July 17, 2026 - In West Virginia, an evidentiary hearing kicked off Thursday before the Public Service Commission (PSC), where commissioners will build the factual record needed to decide whether FirstEnergy should receive a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct a 1,200-megawatt natural gas plant in Monongalia County.

Highly controversial — as it seems more and more proceedings before the Commission have become — this case places front and center, and on the record, a debate that has quietly played out across West Virginia for some time now: Is coal or natural gas better for the state’s future; should one be favored over another?

The United Mine Workers of America has intervened in the case — legal jargon meaning it has become an official party with the right to present testimony and evidence for the Commission’s consideration.

That’s as it should be. The UMWA represents miners whose livelihoods depend on West Virginia’s coal industry. If its members believe this project will affect them, they deserve the opportunity to make their case.

But intervention carries a burden. Parties must support their positions with evidence entered into the record. Compelling as it may have sounded, testimony from UMWA President Brian Sanson came across more as an argument for protectionism than one grounded in market economics.

Sanson testified that he believes FirstEnergy will ultimately close the existing Fort Martin coal plant if the proposed natural gas facility is built.

“I think when you’re going to put a natural gas plant right beside a coal plant, that’s just a natural ending to what’s going to happen,” Sanson said under cross-examination by FirstEnergy attorney Gary Jack.

Sanson offered no conclusive evidence to support that conclusion, however UMWA counsel said it would submit documentation to back the claim. Jack said he was aware of no such documentation.

If the existing coal plant continues to provide market value in PJM — whether through capacity, the ability to generate electricity when called upon, or energy production itself — why would FirstEnergy voluntarily retire an asset when its entire case for building additional generation rests on the premise that demand is growing faster than available supply? One doesn’t close a plant when it needs more plants.

Coal plants retire for many reasons. Age, operating costs, environmental compliance requirements and market economics all play a role. Simply building another generating unit next door does not, by itself, establish that the existing plant no longer has value.

Sanson’s testimony further explained the union’s broader concern that constructing the natural gas plant would harm both the coal industry and West Virginia’s economy.

“There is no harm to the gas industry if this plant is not built,” he said. “However, there is a huge economic harm to the state of West Virginia… that has the potential to eliminate a huge portion of the severance tax that’s paid.”

Those are powerful words. But they miss a larger point.

What is the purpose of a business?

Contrary to popular belief, it isn’t simply to make money or employ people or pay taxes. Businesses that endure, that thrive, first identify a market need and then meet it better than anyone else. Profit, jobs and tax revenue follow from serving customers effectively — not the other way around.

The union’s argument — understandable given who it represents — focuses almost exclusively on protecting one industry from another, rather than asking which resource best meets the market’s needs and its customers.

For years now, natural gas has generally been the least-cost option for building new dispatchable generation, and has frequently set the market-clearing price in PJM because it is often the most economical resource available.

As Jack alluded during cross-examination, natural gas units are dispatched so frequently because they are among the lowest-cost resource capable of meeting demand.

Asking the PSC to keep a competing fuel source off the field doesn’t just negatively affect the natural gas industry (lost opportunity cost) and its workers here in the state. It also risks asking residential customers, manufacturers and every other electricity consumer to pay more than they otherwise might.

The Commission’s job is not to shield one industry from competition. Its responsibility is to determine whether this project satisfies the legal standard for public convenience and necessity based on the evidence before it. That is First Energy’s burden to prove and what it must first do before it can proceed.

There are many legitimate questions that deserve careful scrutiny in this case. Cost allocation. The accuracy of FirstEnergy’s load forecasts. Community impacts. Environmental considerations. Whether the project is truly needed. Fair questions that First Energy must defend successfully and rightly so.

The idea of favoring one fuel source over another – both Mountain State industries – should not be a consideration.

The Commission would be wise to let the evidence — and the market signals that evidence reflects — guide its decision relative of the union’s concerns. That’s the only equitable means to resolution when these equally-valued industries compete.

Click here to listen to the audio version.