July 17, 2026 - West Virginians from across the state urged regulators Wednesday to reject FirstEnergy's proposal to build a $2.48 billion natural gas power plant at the Fort Martin site in Monongalia County, arguing the project would saddle customers with higher electric bills while primarily serving speculative future data centers.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) held a public comment hearing on Mon Power and Potomac Edison's application to construct a 1,200-megawatt combined-cycle natural gas plant alongside 70 megawatts of solar generation. According to the application, the utilities say the project is needed to address an anticipated capacity shortfall beginning in 2029.

Nearly every speaker opposed the proposal, though their reasons varied. Environmental advocates, consumer advocates and local residents warned of rising electric bills, financial risks and increased pollution, while coal miners and labor representatives argued the project would threaten thousands of mining jobs and accelerate the retirement of existing coal-fired power plants.

PSC Chair Charlotte Lane opened the hearing by noting the commission will consider the utilities' request for a certificate of convenience and necessity and a generation project surcharge. A decision is due by March 20, 2027.

A recurring concern throughout the evening was who would ultimately pay for the project, with several speakers arguing that Mon Power's projected electricity demand is driven largely by anticipated data center development rather than existing residential or commercial customers. They questioned whether West Virginia ratepayers should finance infrastructure intended to serve companies that have not yet committed to locating in the state.

"If the power is for a speculative data center, then that data center should pay — not us," Monongalia County resident Lisa DiBartolomeo told commissioners.

Marley Omensetter, a volunteer with the West Virginia Utility Impact Project, echoed that concern.

"Data centers should be paying for their own energy use and they should also be paying for the costs associated with new infrastructure," Omensetter said.

Multiple speakers also criticized the utilities' request for abandonment authority, which would allow the companies to recover costs from customers even if the project is never completed or ultimately fails to operate as intended.

Jim Kotcon, chair of the Morgantown Green Team, said the provision "eliminates any incentive for prudent cost control" and argued that customers would bear the financial risks while shareholders remained protected.

Ashley Ramston, founder of the West Virginia Utility Impact Project, presented survey data her organization collected from residents across all 65 counties, describing widespread financial hardship tied to rising utility costs.

According to Ramston, nearly one in five respondents reported utility bills increasing by more than 25%, 45% had received shutoff notices, and nearly 30% had experienced utility disconnections.

"You're asking us to subsidize a multi-billion-dollar industry for another multi-billion-dollar industry," Ramston said. "West Virginians are no longer willing to quietly absorb your decisions."

Many speakers described choosing between paying utility bills and purchasing food or medication.

Barbara Evans Fleischauer, whose family has lived near the Fort Martin plant for generations, argued that ordinary residents should not bear the costs of infrastructure intended to support artificial intelligence development.

"West Virginia residential consumers did not ask for or demand AI," Fleischauer said. "We resent being forced into becoming cash cows for giant multinational corporations."

Environmental concerns also featured prominently during the hearing.

Residents who live near the Fort Martin site warned of potential health impacts from additional air pollution and questioned the assumptions underlying the utilities' demand forecasts.

"There is too much uncertainty, too much risk, too much potential harm to our health and finances to allow this project to go forward," one resident said.

Others urged the commission to prioritize energy efficiency, renewable energy and battery storage over new fossil fuel generation.

Coal miners and union members, however, focused their testimony on the potential consequences for West Virginia's coal industry.

Mike Knight, president of a United Mine Workers local, warned the proposal would result in higher electric bills while accelerating the replacement of coal-fired generation.

"If this petition is approved, West Virginians will face higher electric bills and our state will be pushed into state-sanctioned fuel switching," Knight said.

Several miners expressed concern that closing coal-fired power plants would jeopardize mining jobs, local tax revenue and retiree benefits.

"This ain't fuel sharing," said one miner. "This is fuel stealing."

In total, 32 speakers attended the hearing, with all of them in strong opposition to the project.

Despite differing views on climate policy and the future of coal, many speakers shared a common message: West Virginia residents should not be required to finance infrastructure built to serve uncertain future demand.

The public hearing preceded the PSC's formal evidentiary hearing, where the commission will consider testimony from the utilities, intervenors and expert witnesses before issuing a final decision on the application.