March 10, 2026 - West Virginia delegates asked critical questions about legislation focused on coal-fired power plant capacity and how costs for rate payers could be affected.

The main point of contention is a goal for coal-fired power plants would need to be operating at 69% capacity. That’s been guidance for a few years from the state Public Service Commission, but the regulator has offered latitude. SB420, the West Virginia First Energy Act, would put it in state law.

During the final week of the regular legislative session, the House Energy Committee discussed the bill for almost three hours Monday evening. The committee’s overall meeting duration was 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. with a break for a House floor session in the middle.

The energy committee could vote as soon as Tuesday on whether to advance the bill to the full chamber.

The goal of the legislation, for supporters, is to run more West Virginia coal.

Jason Bostic, executive vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, spoke in favor of the bill. He contended that coal?fired power still represents the lowest?cost source for power generation.

Moreover, Bostic argued that state agency reviews have found Appalachian Power under?used its coal plants and over?relied on expensive PJM purchases while contending that better?run, better?supplied coal units could have saved ratepayers millions of dollars while also supporting West Virginia mining jobs.

“Coal is the cheaper way to make power. The fact that here in West Virginia, where we have coal plants and coal supplies that are adjacent to one another, and the coal plants aren’t running and the power rates continue to go up – that’s remarkably frustrating,” Bostic told delegates.

Although senators who backed the legislation had described it as encouraging a goal of 69% capacity, utilities that fail to meet that for coal?fired units face two main categories of penalties, both tied to cost recovery and rate increases.

Most of the expert witnesses called by the House Energy Committee were critical of the bill and said the result would be increased costs for consumers.

“If it makes sense to run at a 69% capacity factor, we would already be doing it, and when it when it makes sense we will do it,” said John Scalzo, vice president for regulatory and finance at Appalachian Power. “When it doesn’t, we can rely on the market.

“So all this bill can do in that paradigm is raise costs for customers. Because if if it made sense to run at a 69% capacity factor, I would be doing it because that’s what’s in best interest for customers. This arbitrarily says, is going to make us run at a 69% capacity factor, and over the last couple years that would have cost customers money.”

Charlotte Lane, chairwoman of the West Virginia Public Service Commission, objected to several aspects of the legislation. She said the PSC can require utilities to operate at 69% capacity factor, but whether they can do it economically is the problem.

Lane also said the bill is very hard, maybe impossible, to implement as written.

“Heaven only knows if this bill passes, how I could interpret it at the Public Service Commission, because I don’t know that I could,” Lane said.

And she finds it problematic that the bill forces the PSC to work hand in hand with the West Virginia Public Energy Authority, noting that the PSC is an independent agency created by the Legislature, while the energy authority is in the executive branch.

At one point, Lane was asked how she would handle a provision that the PSC “may not consider” an application for cost recovery until the Public Energy Authority has accepted an operational plan and deemed it “administratively complete and authentic.”

“You mean after I jump off the bridge?” Lane asked, rhetorically.

James Bailey, representing the West Virginia Energy Users Group — n association of the state’s largest electricity consumers — said the 69% capacity factor mandate will inevitably increase rates.

At some point, he said, utilities will be forced to run coal units and bid power below their actual cost, just to hit 69%. The difference between the market price and actual cost would then be pushed onto ratepayers, whether they’re residential, commercial or industrial.