MORGANTOWN – Various parties have filed testimony with the Public Service Commission for and against Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s proposed new gas-fired power plant at Fort Martin – the Maidsville Energy Center.
Here is an overview of the testimony, which spans hundreds of pages.
David Dismukes is a Louisiana-based consulted economist retained by the PSC’s Consumer Advocate Division.
“I recommend that the commission carefully consider the market risks associated with building excess generation capacity,” he said. Operating with excess capacity subjects ratepayers to wholesale market volatility, as the power is fed into the PJM regional grid. “ When off-system revenues fall short of projections under these market conditions, the result is higher costs that fall entirely onto ratepayers, not shareholders.”
Dismukes refers to an issued raised in letters of opposition to the project: that growing power demand stems from data center growth in other states. “I recommend that the commission recognize behind-the-meter generation as the preferred approach for meeting the electricity demands of new large load customers like data centers, and encourage its adoption as an alternative to utility owned generation that transfers construction and market risks onto existing ratepayers.”
Dismukes said that the FirstEnergy sisters’ projected load growth is driven almost entirely by a small number of data center customers. State legislation and the federal Ratepayer Protection Pledge “reflect a clear policy consensus that the costs and risks of powering data centers should be borne by the data centers themselves.” And ratepayers should be protected from the risks.
He notes that in 2025, the companies reported 298 megawatts of excess capacity. But they are projecting to have a shortfall of 116 MW starting in 2029, which is expected to increase to 1,083 MW by 2045.
Testimony of Cathy Kunkel
Cathy Kunkel, an independent consultant with Kunkel Energy Research, and a consultant with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, testified on behalf of West Virginia Citizen Action Group, Solar United Neighbors, and Energy Efficient West Virginia.
She said, “I find that prospective data center load is the primary reason for the significant load growth that the companies are projecting in this proceeding. If that data center load does not materialize, the companies’ own projections show a much smaller energy and capacity shortfall, which would not justify the addition of 1200 MW combined cycle gas plant.”
The risk that the data center load will not materialize does not demonstrate the need for the project, she said.
Like Dismukes, Kunkel said the Maidsville Eenrgy Center project would expose existing customers to unnecessary financial risks if the data center load doesn’t materialize and ratepayers have to bear the cost of excess power generation.
“Any approval of the companies’ application,” she said, “should impose conditions to protect non-data center customers and ensure that the data center customers pay their proportionate share of the costs incurred to serve them.”
She recommends the PSC deny approval of the project, but if it approves, data centers should be required to contract to cover its share of power costs, and a Generation Projects Surcharge which would take effect before the plant is in service should be denied or capped.
Stephen J. Baron, a consultant speaking for the West Virginia Energy Users Group, a group of large industrial customers of the companies, echoed their concerns and recommendations. The Sierra Club also echoed those thoughts, but added that the three solar projects included in the proposal should begin as soon as possible.
Affiliated Construction Trades
On the positive side, Justin Williams, director of the Affiliated Construction Trades – a division of the West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO – spoke of the economic benefits of the project.
The project will employ local workers paid prevailing wages and fringe benefits, he said.
“As with other large electric generation projects, the anticipated economic impact of this Project is substantial,” he said. The $2.876 billion construction impact includes $771.4 million in labor income and an average of 2,000 union construction jobs per year. “This does not even account for the substantial economic impact and good-paying local jobs that will accompany the ongoing operations of the project.”
Williams said, “When local workers are given the opportunity to complete local work, it helps to ensure the overall well-being and success of local workers and trades. … Such opportunities help to retain our local workers and ensure that they are well-prepared for future projects, as well as improving the likelihood of future projects coming to the state.”
The United Mine Workers of America and the West Virginia Coal Association both opined that the plant could have an impact on mining jobs and the jobs at the companies coal-fired plants – one on the Fort Martin site in Maidsville and one in Harrison County. [FirstEnergy has said it plans to keep both plants open at least through 2035.]
PSC staff
Finally, from a more objective perspective,two PSC staff members provided testimony.
Daniel Egnatoff provides engineering perspective. He notes that a future capacity shortfall is not problematic in itself because the companies can buy capacity from PJM. But those poses two risks.
One is that capacity prices are likely to increase, given resource adequacy concerns. That will affect ratepayers.
And two, “In the event that not enough capacity is present in the PJM footprint to supply its members, utilities that lack the ability to self-supply may find themselves unable to secure capacity at any cost, forcing them to shed load. This would constitute PIM-wide emergency and is unlikely in my opinion, but it is a possible outcome.”
So, on the positive side, building the plant would insulate the companies from supply issues in the PJM market and reduce their reliance on PJM to serve their customer load during peak demand.
“The Companies would also be capable of selling this capacity into the PJM market for profit,” he said. If capacity prices do rise as predicted, the financial windfall could be significant.” However, if capacity prices fall dramatically, the project may not generate the returns they expect.
Egnatoff points out that the companies’ load forecast includes the addition of a single large-load customer — a data center. He said this customer is initially projected at 100 MW in 2028, increasing to 256 MW in 2029, 472 MW in 2031, 904 MW in 2032, and finally 1,012 MW in 2033 through the end of the forecast period.
He said the project will remain useful even if the data center load doesn’t meet the the companies’ expectations. “Capacity constraints in both the companies and PJM are widely acknowledged. Increasing in-state generation capacity positions both the companies and West Virginia to benefit.”
Egnatoff said that at the time of his testimony there were 184 letters of protest, but they were nearly all identical form letters raising the same few objections – including the data center. As of Monday, the count had reached 513 – but 323 were a single batch of the same form letter.
He recommended that the PSC approve the project, with a few technical conditions required.
Utilities analyst Geoffrey Cooke recommended that the PSC not approve the requested Generation Projects Surcharge because it will apply to existing ratepayers but not future ratepayers.
We asked FirstEnergy about the data center issue. It said, “Data centers are part of the growth we’re seeing, but this plant is designed to serve everyone.”
The Maidsville Energy Center is a proposed new 1,200 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine plant.
The FirstEnergy sisters estimate that the gas-fired plant will cost $2.48 billion. The three proposed solar sites – at Valley Point near Albright; Davis, adjacent to the town; and Wylie Ridge near Weirton – will cost $182 million.
The companies are seeking approval of a Generation Projects Surcharge to become effective on the first day of the month following the conclusion of the PSC proceeding, which would remain in effect until each asset is placed in service. They estimate that the initial surcharge will result in a rate increase for residential customers of $1.18 per month or 0.9%.
An in-person and virtual public comment hearing for the project is set for set for 5:30 p.m. July 15. An evidentiary hearing is set to commence on July 16.
