WV utilities cling to coal-fired energy in new long-term plans amid power cost climb

Keep clinging to coal.

The companies contend that relying principally on coal-fired electricity is the optimal scenario through the lifespans of their coal-fired plants in West Virginia, which depends on coal-fired power more than any other state and has experienced among the most sharply rising electricity prices in the U.S. this century amid coal’s decline elsewhere.

The Integrated Resource Plans, known as IRPs, feature economic scenarios in which the companies account for potential future market circumstances and regulatory mandates to determine their optimal long-term energy portfolios.

APCo claims benefits would come from EPA rule delay

Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, both subsidiaries of Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power, outlined a “Delayed Environmental Scenario” in which rules strengthening coal-fired plant pollution standards finalized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2024 would be delayed by 10 years.

The companies’ plans predicted that scenario would provide the “optimal selection of resource additions” and “the lowest-cost path forward,” with cost advantages driven by continued operation of coal-fired units significantly decreasing the need for near-term capital investments. The utilities claim that by putting off major infrastructure expenses, the “Delayed Environmental” approach minimizes system costs while maintaining reliability.

Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power have repeatedly failed in recent years to meet electric reliability targets set by West Virginia utility regulators, with exceptionally poor metrics for power outage duration.

Appalachian Power’s West Virginia coverage area ranked in the highest 6% of all 967 listed utilities nationwide in outage minutes per year in 2023, according to a Gazette-Mail review of U.S. Energy Information Administration data.

The Trump administration has taken steps toward undoing the rules, but if the rules stay in effect, the companies said they would keep evaluating EPA compliance-focused moves for their coal-fired fleet, including one scenario including coal unit retirement by 2039 with 40% gas cofiring installed by 2030 and another including carbon capture and sequestration investment and coal unit retirement by 2032.

But the companies said they are not pursuing carbon capture and sequestration as a compliance option for coal operations because they determined the technology for it, unproven at utility scale, would not be deployable at that scale by 2032.

Under a Biden-era EPA rule finalized last year, existing coal-fired units intending to operate after Jan. 1, 2039 are to have an emission rate limit based on application of carbon capture and storage technology with 90% capture, which they must meet by 2032. Units that have committed to cease operations by Jan. 1, 2039, will have an emission rate limit based on 40% natural gas co-firing that they must meet by 2030.

But in an analysis under the Trump administration, the EPA concluded it was unlikely that infrastructure needed for carbon capture and storage can be deployed by the 2032 compliance date, setting up its proposal to repeal the requirements in its emission guidelines for long-term coal-fired units.

Carbon capture and sequestration is an umbrella term for technology that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and uses it to create products or store it permanently underground.

American Electric Power and other utilities have challenged the existing Biden-era rule. Appalachian Power has asserted the EPA’s current standards threaten its ability to deliver electricity by requiring use of unproven technology.

Appalachian Power’s 2,930-megawatt John E. Amos and 1,305-megawatt Mountaineer coal-fired plants in Putnam and Mason counties each have 2040 retirement dates, as does Wheeling Power’s coal-fired Mitchell plant units comprising 780 megawatts in Marshall County.

Under the 2032 coal-unit retirement scenario for Appalachian Power, roughly 1,200 megawatts of natural gas combined-cycle capacity would be added, expanding to around 2,500 megawatts by 2035 to meet expected capacity need. Solar resource additions would start in 2029, aligned with increasing demand for renewable energy certificates to satisfy targets set by Virginia, which shares jurisdiction over the utility.

Initial solar installations would total roughly 150 megawatts in 2029 and scale up to approximately 2,000 megawatts by 2035. Storage resources would be chosen starting in 2031 to satisfy storage targets set by Virginia.

Appalachian Power projected a capacity shortfall of 3,092 megawatts for its resource fleet beginning in 2030 that must be addressed, which it said would be driven mainly by the EPA’s power plant-focused rules finalized last year if those rules remain in effect. Wheeling Power projected a capacity shortfall would begin for it in 2026 and increase significantly in 2030, with the shortfall in the latter year driven by the EPA’s 2024 rules if still in effect.

One of Mitchell’s two units, Unit 1, could transition to cofiring with no zero-liquid discharge — an advanced wastewater treatment upgrade — until it retires by the end of 2034, with Unit 2 transitioning to that treatment technology in 2030, supporting capacity needs through the rest of the planning horizon that ends in 2035.

Following the retirement of Mitchell Unit 1, 1,617 megawatts of natural gas combined-cycle capacity would be added in 2035 to provide needed capacity, Wheeling Power indicated for that scenario.

Under the “Delayed Environmental” scenario, Wheeling Power’s two coal-fired units would keep operating through 2035. Solar would be selected starting in 2033, with around 250 megawatts of solar capacity chosen by 2035. That scenario, Wheeling Power indicated, would result in an increased reliance on energy market purchases compared with the modeled portfolio including earlier coal-fired unit retirements.

The PSC and consumer advocates have panned Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power for their collective approach to procuring coal. Consumer allies say the companies have unnecessarily put ratepayers on the hook for preventable cost increases through years of mismanaging their coal purchases.

Consumer advocacy group case testimony filed with the PSC in July presented evidence the companies’ ratepayers are liable for many millions of dollars more in losses than the $40.5 million they reported incurring through burning coal to address oversupply of the resource at their plants.

Cathy Kunkel of Charleston, energy consultant for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy market research nonprofit, testified the monthly net margin of the companies’ three coal-fired plants from March 2024 through February 2025 was negative $81.4 million. That means the cost of running the plants far exceeded the revenues the companies earned from selling the plants’ output into the energy market overseen by regional grid operator PJM Interconnection LLC.

West Virginia electric bills have ballooned as the state has clung to coal as the nation’s most reliant state on coal-fired electricity. State ratepayers faced a 90% climb in average residential electricity retail price from 2005 to 2020, according to Energy Information Administration data. Only Michigan had a greater increase by percentage.

Coal's time limited even in EPA rule delay scenario

In the companies’ “Delayed Environmental” scenario, all remaining coal generation would be retired in 2042.

Appalachian Power noted to the PSC that it’s required by Virginia to petition the Virginia State Corporation Commission for 600 megawatts of solar or wind resources by the end of 2030 and approval to construct or acquire 400 megawatts or more of energy storage capacity by the end of 2035.

Appalachian Power must implement energy efficiency measures that achieve total annual energy savings equivalent to at least 2% of the company’s 2019 retail sales by 2025, the company noted.

West Virginia became the first state in the U.S. to repeal a renewable energy standard in 2015, undoing the standard adopted in 2009.

FirstEnergy utilities plan new gas power amid coal reliance

Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s long-term plan consists of continuing to operate the Harrison and Fort Martin coal-fired plants through 2035, exploring the addition of a 1,200-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle unit around 2031 and adding 70 megawatts of utility-scale solar by 2028.

The utilities said their “preferred approach” would meet future customer needs and data center growth – including over 1 gigawatt of expected demand additions not modeled in the plan due to timing considerations – with the lowest projected costs over the next 10 years.

The FirstEnergy subsidiaries cautioned their forecast could change drastically due to the “significant” demand of most data centers.

FirstEnergy’s generation fleet includes over 3,600 megawatts of generation capacity primarily in West Virginia and Virginia.

That capacity includes two regulated coal-fired facilities in West Virginia owned by Mon Power, Harrison Power Station in Harrison County and Fort Martin Power Station in Monongalia County, three Mon Power solar sites placed into service between January 2024 and April 2025 at Fort Martin, the former Rivesville Power Station in Marion County and the Marlowe solar site in Berkeley County.

Mon Power and Potomac Edison forecast a capacity need starting in 2027. They warned that higher-than-expected increase in demand could limit available energy, possibly causing an energy shortfall.

The companies acknowledged they don’t have an energy efficiency plan or surcharge in effect in West Virginia. They have drawn criticism for not planning to include energy efficiency plans, something the company has attributed to West Virginia not requiring energy efficiency programs for its utility customers.

Mon Power and Potomac Edison contended there are regulatory risks for the Harrison and Fort Martin coal-fired plants that center on the potential need to address groundwater remediation if it’s required and securing a federal permit once details of the permitting application process are finalized by the EPA.

Mon Power and Potomac Edison noted that new coal and traditional nuclear plants are “no longer economically feasible,” attributing that to “evolving regulations and customer needs.” The companies said they are considering a natural gas combined-cycle addition in their place.

FirstEnergy last year abandoned its 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target, citing West Virginia’s nation-highest dependence on coal-fired generation.

Mon Power and Potomac Edison projected a cost of $1.77-1.92 billion to keep the Harrison and Fort Martin plants operating and environmentally compliant past 2040 through gas cofiring capability, nitrogen oxide emissions compliance and other requirements.

'[Not] serious about keeping rates low'

On Sept. 29, when asked for comments on the plans, West Virginia Coal Association president Chris Hamilton alluded to the Department of Energy pledging $625 million in funding to boost the declining U.S. coal industry.

“This is [a] once in a lifetime opportunity for coal and coal field communities and West Virginia,” Hamilton said in an email.

The Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia hailed the Mon Power and Potomac Edison plan to add a 1,200-megawatt natural gas combined-cycle unit, calling gas “the fuel of our future.”

“This announcement is a strong step toward putting more of West Virginia’s own natural gas resources to work here at home,” Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia president Charlie Burd said in a statement.

Robert Williams, director of the PSC’s Consumer Advocate Division charged with representing the interests of residential ratepayers, in an emailed response didn’t judge the merits of the plans, saying the division was reviewing the reports and may submit comments for the PSC’s consideration as it reviews the filings.

But environmental defenders view the companies’ filings as fresh evidence they plan to stick with a coal-fired status quo in which Mountain State energy bills have risen disproportionately sharply compared with most of the rest of the U.S.

“It looks like neither AEP nor FirstEnergy are serious about keeping rates low for consumers,” Jim Kotcon, chair of the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, said in an email, contending that the companies didn’t properly account for risks from investing in more fossil fuels in their planning.

“AEP is planning to profit off potential rollbacks to crucial environmental regulations that protect communities from the detrimental public health and safety impacts of coal,” Mary-Stuart Torbeck, a Virginia senior organizer for the Sierra Club, said in a statement.