Laws, arguments, and where to file — compiled for affected Virginia counties
Some posts have pointed to Virginia Code § 24.2-684.1 as "how to ban data centers by law at a county level." That's not quite what that statute does — it only covers the paperwork rules for filing a referendum petition, and it only applies if a referendum on that topic is already legally authorized somewhere else. Virginia doesn't generally allow citizen referendums to block zoning or utility projects, so a petition built on this citation alone likely wouldn't hold up.
What actually works instead — and it's already in motion elsewhere:
P.O. Box 1197, Richmond, VA 23218
(804) 371-9733
Reference: Joshua Falls–Yeat 765kV Transmission Line Project — Valley Link Transmission LLC
Docket ER26-1563
Or mail: FERC, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
If Valley Link contacts you about surveying your land: you do not have to consent. They have no legal right to enter your property before a certificate is granted. Put your objection in writing and keep a copy.
If your land — or land near the likely route — has a Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) open-space easement, that may be one of the strongest protections available under current Virginia law.
A VOF easement isn't a preference or a suggestion — it's a recorded property interest held by a body politic of the Commonwealth of Virginia under the Virginia Open-Space Land Act (Va. Code § 10.1-1700 et seq.). It runs with the land in perpetuity. Impairing or condemning through a VOF easement generally requires either VOF's consent or a specific finding that the taking is necessary and that no feasible alternative route exists — a materially higher bar than ordinary eminent domain.
Valley Link's own published routing criteria confirm conservation easements are a specific factor in their route selection: "Community and Property Impacts: proximity to established residences, visual impacts, effects on agricultural operations, and presence of conservation easements or other encumbered properties."
What this means practically:
The Court ruled that "a public benefit is not the same thing as a public use," and that a private commercial business cannot condemn property simply because its project produces incidental public benefits. This is the strongest single precedent available — a 765kV line serving Northern Virginia data centers, which local residents can't even connect to, is a hard fit for "public use."
The U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed government takings for private economic development. It was hugely controversial nationally, and Virginia's own constitution was later amended specifically to prevent Kelo-style takings here.
A utility can only exercise eminent domain after receiving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the SCC. Valley Link does not have one yet.
A CPCN legally requires proof of both public use and public necessity. Necessity is supposed to rest on real, firm, quantifiable demand — not projected or speculative future demand. Much of the "need" for this line is tied to data center projects that are themselves still in zoning, permitting, or land-assembly stages — not built, not operating, and in some cases not even approved. That raises a fair question: can a line be "necessary" today for demand that doesn't concretely exist yet? This is a legal theory worth raising with the SCC and refining with an attorney — it has not been tested in this exact form in a Virginia case yet, so it should be framed as an argument to make, not a settled rule.
Strengthened property owner protections and notice requirements in condemnation proceedings.
The general body of Virginia condemnation procedure law. Worth a full attorney review once any CPCN application is actually filed.
Governs FERC's authority and rehearing process — this is the statute under the currently open docket (ER26-1563) you can still comment on.
If the transmission corridor crosses wetlands or perennial streams (likely, on a 115-mile route), an Army Corps of Engineers permit and public comment period is required. This is a separate point of leverage from the SCC fight.
Where federal permits are triggered, NEPA can require a full Environmental Impact Statement rather than a lighter Environmental Assessment, given the scale of this project.
Passed by Virginia voters specifically in response to Kelo. Requires that any taking serve an actual public use, not a private benefit dressed up as one, and puts the burden of proof on the entity trying to take the land — not on the property owner.
Private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Applies to any federally-licensed taking.
No state may deprive any person of property without due process of law. This is the federal backstop under Virginia's own protections — if the process fails to give property owners real notice and a real chance to be heard, that's a due process concern independent of state law.