A Timeline Worth Examining: Joshua Falls–Yeat and Local Coordination

According to FOIA documents, the former Culpeper County Administrator and the Culpeper Director of Economic Development were aware of the Joshua Falls–Yeat project as early as August 2025. On August 4, 2025, a Dominion representative requested input from Culpeper planning to discuss and “inform the pending route alternatives.” She also provided the study area surrounding Richardsville, noting several easement and conservation lands in its western portion. Finally, she stated, “we received good input from [the County Administrator and the Director of Economic Development] about larger timber parcels in eastern Culpeper.” This indicates that Culpeper staff were actively engaged in providing local land-use input during early routing discussions for this transmission line.

By August 5, the former County Administrator, emailing with Dominion, stated, “it would also be good to introduce the 765 kV project as well” at the September 2 Culpeper Board of Supervisors meeting. Dominion representatives subsequently confirmed they would do so. However, by August 14, plans had changed. The Dominion representative indicated the introduction/update would not occur at that BOS meeting, stating, “our timetable for notification to the public on this project has been pushed back a few months… I would anticipate that another conversation with you, and subsequently your board, could occur in Q4 of this year regarding Joshua Falls to Yeat.” The County Administrator replied that he understood but still wanted them to attend to discuss the Culpeper Tech Zone (CTZ) Project.

At the September 2 BOS meeting, Dominion staff did present the CTZ update, but they did not speak about Joshua Falls–Yeat. However, during the meeting, Supervisor Susan Gugino specifically asked Dominion representatives about potential transmission along the Route 3 corridor, including Richardsville and Lignum. Dominion representatives responded that they were not aware of any such lines. The Dominion representative referenced in the emails above was in the audience. The former County Administrator referenced in the emails above was sitting with the Board. Neither spoke up to contradict the Dominion representatives who stated they were not aware of any such project. Please go watch for yourself: Culpeper County B.O.S. Meeting - September 2, 2025 (Morning), cue to 40:33, starting with Supervisor Gugino’s question. It is notable that this exchange occurred after internal engagement between Dominion and county staff had already been well established for over a month.

By September 22, 2025, Supervisor Bates sent Dominion a list of extensive questions, some regarding Joshua Falls–Yeat. In response, the former Culpeper Administrator noted to the Director of Economic Development that it “appears Supervisor Bates would like quite the clarification from Dominion on a few things.” These questions were extremely well informed. They asked Dominion to provide the exact crossing for the Joshua Falls–Yeat line in Culpeper, addressed interconnections with other proposed routes in the RTEP planning cycle, and sought to limit transmission lines in Culpeper to existing corridors. In asking whether Dominion had plans for additional energy generation in Culpeper, Fauquier, and Orange counties, it was noted that Culpeper has 2.4 GW of new energy load from data centers. Dominion’s response to those questions was not included within Culpeper’s FOIA response. We have since been told they were not included because Dominion simply did not respond.

By November 18, 2025, Dominion provided Culpeper staff with maps of the preliminary routes through Culpeper, along with a list of parcels and landowners crossed by those routes. It is worth noting that this level of parcel-specific engagement does not appear to have been extended equally to neighboring “pass-through” counties, such as Orange.

By January 12 and 13, 2026, Culpeper officials were informed by Dominion of “a potential change in the Joshua Falls to Yeat project endpoint (i.e., landing in Culpeper).” By January 14, Dominion was requesting meetings to provide a route update. Please note this was before Fauquier County was notified of the change, as evidenced by the January 21 Fauquier’s Planning Commission - Work Session (cue to 32:00). Fauquier County Staff in that meeting were still discussing the Yeat “super” substation as being located in Fauquier off Yeats Drive.

It is also worth remembering that, according to PJM’s Reliability Analysis Update dated February 3, 2026, from the Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee (TEAC), “Valley Link is evaluating ‘options’ for relocating the Yeat substation further south… Next steps are for Valley Link to finalize location following investigation of options and for PJM to perform the required reliability studies. Scope change, if needed, to be brought forward at a future TEAC meeting.” This indicates that the Yeat location was still under evaluation at that time. Unfortunately, that did not stop ValleyLink from launching the February 12 letter to residents rolling out the project.

FOIA records also indicate that Culpeper was receiving updates during this same timeframe on both the Joshua Falls–Yeat project and the infrastructure associated with the Culpeper Tech Zone, SCC Case PUR-2025-00032. Dominion states the project is “The Culpeper Tech Zone 230 kV Electric Transmission Project” and “will support data center load growth and area reliability in the Culpeper, Orange, and Fauquier County areas.” However, available records suggest that surrounding counties did not receive the same level of engagement and coordination during this period. Regardless, the CPCN for the CTZ was approved by the SCC on March 12, 2026.

Taken together, these documents raise an important question: are closely related components of a broader system buildout being advanced in parallel, but reviewed separately? The record suggests that regional transmission and local load-serving infrastructure may be moving forward without a unified, transparent evaluation of their interdependencies and cumulative impacts. It also raises concerns that Orange County staff may not be consistently included in all project discussions involving major substation upgrades that were before and subsequently approved by the SCC.

This matters. Communities deserve to understand the full scope of what is being planned, not just individual pieces presented in isolation.