Valley Link’s “Non-Negotiable” 2029 Deadline Just Became Negotiable - How Convenient
On November 3, Valley Link will brief our grid overlord, PJM’s Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee, that the Joshua Falls-Yeat 765 kV line, the 115-mile greenfield project it has spent the better part of a year calling absolutely essential by June 2029, will now arrive in January 2031. An 18-month slip. No big deal, apparently. The sky will not fall. The grid will somehow survive the exact window Valley Link previously described as a direct threat to its integrity. How many times did we all hear the Valley Link PR gurus insist that this project was absolutely required in order to avoid the "violations" that our grid overlord predicted starting in 2029??
This is the same project whose representatives told Orange County officials, in writing, that “the required in-service year for the Joshua Falls-Yeat line is 2029. A delay, they explained, would mean thermal overloads and voltage violations beginning in 2029, forcing emergency protocols because the absence of the line would pose “a direct risk to the integrity of the electric grid.” Violations, they said, start appearing in PJM’s 2029 base case. The date was presented as non-negotiable because reliability standards are non-negotiable.
Craig Carper, speaking for Valley Link earlier this year, called the line “so urgently needed” and “desperately needed,” adding that the company would continue pushing for a 2029 completion. Data centers, he acknowledged, account for the majority of the demand growth driving the project. Without them, “it’s possible that maybe we’re doing this a few years earlier than we would need to.” Translation: the timeline is perfectly flexible the moment you take the big-paying data-center customers out of the equation, the ones who would otherwise keep Valley Link’s coffers overflowing for decades.
Now the urgency has evaporated. An 18-month delay past the year Valley Link identified as the onset of reliability violations is suddenly acceptable. The reliability crisis that justified greenfield routing, 175-plus-foot towers, and eminent-domain land seizure across rural Virginia has been rescheduled for the convenience of the project schedule, and, one suspects, the commercial timelines of the large-load customers the line is sized to serve.
This is how reliability arguments work in practice. They are absolute when landowners, counties, and the State Corporation Commission need to be told the process cannot wait. They become elastic when the developer’s own permitting, routing, or customer-coordination timeline slips. Valley Link spent the better part of a year telling the public that missing 2029 was not an option. Now, missing 2029 IS the plan.
If the grid really faces the violations Valley Link described starting in 2029, an 18-month delay is not a minor adjustment; it is an admission that the original urgency was overstated or that the company is prepared to operate through the very conditions it previously called a direct risk. If the grid can wait until 2031, then the earlier claims that the date was non-negotiable were marketing, not engineering. Either way, the primary remaining driver looks increasingly like the one Carper already quantified: capturing the large-load data-center customers whose demand made the accelerated schedule appear necessary in the first place.
Rural Virginia landowners and ratepayers across the grid were told this was about keeping the lights on. The revised in-service date clarifies it is really about keeping the data centers on a schedule that suits the developers. The difference is no longer subtle. This transmission line is not about reliability, it is all about serving large load customers. It is not for the public good, but for private for-profit corporate gain. There is a good reason the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, as well as some county chambers, sent a letter to the grid overlord gushing over how wonderful this transmission line would be for economic development in central Virginia. We can only hope that when it does come time for the actual land seizure, some brave landowners will take this to the Virginia Supreme court asking these same questions.
All of this begs another question: If the problem has changed this much, shouldn't the solution also be re-evaluated? Do we really need a 115 mile all greenfield solution ? Will anyone at the coming PJM TEAC meeting ask why, if the original 2029 urgency no longer holds, we are not revisiting the need, the scale, and the routing instead of simply sliding the in-service date?
For all you miserable landowners across central Virginia who have been sitting around waiting for the eminent-domain hammer to finally drop on your farms and woodlands: congratulations, you get to wait even longer. Valley Link’s latest gift is an 18-month slip in the in-service date, and, according to that fresh-faced independent analyst Mike Regan, there’s now real doubt the company will even manage a 2026 State Corporation Commission filing. Too many loose ends, apparently. Enjoy the extra months of limbo. The urgency was never quite as non-negotiable as the PR gurus made it sound.
Comments