Valley Link has revised one of its proposed transmission line routes through Central Virginia, shifting portions of Route 2 in Buckingham and Louisa counties while apparently leaving its path through Fluvanna unchanged.

The proposed Joshua Falls-to-Yeat transmission line would stretch approximately 115 miles from Campbell County to Culpeper County. The 765-kilovolt line’s potential routes cross nine counties.

Maps on the Valley Link project website show a potential variation in Buckingham that shifts Route 2 northward near Allenslevel, then runs northeast through the Gold Hill area before rejoining the original proposed alignment near New Canton, south of the James River.

Louisa County posted notice of alternate potential routing on Sept. 28. The proposed variation shifts a portion of Route 2 westward, bringing it closer to the eastern outskirts of the town of Louisa before reconnecting with the existing proposed alignment.

Dominion spokesperson Craig Carper told the Virginia Mercury that the variation would avoid county-owned land west of the school campus and parallel an existing transmission line through Louisa’s technology overlay district.

No final route has been selected, and Valley Link’s application to the State Corporation Commission (SCC) may come later than originally anticipated. The company’s published schedule called for a filing in the third quarter of 2026, which ended Sept. 30. Opposition group Block Valley Link says its sources now expect the application in November.

Carper told the Mercury that routes would be finalized this fall before the company files. A November filing date remains unconfirmed. Valley Link plans to hold a virtual meeting this fall to announce its proposed route and alternatives.

It is unclear whether a later application would affect the overall project schedule, which anticipates an SCC decision in the second or third quarter of 2027 and construction from late 2028 through mid-2029.

Fluvanna has joined neighboring counties in opposing the project and has strengthened its own policies governing transmission infrastructure.

Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing Valley Link on April 1, citing potential effects on property values, agricultural land, natural and historic resources, and the county’s rural character.

On Aug. 19, supervisors added policies to the county’s comprehensive plan favoring existing utility corridors and calling for reduced impacts on homes, farms, natural resources and historic sites.

More recently, supervisors unanimously approved zoning rules requiring special-use permits for electrical substations, switching stations and related facilities.

The distinction is significant: the SCC determines the transmission line’s route, while counties retain zoning authority over supporting facilities. The new rules give Fluvanna a means to review such facilities proposed within its borders.

County Attorney Dan Whitten told supervisors in September that Fluvanna plans to participate as a formal party in the SCC case, using outside counsel shared with other affected counties.

Residents can review and comment on potent

Home

Intro

Spotlight

Valley Link revises Route 2; Fluvanna path apparently unchanged