PALMYRA, Va.—In Fluvanna County, Virginia, opinions are divided over a proposed natural gas power plant.
Brian Faulknier, 54, supports the plant for its potential tax revenue and is unconcerned about fracking gas or using freshwater for cooling. “God was smart enough when he made this earth,” Faulknier said, expressing belief in the earth’s renewable energy resources. “Are we going to run out of water? No, absolutely not.”
In contrast, Barbara O’Brien, a retired fossil fuel plant designer, advocates for renewable energy sources like wind and solar. She acknowledges that while they may not offer the same tax base as the proposed 1.5-gigawatt plant by Tenaska, they pose fewer health risks.
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to deem the plant consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan after a lengthy meeting. A series of side agreements, not directly tied to the plant, helped secure approval.
Tony O’Brien, board chairman, noted the significant $250 million in tax revenue expected from the plant. “It’s a very significant improvement that will make a difference for taxpayers in Fluvanna County,” he said.
Supervisor Chris Fairchild opposed the project, arguing it did not align with the county’s comprehensive plan, which emphasizes preserving rural character and supporting renewable energy.
The Expedition Generating Station is part of PJM Interconnection’s fast-tracked process to meet increasing energy demands from data centers. Critics argue this favors fossil fuel projects.
Community concerns include noise, air pollution, and impacts on the James and Rivanna Rivers. Land use approval means the project will now seek state air and water permits, as well as a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the State Corporation Commission.
The Fluvanna Planning Commission had recommended rejecting the project due to concerns about noise and pollution, supported by a Harvard study indicating potential health risks.
Conversely, project proponents highlighted economic benefits and resolved issues at a similar plant in Pennsylvania. The company offered to conserve 390 acres as part of its community agreements.
Benjamin Roberts, from Benchmark Risk Group, assured the board of minimal health risks. However, Josephus Allmond of the Southern Environmental Law Center criticized the agreements and questioned the conservation commitments.
The Separate Deals
Tenaska committed to funding a traffic circle to manage construction impacts, a point of negotiation during the approval process. The board approved restrictive covenants unrelated to the special use permit, altering land agreements set during the first plant’s approval.
New covenants included a $5 million fund for noise mitigation and plans for a firehouse financed partially by Tenaska. A proposed residential solar program was dropped, with funds reallocated to the firehouse project.
Tenaska also agreed to provide water discharge for community use, with attorney Preston Lloyd clarifying that these covenants were separate from the special use permit discussions.
Community members like Sharon Harris raised concerns about the financial implications of these covenants, arguing that increased staffing at the fire department would be more beneficial than the new firehouse.
Original Story at insideclimatenews.org