Environmental Justice in Fluvanna

 

People Over Profit

No community should bear the environmental costs of energy development without a meaningful voice in the decision. No new project should be approved without accounting for the pollution and burdens residents already experience.

For more than 20 years, Fluvanna residents have lived alongside Tenaska’s Virginia Generating Station (TVGS). Tenaska now proposes Expedition—a second, larger gas-fired plant beside it.

Residents would live with both plants. Regulators must consider their combined effects.

Meeting individual permit limits does not answer what two facilities would mean for the people breathing the air, using the water and living with the noise. Those effects extend beyond nearby properties to communities downwind, downstream and along construction and utility routes.

 

What Environmental Justice Means 

Environmental justice means fair treatment and meaningful participation in decisions affecting people’s health and surroundings. It requires attention to communities that already carry disproportionate environmental burdens and face barriers to influencing those decisions.

For Fluvanna, that means complete information, an accounting of existing pollution and enforceable protections—not simply another opportunity to speak.

​

What Is at Stake

 

Combined pollution and health risks

Expedition would add emissions beside an operating power plant. Reviews must account for both facilities, other relevant pollution sources and background pollution. Residents need clear findings on combined exposures, supported by transparent modeling and monitoring.

 

Water, land and daily life

The project includes more than generating equipment. Pipelines, transmission lines, construction traffic and land clearing can affect wells, farms, waterways and homes. The full footprint must be disclosed, including routes and disturbance outside the plant site.

 

A meaningful voice

Residents need understandable maps, current studies and accessible hearings while decisions can still change. Public participation must give people a real opportunity to challenge the proposal and influence the outcome.

​

Tenaska’s July 2026 environmental justice assessment identifies potentially vulnerable communities within five miles of the proposed plant. Its consultant, Environmental Resources Management, recommended additional measures addressing air quality, noise, water and other impacts.

​

Identifying vulnerable communities does not protect them. Recommending safeguards does not make those safeguards enforceable.

​

FHA is demanding clear answers:

• Which recommended protections has Tenaska committed to provide?

• Which protections will become enforceable approval conditions?

• Who will independently verify compliance and whether the protections work?

• What remedies will residents have if those protections fail?

The complete assessment, supporting data, and resulting commitments should be readily available to the public.