Community Action Needed
.jpeg)
Protect Rural Fluvanna
Stop a Second Gas Power Plant Near Homes and Farms
Tenaska is seeking approval to build a 1,540-megawatt gas-fired power plant next to its existing facility. If approved, the site would become one of the largest gas-fired power generation complexes in Virginia, on land designated for Rural Residential and Preservation.
Attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting
March 18 • 6:00 PM
Fluvanna County High School
Speak Out
Fluvanna’s rural future is at stake.
Attend and ask the Board to protect rural Fluvanna.
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• Millions of gallons of water withdrawn daily from the James River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.
How to Speak at the Meeting
Many residents want to speak but do not know how public comment works.
-
Arrive before the meeting starts
-
Sign up to speak
-
You will have about 3 minutes to address the Board
-
State your name and address
-
Short, respectful comments from residents matter.
Ask: Please protect rural Fluvanna and uphold the Comprehensive Plan.
%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.​
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.
​
​​
Traffic Impacts on Fluvanna’s Rural Roads
Findings from the County-Commissioned Traffic Impact Study
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.
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
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.
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, aims to leverage our rural resources to boost its considerable profits. The company intends to construct a second gas power plant near its existing 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. ​​
​
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 power plants present significant health and environmental risks to nearby communities.
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‚‚.
.png)
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.
%20(1).png)