density residential uses.
Character: The character of the proposed use, heavy industrial power generation, conflicts with the rural land use character that the Plan seeks to protect. Expanding major industrial infrastructure next to rural homes, farms, and open land undermines the Plan’s goals of preserving rural character and maintaining compatibility between uses.
Extent: The scale and cumulative impact of a second 1,500+ MW gas-fired power plant dramatically expand the industrial footprint in this rural area. The resulting increases in emissions, traffic, noise, and infrastructure demands exceed what the Comprehensive Plan contemplates for rural areas and risk setting a precedent for further industrial expansion.
Call to Action:
Tell the Board of Supervisors to deny the Tenaska appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s finding that the proposal is not in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
​
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
Health Impacts of a Second Gas Power Plant
.png)
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.​
Health Impacts
The study estimates $27 million to $50 million in health damages every year, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars over time and potentially exceeding $1 billion. These are real costs tied to increased air pollution and its effects on human health.
​
Who Would Be Most Affected
The greatest impacts are concentrated in Lake Monticello and Palmyra, with effects extending across Columbia, Rivanna, Scottsville, and Keswick. Pollution does not stop at county lines. It is projected to affect communities across Fluvanna, Louisa, Goochland, Cumberland, Powhatan, and Buckingham, with additional impacts reaching Albemarle, Henrico, Chesterfield, Hanover, and Richmond. This is a regional impact with widespread public health consequences.
Only Part of the Picture
These figures capture health impacts only. They do not account for increased water use and discharge, methane emissions, heavy truck traffic and road damage, or noise and light pollution. The true cost to the community is higher.
Why This Matters
This is a long-term decision with lasting consequences. Fluvanna’s Comprehensive Plan was created to prevent incompatible industrial development in rural areas. The Planning Commission has already found this proposal not in substantial accord with that plan. Moving forward means accepting known health risks and setting aside the community’s stated vision.
Traffic Impacts on Fluvanna’s Rural Roads
Findings from the County-Commissioned Traffic Impact Study
Fluvanna’s rural roads, including Route 53, Ruritan Lake Road, Branch Road, and key intersections along US 15 and US 250, are not designed for industrial-scale traffic. The traffic study identifies existing crash risks and shows that increased heavy truck traffic would create additional safety concerns for residents, school buses, emergency responders, and farm equipment. These impacts would require long-term mitigation and enforcement, permanently altering the county’s road network and conflicting with the Comprehensive Plan. Because Virginia law does not allow cash proffers, any unmet mitigation costs could fall to taxpayers. Heavy construction traffic is also expected to cause significant wear and damage to local roads, requiring repairs that have not been fully planned for or clearly assigned a funding source. In practical terms, residents can expect more traffic, noise, and safety risks, along with longer commutes, roadwork disruptions, and increased public costs.
Tenaska’s “Environmental Report” Falls Short
Meeting Air Standards Is Not the Same as Protecting Rural Fluvanna
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
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.
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, is seeking to expand its operations in Fluvanna County by constructing a second gas-fired power plant near its existing facility. If approved, the combined output of these plants would make the site among the largest gas-fired power generation complexes in Virginia, with significant implications for the county and surrounding region.
​
While Tenaska highlights potential tax revenue and economic benefits, those claims must be weighed against documented environmental and public health costs. The Southern Environmental Law Center estimates the proposed plant’s annual health-related costs at approximately $13.6 million, rising to $21.1 million by 2040, totaling about $275 million over time.
​
Gas-fired power plants are associated with air pollution, including nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which are linked to respiratory and cardiovascular impacts, meaning nearby communities may bear meaningful health and environmental risks alongside any economic benefits.
Health and Environmental Impacts
.jpeg)
-
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 COâ‚‚.
Whose Power?
.png)
Tenaska points to growing electricity demand to justify the project, but most new demand in Virginia and across the PJM region is being driven by data centers rather than increases in residential consumption. The company would sell power into the regional PJM wholesale market, not directly to Dominion customers, meaning there is no direct mechanism for this plant to lower electric bills for Fluvanna residents. At the same time, Virginia utilities pass fuel costs on to customers, exposing households to the volatility of natural gas prices, and can also pass along certain infrastructure and construction costs through rates, contributing to rising bills driven by a mix of fuel costs, grid expansion, and increasing demand. In effect, the environmental and community impacts would be borne locally in Fluvanna County, while the electricity and financial benefits are distributed across a broader regional market.
%20(1).png)