In one of two opinions issued today, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms the State Corporation Commission’s approval of two VEPCO transmission line projects in Loudoun.
The two projects at issue—the Aspen-Golden Project and the Apollo-Twin Creeks Project—were proposed by VEPCO in 2024 to address growing electricity demands in and around “Data Center Alley,” an area of eastern Loudoun County with an exceptionally high concentration of data centers. The Aspen-Golden Project involves approximately nine miles of transmission lines and associated substations, with a portion running alongside Route 7 through the Lansdowne community. VEPCO proposed constructing the lines overhead using steel monopoles up to 195 feet tall. The project was driven by the need to resolve several violations of reliability standards. Specifically, thermal overloads on monitored facilities were anticipated to occur in summer 2028 that could damage electrical infrastructure and cause widespread service interruptions throughout the region.
The Apollo-Twin Creeks Project is a smaller companion project involving approximately 1.9 miles of lines and several substations, designed to serve three data center customers and support overall load growth. About half of its lines would be placed alongside the Aspen-Golden lines.
The core dispute centered on whether VEPCO should be required to construct approximately three miles of the Aspen-Golden transmission lines underground rather than. Loudoun County and the Lansdowne Conservancy (a property owners association) pushed hard for underground construction. The Conservancy independently hired an engineering firm to develop a proposal, which envisioned placing three miles of the Aspen-Golden lines underground at a cost that was roughly $423 million more than VEPCO’s overhead plan.
The Commission, adopting its hearing examiner’s 175-page report, rejected underground construction as infeasible due to substantially higher costs, significant engineering challenges, the unprecedented scope of such an underground project in the U.S., and critically, the tight timeline. The project had to be completed by summer 2028 to resolve the anticipated reliability standard violations that could cause thermal overloads and widespread power outages. The Commission permitted VEPCO’s proposals for both projects and declined to impose additional visual mitigation conditions that the Conservancy had requested. The County and Conservancy appealed on multiple grounds, but the Court systematically rejected each of their arguments on appeal.
First, appellants argued that the Commission failed to verify the load flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs as required by Code § 56-46.1(B). The Court found that this argument was unsupported by the record, pointing to the staff report’s express confirmation that it had verified power flow models and confirmed both the projected violations and the project’s ability to resolve them. The Court noted that while the Commission’s staff had sometimes engaged independent consultants for verification in other cases, the statute does not require it.
Second, on the underground construction issue, the Court found that the Commission fully considered and reasonably rejected underground placement, supported by record evidence of substantially higher costs, significant engineering challenges, the unprecedented nature of the undertaking, and the critical time constraints imposed by the 2028 deadline. The Court also upheld the rejection of the underground construction proposal specifically, agreeing that its analytical deficiencies constituted impediments to timely construction under the express language of Code § 56-46.1(B).
Third, appellants argued that the placement of overhead lines and at least two monopoles within an easement area, which existed to preserve an unobstructed view of the historic Belmont Manor House from Route 7, meant that the project failed to minimize adverse impacts as required by statute. The Court found that the Commission properly weighed these impacts against other factors and concluded VEPCO’s proposed route was optimal overall, noting that the easement’s own language permitted public utility construction. The Court also declined to consider appellants’ separate argument that the easement violations precluded overhead construction “as a matter of law,” finding it fell outside the scope of their assignment of error and was not raised before the Commission.
Fourth, the Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the Commission was required to analyze whether the construction was in “substantial accord” with the County’s comprehensive plan pursuant to Code § 15.2-2232. The Court explained that when the General Assembly directs the Commission to “consider” a factor, it need only reflect on it with a degree of care and not make specific findings. The Court further held that Code § 56-46.1(F) independently eliminates any need for a separate substantial accord analysis, since Commission approval of a transmission line is deemed to satisfy both Code § 15.2-2232 and local zoning ordinances.
Fifth, on adverse impacts more broadly, the Court reiterated that the statutory “minimize” standard does not require the elimination of all impacts, and that the Commission must balance adverse impacts against other factors to determine what best serves the “total public interest.” The record showed that VEPCO’s proposed route was designed to align with existing roadways; pass through commercial and industrial areas; avoid residential communities, wetlands, creeks, ponds, and forested areas; and minimize impacts on an easement and a nearby hospital helipad. The Commission’s refusal to impose the Conservancy’s additional conditions was reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld, given that the conditions were unsupported by any evidence.
Finally, the Court dispatched the Apollo-Twin Creeks challenge, noting it was entirely contingent on the appellants’ success in overturning the Aspen-Golden overhead approval. Having affirmed that decision, the foundation for the Apollo-Twin Creeks argument collapsed, and the Court found no error in the Commission’s approval of those lines without provisions for accommodating underground Aspen-Golden construction.
A Virginia Appellate Law Blog 