More than 70 residents packed a special Hardy County Commission meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 15, to deliver a largely unified message about the proposed Valley North transmission project: oppose it.
Commissioners listened but took no action at the meeting which was billed as informational only for taking public input. It drew landowners, farmers, representatives of local government and organizations, and residents of communities that could be directly impacted by the proposed 765-kilovolt transmission line. Speaker after speaker raised concerns about private property, agriculture, costs, and the long-term environmental, health, and safety effects of another major transmission corridor through the county.
Betsy Orndoff-Sayers, representing the Town of Wardensville, said she had requested to address the Commission at an earlier meeting this month about the project and reminded Commissioners that she had previously shared with them a resolution that was adopted by the Wardensville Town Council formally opposing Valley North. She asked that the Commission take its own public position.
“The Valley North project is going to do nothing for the folks in this area,” she said.
“We’re not getting better service. We’re not getting anything,” she continued. “The thing we’re going to get is an increased utility bill.”
“I think as elected officials, it’s important for the public to know where we stand,”
Orndoff-Sayers added as she asked the Commission to take a position at its next meeting. “If we’re for something, we stand for it. If we’re opposed, we stand against it.”
George Leatherman followed by presenting Commissioners with a resolution adopted Aug. 11 by the Potomac Valley Conservation District, which represents Hardy, Hampshire, Grant, Mineral and Pendleton counties. The resolution opposes Valley North and asks the West Virginia Public Service Commission to deny an eventual application for the project. Leatherman submitted the resolution to the Commission as part of the public record.
Valley North is a proposed approximately 260-mile, 765-kV transmission line running from Putnam County, W.Va., to Frederick County, Md. Valley Link Transmission, the project’s developer, says the line is needed to strengthen the regional electric grid and accommodate rapidly growing demand.
The project also calls for a new 765-kV facility known as Welton Spring in Hardy County.
Though no final transmission route has been selected, Valley Link says it is continuing to evaluate study segments and expects to identify proposed and alternate routes before seeking regulatory approval in 2027.
PJM, the regional grid operator that selected the project, has cited rapidly increasing electricity demand in eastern portions of its system, including significant data-center-driven growth in Virginia, among the pressures requiring major new transmission investment.
Linda Peters of Baker attempted to put the potential Hardy County footprint into perspective.
Using a slide presentation, she said 231 parcels owned by 199 landowners currently fall within the project’s study area, representing more than 1,400 acres of potential right-of-way. Peters said approximately 60 parcels in Old Fields, 60 in Ashton Woods, and 39 in Rio are included in the study area, along with properties around Bean Settlement, River Road and Baker.
Peters said the proposed substation could end up being one of the largest in the U.S. She also showed a video by documentarian Ken Burns who urged opposition to the project and protection of the culturally, agriculturally, and historically significant Shenandoah Valley.
Peters argued that the proposed Welton Spring facility would primarily serve the high-voltage transmission system rather than Hardy County’s local electrical distribution network.
Several residents of Ashton Woods put a more personal face on those maps.
Dave Gracie said he purchased property there Dec. 31 with plans to build the home where he expects to retire within the next several years. Dave Gracie said he purchased property there Dec. 31 with plans to build the home where he expects to retire within the next several years.
He has already invested tens of thousands of dollars installing a well, septic system and electricity, grading the site and pouring a foundation. One of Valley Link’s study segments crosses his property. One of Valley Link’s study segments crosses his property.
“This isn’t a hypothetical concern for me,” Gracie said.
“Who bears the cost? Who bears the cost?” he asked Commissioners. “I’m going to bear the cost and the loss of my land.”
Gracie asked the Commission to oppose the current proposal and called for greater study of its potential effects on existing homes, homes under construction, residential communities, farms and businesses.
Marian Hamby, another Ashton Woods resident and a real estate broker, cited data from the National Association of Realtors, cited data from the National Association of Realtors and outlined potential economic loss for existing homeowners. She said home values decline by 17 percent for homes within 1,000 feet of a power line, while those adjacent can see as much as a 45 percent loss in value. She, too, urged the Commission to oppose the project, as did neighbor Mark Stuck.
Notably, one of the landowners potentially most affected by Valley North offered a markedly different assessment.
Old Fields attorney and landowner Dave Judy said seven existing power lines already cross his property, and the proposed Welton Spring facility would actually be located on his land, taking anywhere from 50 to 90 acres. In total he said the project will take 500 acres of his land.
Judy said decades of dealing with transmission lines, easements, government acquisition and condemnation disputes have convinced him that landowners need to prepare for the possibility that Valley North will ultimately be built.
Judy pointed to federal and state energy policies, Presidential Executive Orders, PJM’s approval of the project, and growing government emphasis on expanding electrical generation and transmission. While others urged Commissioners to help stop Valley North, Judy questioned how much effect local resolutions ultimately would have if state and federal regulators determine the project is necessary.
His advice to affected landowners was to research, prepare, hire their own appraisers and negotiate aggressively to protect both the value and future use of their property.
“The only way you’re going to fight back in this is to get paid, because I’m telling you it’s coming,” he said.
Judy said FirstEnergy already holds an option on his Old Fields property and that he was told recently that the company expects to exercise it in 2027.
He also challenged assertions that Welton Spring would simply move 765-kV electricity through Hardy County without connecting to existing infrastructure. Judy said his frequent conversations with FirstEnergy indicate future plans could ultimately include connecting an existing 138-kV line running from the Moorefield area toward New Creek to the facility and accommodating additional transmission infrastructure.
Current PJM planning documents describe Welton Spring as a 765-kV switchyard connecting portions of the Valley North project, but do not identify such a connection to the existing 138-kV system.
Judy’s argument was not that property owners should simply accept whatever the utilities offer. He described his own successful litigation against the state over limestone removed from property for a highway project as an example of forcing government or developers to adequately compensate landowners.
His message was that residents should concentrate their fight where they have leverage.
Later, Toni Young widened that question from individual landowners to Hardy County itself.
Young said major energy and development decisions are often made at the state level, leaving counties to determine how to protect residents and ensure that local communities receive meaningful benefits from projects affecting them.
“The challenge is, how do we do what we need to do for local landowners?” Young said.
“How do we preserve and protect the people here?”
She said Hardy County should be thinking beyond whether Valley North can be stopped and begin considering what its long-term strategy would be if large-scale energy development comes.
“It’s not the ‘not do it.’ It’s ‘what’s our plan’?” Young said. “What is our plan with the money? What is our plan for our schools?”
That question hung over a meeting where opposition to Valley North was otherwise nearly unanimous.
Hardy County is hardly alone in confronting the project. At least 13 West Virginia County Commissions along the project’s study area had formally opposed Valley North by August, according to published reports.
Hardy County, as of this publication, has not.
One of the evening’s last speakers, addressing the Commission, said, “You have the power to do what is right for us in our county. There’s a reason why other counties, and even Virginia counties, are protesting against these lines and data centers.” She ended by quoting a version of what is often shared as Cree Indian Prophecy, “Only once the last tree has been cut, the last river poisoned, and the last fish caught, will we realize we cannot eat money.”
Commission President Steven Schetrom emphasized at the end of the meeting that the special session had been called to hear from the public, not to make a decision. He thanked residents for attending and participating.
The Commission did not indicate when, or whether, it will take a formal position.
