Transmission CPCNs in Virginia: “Consideration” Means Reflection, Not Substantial-Accord Findings; Staff Verification Suffices Under Code § 56-46.1(B)

Lansdowne Conservancy v. SCCC, Supreme Court of Virginia (Feb. 19, 2026) (Chafin, J.)

I. Introduction

This decision arises from consolidated appeals of State Corporation Commission (“Commission”) orders granting VEPCO certificates of public convenience and necessity (“CPCNs”) for two high-voltage transmission projects in Loudoun County. The Aspen-Golden Project was justified as necessary to prevent projected violations of mandatory reliability standards (NERC-related thermal overloads forecast for summer 2028), while the Apollo-Twin Creeks Project would serve three data center customers and support regional reliability/load growth.

Loudoun County and the Lansdowne Conservancy objected primarily to the visual and community impacts of overhead lines near Route 7 and within sight of historic Belmont Manor. They pressed for partial undergrounding via the UHP—estimated at roughly $1.112 billion and about $423 million more than VEPCO’s overhead plan—and urged reliance on the County’s comprehensive plan discouraging new overhead lines along major roadways where undergrounding is possible.

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, emphasizing deference to Commission factfinding, confirming the adequacy of staff verification of technical need, clarifying what it means for the Commission to “consider” local comprehensive plans, and endorsing the Commission’s feasibility-based rejection of undergrounding under Code § 56-46.1(B).

II. Summary of the Opinion

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Role

• BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 289 Va. 375 (2015)
  Provided the controlling framework for Commission deference (“broad, general and extensive powers”), the balancing of “multitude of factors” in transmission approvals, and the meaning of “minimize” as not requiring elimination of all impacts. The Court used BASF to validate the Commission’s balancing approach under Code § 56-46.1(B), especially where undergrounding might reduce visual impacts but is infeasible.
• Office of the Att'y Gen. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 288 Va. 183 (2014)
  Cited via BASF for the proposition that the Constitution and statutes give the Commission expansive regulatory authority—supporting the Court’s reluctance to second-guess technical and policy judgments entrusted to the Commission.
• Appalachian Voices v. State Corp. Comm'n, 277 Va. 509 (2009)
  Used for two connected propositions: Commission decisions are “entitled to the respect due judgments of a tribunal informed by experience,” and appellate courts will not disturb Commission analyses grounded in correct legal principles. This undergirded affirmance of the Commission’s feasibility findings and route selection.
• West Virginia v. State Corp. Comm'n, 304 Va. 148 (2025)
  Served as the principal interpretive precedent on what “consider” means when the General Assembly directs the Commission to consider a factor: no requirement for specific findings; the Commission must “reflect” or “think about” the factor with care. This case was decisive in rejecting Loudoun County’s attempt to impose a “substantial accord” analysis for the comprehensive plan. West Virginia also supplied the abuse-of-discretion framework for reviewing the Commission’s refusal to add late-proposed conditions.
• Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 301 Va. 257 (2022)
  Reinforced the standard that courts may not substitute judgment for the Commission on matters within its province and may not overturn factfinding unless contrary to evidence or unsupported by evidence—central to affirming feasibility and timing determinations about underground construction.
• Board of Supervisors v. Appalachian Power Co., 216 Va. 93 (1975)
  The foundational “balancing” case: the Commission must weigh adverse impacts alongside traditional considerations and decide what serves the “total public interest.” The Court invoked this lineage (including via BASF) to validate the Commission’s choice of an overhead route that minimized impacts “to the greatest extent reasonably practicable” given reliability deadlines and engineering constraints.
• Piedmont Env't Council v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 278 Va. 553 (2009)
  Cited for technical background (NERC, PJM) and for the point that Commission staff sometimes use independent consultants to verify technical claims—but Code § 56-46.1(B) does not require that step. This supported the Court’s conclusion that staff verification in the record satisfied the statutory “verify” requirement.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of review: strong deference to Commission factfinding

The Court reaffirmed that Commission decisions arrive with a “presumption of correctness” and are respected as judgments of a specialized tribunal. While legal questions are reviewed de novo, the Court will not disturb Commission fact determinations unless unsupported by evidence, and it will not disturb analyses applying correct legal principles. This framing mattered because the appeal largely sought to relitigate feasibility, timing, and balancing judgments rather than identify a legal error.

2. “Verify” under Code § 56-46.1(B): staff confirmation can satisfy the statute

The appellants argued that the Commission failed to verify “load flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs” supporting the Aspen-Golden Project and its overhead method of installation. The Court rejected this as contrary to the record: staff reports expressly stated they verified PJM models, confirmed projected NERC reliability violations absent the project, and verified the project resolves those violations. The Court added an important doctrinal clarification:

Practically, the Court treated the staff’s verification statements (and the lack of meaningful challenge during cross-examination) as adequate proof of statutory compliance.

3. Undergrounding under Code § 56-46.1(B): “consider” costs/benefits and impediments, but feasibility governs

Upon a county’s request, the Commission must consider: (a) costs and economic benefits of underground placement, and (b) impediments to timely construction. The Court concluded the Commission did so and reasonably rejected undergrounding based on evidence of:

• Cost escalation: UHP estimated at roughly $423 million above VEPCO’s overhead plan, with testimony that costs could exceed even that estimate.
• Engineering and supply constraints: 500 kV undergrounding is rare; specialized materials, crews, and equipment may not be readily available.
• Geology and constructability: shallow diabase rock and the need to relocate existing utilities would slow construction.
• Schedule risk tied to reliability: completion by summer 2028 was central to preventing projected thermal overloads and potential regional service interruptions.

The Court’s reasoning effectively makes timely reliability compliance a powerful “public interest” weight in the balancing analysis, and it authorizes the Commission to reject undergrounding where schedule risk undermines the project’s reliability purpose.

4. The UHP: the Commission may treat proposal incompleteness as a timing impediment

A key appellate claim was that the Commission “impermissibly required” appellants to submit a fully developed underground proposal “sufficient to justify the issuance of a CPCN.” The Court’s analysis reframed the issue: the hearing examiner’s critique of UHP deficiencies (insufficient environmental impact and environmental justice analyses; unclear route and transition stations; uncertain start/end points; possible crossings under planned homes, streams, wetlands, a stormwater pond, and a historic church/cemetery) was relevant because those deficiencies would take time to fix—making them “impediments to timely construction” under Code § 56-46.1(B).

In effect, the Court endorsed a practical evidentiary principle: an alternative underground plan can be rejected as infeasible if it is too underdeveloped to be built on the required reliability timeline, even if the alternative is offered to inform “consideration” rather than as a CPCN application.

5. Easements and “minimization”: Commission may balance adverse effects where easement text allows utilities

The Court rejected the argument that alleged Belmont Scenic Viewshed Easement violations showed failure to minimize impacts under Code § 56-46.1(B). The Commission considered the impacts, recognized that monopoles would likely be in the easement area, and noted the easement’s language allowed public utilities within the viewshed. The Commission then balanced those harms against other route factors and still found Route 1AA optimal.

The Court also refused to consider a broader “as a matter of law” argument that easement violations legally barred the route, because it fell outside the assignment of error and was not preserved before the Commission (Rule 5:21(a)(7)).

6. Local comprehensive plans: “give consideration” is not “substantial accord,” and § 56-46.1(F) preempts § 15.2-2232 review

The County argued the Commission had to decide whether the line was in “substantial accord” with the comprehensive plan under Code § 15.2-2232. The Court made two clarifications with significant statewide effect:

• Scope of duty: Under Code § 56-46.1(A), the Commission must “receive and give consideration to” local comprehensive plans. Citing West Virginia, “consider” requires reflection, not specific findings (and thus does not compel a “substantial accord” determination).
• Preemption/deeming clause: Code § 56-46.1(F) expressly provides that Commission approval of a transmission line “shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of [Code] § 15.2-2232 and local zoning ordinances.” Therefore, a separate § 15.2-2232 “substantial accord” analysis is eliminated for Commission-approved transmission lines.

The Court thus cemented a division of labor: the Commission must consider plans as policy inputs, but Commission CPCN approval supplies the operative land-use conformity for the transmission line under the statute.

7. Late-proposed mitigation conditions: evidentiary support matters

The Conservancy sought conditions (no collocation of other lines in the right-of-way, vegetation screening, using only necessary right-of-way, keeping the record open for enforcement). Because these were raised only after the hearing examiner’s report and were not supported by record evidence or specifics on effectiveness, the Court held the Commission did not abuse its discretion in declining them, citing West Virginia.

8. Apollo-Twin Creeks: collateral challenge falls with the primary claim

The attack on Apollo-Twin Creeks hinged on accommodating undergrounding of Aspen-Golden during collocation. Once overhead Aspen-Golden was affirmed, the contingent challenge lost its basis.

C. Impact

• Clearer administrative law rule for SCC transmission cases: “Consideration” duties (e.g., comprehensive plans; undergrounding factors) are satisfied by demonstrated engagement and reasoning, not by formalized findings unless the statute demands them.
• Strengthened effect of Code § 56-46.1(F): Localities cannot require a separate “substantial accord” determination under Code § 15.2-2232 for Commission-approved transmission lines; disputes must be argued within the Commission’s CPCN framework (route minimization, feasibility, public interest).
• Verification practice: The Commission can rely on staff verification of PJM/NERC-related modeling to satisfy Code § 56-46.1(B), without an independent consultant, so long as the record shows verification occurred.
• Undergrounding advocacy becomes more exacting: Counties requesting undergrounding should expect feasibility to be evaluated against reliability deadlines; alternative proposals that are under-specified (route certainty, transitions, environmental and environmental justice analysis) may be treated as schedule impediments and rejected.
• Procedure and preservation: Parties must raise legal theories within assignments of error and preserve them before the Commission; mitigation conditions should be supported with evidence during the evidentiary phase, not introduced after the examiner’s report.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity): The Commission’s authorization for a utility project, reflecting a determination that the project is needed and that the chosen route/method appropriately balances impacts and public interest.
• Load flow modeling / contingency analyses: Engineering simulations predicting how electricity flows on the grid under normal and “what-if” failure scenarios (e.g., a line or transformer outage). They help show whether equipment would overload.
• NERC reliability standards and “thermal overloads”: NERC sets mandatory reliability rules. A “thermal overload” means equipment would carry more current than it is rated for, risking damage and outages.
• PJM: The regional grid operator coordinating wholesale transmission across multiple states, including most of Virginia; its models are commonly used to assess reliability needs.
• “Verify” vs. “prove”: Code § 56-46.1(B) requires the Commission to verify technical justification; here, staff independently checked and confirmed the modeling conclusions.
• Viewshed easement: A property interest designed to protect specified views (here, the view of Belmont Manor from Route 7). The easement’s text matters; if it allows public utility structures, impacts may still be lawful even if visually significant.
• Comprehensive plan and “substantial accord”: Local plans guide development policy; Code § 15.2-2232 often requires local planning commission approval for “substantial accord.” But for Commission-approved transmission lines, Code § 56-46.1(F) deems those requirements satisfied.
• Environmental justice analysis (in this context): Evaluation of whether project burdens disproportionately affect certain communities. The Commission treated missing analysis in the UHP as a practical barrier to timely approval/construction.
• Abuse of discretion: A deferential review standard—an appellate court will uphold the Commission unless its decision was unreasonable or arbitrary given the record.

V. Conclusion

Lansdowne Conservancy v. SCCC is a consequential affirmation of Commission authority and discretion in high-voltage transmission CPCNs under Code § 56-46.1. The Court held that staff verification can satisfy the statutory “verify” obligation, that undergrounding must be considered but may be rejected where cost, engineering constraints, and—most importantly—reliability-driven timelines make it infeasible, and that the Commission’s obligation to “consider” local comprehensive plans does not require “substantial accord” findings. By emphasizing Code § 56-46.1(F)’s deeming clause, the Court also reinforced that Commission approval supplies statutory compliance with local planning/zoning requirements for the transmission line—channeling land-use objections into the Commission’s balancing framework rather than separate local conformity proceedings.