PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
At a session of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA in
the City of Charleston on the 19'h day of December 2016.
CASE NO. 16-1075-E-CS-PC
MOUNDSVILLE POWER, LLC
Application for Waiver of Siting Certificate Modification
Requirements or, in the Alternative, for a Modification to
Siting Certificate and Related Requests for Relief

COMMISSION ORDER
The Commission concludes that a proposed modification to increase the nominal
generating capacity of the Moundsville Power, LLC electric generating facility from
549 MW to 673 MW is not a material modification and therefore will grant the requested
waiver, subject to certain conditions.

BACKGROUND
By an Order issued February 13, 2015, in Moundsville Power, LLC, Case No.
14-1221-E-CS, the Commission granted Moundsville Power, LLC (Moundsville Power)
a siting certificate (Siting Certificate) for the construction and operation of a combined
cycle natural gas-fired wholesale electric generating facility of approximately 549 MW
(Facility) in Marshall County, together with an approximately 500-foot 138 kV (less than
200,000 volts) related transmission support line, associated interconnection facilities, and
other necessary appurtenances (collectively, Project).
On August 5, 2016, Moundsville Power filed an application for a waiver of siting
certificate modification requirements, or in the alternative, for modification of siting
certificate and related requests for relief (Application). In its Application, Moundsville
Power proposed an increase in generation of approximately 124 MW of nominal capacity
to the Facility. Application at 1. In support of its request, Moundsville Power explained
that American Electric Power (AEP) intends to make reliability improvements to the
surrounding transmission system and upgrades to its George Washington substation,
which is the termination point of the Project's approximately 500-foot 138 kV (less than
200,000 volts) interconnection line. Application at 3. The reliability improvements and
upgrades will allow Moundsville Power to increase the electrical generation from the
Facility and transfer the increased generation to the adjacent George Washington

 substation for insertion into the electrical grid, allowing Moundsville Power to operate at
its full design potential.
Moundsville Power stated that the electrical generation process and overall design
of the Project have not changed from the Application. Moundsville Power is continuing
to use the same General Electric (GE) equipment with two GE 7FA.04 equivalent gas
turbines and a GE D11 steam turbine; the locations of the gas turbines, steam turbine,
exhaust stacks and cooling tower will not materially change; no additional generating
units are being added to the Facility; and the perimeter footprint (including the
transmission line) will not change. Id.
Moundsville Power explained that it presently has an Interconnection Services
Agreement with PJM’ for 545 MW and is proceeding through the interconnection process
with PJM to further increase the Facility’s capacity. Application at 3-4.
Moundsville Power asserted in its Application that the increase in the Facility’s
generation capacity is not material and will not materially affect the Project’s viewshed
impact, noise levels, emissions or other environmental impacts. Application at 4.
Moundsville Power stated that the generation capacity increase will not cause any
material physical change to the Project’s footprint, and that the tallest structures on the
site have not increased in height. Moundsville Power also stated that an analysis of the
Project’s noise levels associated with the increase in generation capacity has determined
that this modification will have no material effect on total Project sound levels, during
either construction or operation. Application at 6.
In its Application, Moundsville Power explained that the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Division of Air Quality (DAQ) will be
issuing an amended air permit to Moundsville Power related to the change in emissions
for a nominal generation capacity of 63 1 MW as a Class I Administrative update, and that
an additional modification to the air permit is being sought to allow for the full output of
the Facility. Application at 7.
Moundsville Power also stated that the increase in the Facility’s generation
capacity will not have any impact on the environment, other than the revision to the air
permit, and that it will continue to consult with DEP, together with any other applicable
agency, to ensure that no further permitting is required. Id.

’ PJM Interconnection Association, a regional transmission organization, coordinates the movement of
electricity through all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of
Columbia; operates a wholesale electricity market; and manages a long-term regional electric
transmission planning process to maintain the reliability of the power supply system.

2

 Moundsville Power asserted that implementation of the proposed capacity change
is not a material modification within the meaning of Rule 6.1 of the Commission’s Rules
Governing Siting Certificates for ExemDt Wholesale Generators (Siting Rules),
150 C.S.R. Series 30, and requested the Commission enter an order waiving any
requirement that Moundsville Power obtain an amendment or modification of its Siting
Certificate in order to implement the increase in generation. Moundsville Power
requested in the alternative that if the Commission finds that the proposed modification is
material, the Commission enter an order modifying Moundsville Power’s Siting
Certificate to allow an increase in generation capacity and transmission to up to 673 MW.
Application at 8.
Moundsville Power included a Notice of Filing with the Application, and
requested the Commission accord expedited treatment to the Application.
On August 12, 2016, the Staff served its First Set of Data Requests on
Moundsville Power. On August 15, 2016, the Staff filed its Initial Joint Staff
Memorandum wherein it recommended the Commission enter an order requiring
Moundsville Power to publish notice of the filing of its Application in Marshall and
Kanawha Counties and further recommended that the Commission retain this case.
Moundsville Power filed its Responses to the Staffs First Set of Data Requests on
September 1, 2016. On September 8, 2016, Moundsville Power filed additional
information in support of the Application, consisting of the August 2016 “Addendum to
Noise Study” (2016 Noise Study) prepared by Potesta & Associates, Inc. (Potesta), and
the 20 16 Visibility Analysis and Geospatial Rendering (20 16 Visibility Analysis) also
prepared by Potesta, dated August 2016. (Sept. 8,2016 Filing).
On September 19, 2016, the Commission issued an Order requiring Moundsville
Power to give notice of the filing of its Application by publishing a copy of the Notice of
Filing in newspapers published and of general circulation in Marshall and Kanawha
Counties. The Commission Order also stated that the subject matter of this proceeding
relates to the proposed modifications to Moundsville Power’s original Siting Certificate,
and therefore the Commission will not re-examine the entire, original project in the
context of this Application. Order at 2.
Moundsville Power filed affidavits of publication, evidencing publication of the
Notice of Filing in The Moundsville Daily Echo (Marshall County) and The Charleston
Gazette Mail (Kanawha County) on September 22, 2016.
Affidavits of Publication
filed September 28,2016.
On October 12, 2016, the Staff served its Second Set of Data Requests on
Moundsville Power.

 On October 14, 2016, the Ohio Valley Jobs Alliance (OVJA) filed its Petition to
Specially Intervene and Objections to Application (Petition). In its Petition OVJA stated
that it has participated in proceedings before the West Virginia Air Quality Board (AQB)
involving the Moundsville Power air permit - Ohio Valley Jobs Alliance v. Durham
et al., Appeal No. 15-01-AQB. Petition at 4. OVJA stated that it is a public interest
organization whose mission is to promote and protect jobs in the Ohio Valley region and
related public interests. Id. at 5. OVJA further stated that its special interest in this
proceeding stems from its participation in the air permitting proceedings before the DEP,
DAQ and before the AQB relating to the same Moundsville Power Project, in a case that
is now on appeal to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. OVJA stated it
seeks special intervention in this proceeding to broaden the issues in the original
proceeding to specifically consider the potential environmental impact - specifically, air
emissions. Petition at 5.
In its Petition, OVJA recited the various Moundsville Power air permit-related
proceedings in which it has been involved, including the DAQ’s review of Moundsville
Power’s Class I1 Administrative Update application, OVJA’s appeal of the August 14,
2015 Class I1 Administrative Update permit to the AQB, and OVJA’s appeal of the
AQB’s July 18, 2016 Final Order to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, which is
currently pending. Petition at 8-9. OVJA also attached an Affidavit of Jon A. Pollack
concerning technical predicted air emissions information with regard to the Moundsville
Power Facility.
OVJA requested that the Commission condition any Siting Certification or
modification on Moundsville Power’s full compliance with all air permit requirements
under the Clean Air Act and the West Virginia State Implementation Plan under 45 CSR
14 and requested a hearing be held in this case. Petition at 15.
The West Virginia State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
(Council), filed a Petition to Intervene on October 21, 2016. The Council seeks to
intervene to ensure that the interests of its members are represented and that the
construction of the Moundsville plant approved in Case No. 14-1221-E-CS proceeds and
is not unnecessarily delayed or imperiled. Petition to Intervene at 1-2. The Council
noted that it and the Ohio Valley Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
has entered into a Memorandum Agreement concerning the use of local workers in the
construction of the Moundsville Facility, which further demonstrates the Council’s
interest in the subject matter of this proceeding. &. at 2.
Moundsville Power filed its Response in Opposition to, and Motion to Deny
OVJA’s filing on October 24, 2016 (Response). Moundsville Power argued that OVJA
has not shown a “substantial interest” in this case as required by Rule 12.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the air emissions issue it seeks to
litigate herein is already being litigated by OVJA before the DEP’s DAQ, the appropriate
4

 State agency to hear such claims. Response at 1. Moundsville Power argued that the
majority of OVJA’s Petition is merely an explanation of the State of West Virginia’s air
permitting program, the contentions of OVJA witness Jon A. Pollack relating to the
Moundsville Power generation plant’s air emissions, and the fact that OVJA participated
in air permitting proceedings before the DAQ and before the AQB. a.at 3. Moundsville
Power also argued that OVJA’s participation in another proceeding regarding
Moundsville Power’s air emissions is not sufficient to meet this Commission’s test for
proper intervention, and that OVJA’s attempts to re-litigate or newly litigate issues that
are within the province of another state agency, namely the DAQ, do not establish
standing for special intervention. Id.
Moundsville Power explained that OVJA did not prevail in its positions at DAQ or
at the AQB in Ohio Valley Jobs Alliance v. Durham, ISOl-AQB, concerning the air
emissions issue, and has appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Ohio Valley
Jobs Alliance v. William F. Durham, and Moundsville Power, LLC, Civil Action No.
16-AA-67 (Circuit Court Action). Id.at 7.
Moundsville Power argued that although OVJA stated in its Petition filed in this
case that it has 400 members, James Russell Thomas, an OVJA representative who
testified on behalf of OVJA in the AQB case hearing, testified for OVJA in a case before
the Ohio Siting Board for electric power plants where he stated that OVJA had
242 members of which 76 were residents of West Virginia, and that OVJA’s “primary
mission is to support good paying jobs in the Ohio Valley, including in Ohio and West
Virginia.” a. at 3-4. Moundsville Power cited the decision of the AQB on the
Moundsville Power plant wherein the AQB stated that “it was somewhat concerned by
the OVJA’s apparent lack of knowledge about the contents of the appeal, lack of a
cognizable purpose related to the environment, and overall express intent to stop the
construction of the plant solely to benefit another industry.” a.at 4.
Moundsville Power argued that the Commission is not the proper entity to litigate
or to determine the requirements of a revised air permit for Moundsville Power, and that
the Commission should allow DAQ to determine the parameters of a revised permit, as it
already has done. a.at 7.
On November 1, 2016, Moundsville Power filed its Responses to the Staffs
Second Data Request.

OVJA filed its Reply to Moundsville Power LLC’s Response in Opposition to,
and Motion to Deny, Petition to Specially Intervene and Objections to Application on
November 2, 2016 (Reply). OVJA reiterated much of the technical air emissions
information contained in its Petition, and its history of involvement in the Moundsville
Facility’s air emissions permitting process before the DAQ, AQB, and currently, the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Reply, generally. OVJA alleged that Moundsville
5

 Power has failed to rebut Mr. Pollack’s Affidavit, and that because Moundsville Power
has no valid air Permit to Construct a 673 MW facility and must apply for one, the
requested waiver under Siting Rule 6.1 should be denied. Reply at 7. OVJA argued that
Moundsville Power’s requested waiver should be denied, and that the Commission
should condition any Siting Certification or modification on Moundsville’s obtaining an
air Permit to Construct as required under the Clean Air Act and the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan under 45 CSR 14. Reply at 11.

On Noveniber 3, 2016, Staff filed its Final Joint Staff Memorandum. Staff stated
that its review of the Application included review of all documents filed in the case, and
further investigation through meetings with Project personnel and review of previous
Commission directives related to certificated Project modifications. Engineering
Memorandum at 2. Staff stated that although the proposed plant arrangement differs
slightly from the original plan, it remains within the same footprint and does not appear
to significantly change the viewshed the Commission found acceptable in its Final Order
in Case No. 14-1221-E-CS. Staff also determined that the updated noise study concurs
with the 2014 noise report. Id. Staff stated that upon its review of the
relocation/reconfiguration of the pipeline and fuel supply requirements for the additional
generation, it found that the changes did not constitute a material modification to the
Project. Id.at 2-3.
Staff stated that the determination of whether the additional environmental
demands are within acceptable limits is outside the scope of the Commission’s siting
requirements, and thus deferred to other state and federal agencies for that determination.
Staff recommended that the requested waiver be granted. Staff fkther recommended that
the waiver be conditioned upon compliance with all conditions in the original certificate,
including the necessary air permit. Id.at 5 .
Staff opined that pursuant to Siting Rule 6.1, the proposed changes to the Project
do not rise to the level of a major modification. Staff noted that the only change being
made by Moundsville is an increase in generation capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW.
Legal Memorandum at 4. Moundsville Power acknowledged there will be an increase in
air emissions with the increased generation; however, Staff stated, any air emissions
generated by the Project must be permitted by DEP, a condition placed on the original
siting certificate. Further, Staff noted, Moundsville Power is pursuing a change to its air
quality permit to accommodate the increase in emissions. Id.at 5 .
Staff stated that the financial viability of the Project remains the same or a little
better with the increase in generation, and the Project will have a positive impact on the
local community and in the region. Id.
Staff recommended that the Council’s Petition to Intervene be denied because its
interests are protected by its Memorandum Agreement approved by the Commission in
6

 the original Siting Certificate case. Id. at 3. Staff also recommended that OVJA’s
Petition to Specially Intervene be denied. While Staff agrees with OVJA that
environmental impacts must be considered and the Commission may condition a siting
certificate on obtaining all required permits, Technical Staff considered the air emissions
issue and recommended that the conditions placed on the Project in the original
certificate case remain in full force and effect, including the requirement to obtain all
necessary and required permits and approvals. Id. Staff stated that if the increase in
generation requires Moundsville Power to obtain a new or modified air quality permit,
then it must do so before it can begin construction. However, Staff said, the issuance of
the air quality permit itself is under DEP jurisdiction. Id.at 4.
Staff recommended that because the proposed increase in generation will not
materially affect the viewshed impacts, noise levels, emissions or other environmental
impacts, the Commission should enter an order granting the requested waiver. Staff also
recommended that approval of the waiver be conditioned on Moundsville Power’s
compliance with all conditions placed on the original certificate, including the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit for the Project. Id.at 5 .

On November 4, 2016, Staff filed its Second Final Joint Staff Memorandum to
correct a statement in the Final Joint Staff Memorandum concerning the proposed
generation capacity increase.
The Council filed a Response to the Final Joint Staff Memorandum on
November 10, 2016, stating its concurrence with all of the Staffs recommendations,
except for the recommendation that the Council’s petition to intervene be denied. The
Council stated that its Memorandum Agreement does not ensure that the construction
jobs at issue will actually be created, or that the Project will be permitted to move
forward, thus the Council’s interests can only be protected by the Council’s full
participation in this matter. The Council argued that it should be permitted to intervene if
the Staffs other recommendations are not accepted by the Commission. Council
Response at 1.
On November 14, 2016, OVJA filed a Response to the Final Joint Staff
Memorandum, objecting to Staffs recommendations that the requested waiver be
granted, and that its Petition be denied. OVJA Response at 3-4. OVJA agrees with
Staffs recommendation that the Commission condition its approval of any waiver on
compliance with all conditions placed on the original certificate, including the
requirement to obtain an air quality permit for the Project. Id. at 4. OVJA noted that
under the Clean Air Act and the West Virginia State Implementation Plan, an air Permit
to Construct is required before construction of a facility may commence, and that the
Plant will be subject to certain requirements as addressed in 45 CSR 14. Id.at 5 .

 On November 14, 2016, Moundsville Power filed a Response to the Final Joint
Staff Memorandum, stating its agreement and concurrence with Staffs recommendation
that the Commission enter an order granting the requested waiver, with that approval
conditioned on compliance with all conditions placed on the original certificate, including
the requirement to obtain an air quality permit for the Project. Moundsville Power
Response to Memorandum.
Various letters in support of the granting of Moundsville Power’s requested
waiver have been filed. On November 14, 2016, and on November 28, 2016, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local Union 141 filed letters
in support of the Project, stating the Project’s economic impact on working families,
Marshall County and the State would be significant and welcome, and would allow
hundreds of laid off construction workers in the area to return to gainful employment. On
November 15, 2016, letters from the Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, the
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local No. 188, and the Iron
Workers Local Union No. 549 were filed, all requesting the Commission help make the
Project a reality. These Local Unions’ letters noted that construction and operation of the
Project will create many jobs and will have a positive economic impact on the State. On
November 16, 2016, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 667 filed a
letter in support of the Project, noting that the Project will create many jobs and have a
significant positive economic impact on the State and Marshall County. On
November 17, 2016, the General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
Union No. 697 filed a letter in support of the Project, and on November 18, 2016, the
Laborers’ International Union of North America Local #1149 filed a letter in support of
the Project. On November 21, 2016, the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #83 filed a letter
in support of the Project, noting the significant positive impact the Project will bring to
current unemployment and economic downturn.

DISCUSSION
The issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the proposed increase in
nominal generating capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW constitutes a material
modification to the Moundsville Power Siting Certificate, and if so, whether the Siting
Certificate should be modified to incorporate the capacity increase. In determining
materiality, the Commission looks to Siting Rule 6.1 :
If an owner or operator of a 24-2-1(c) generating facility for which a Siting
certificate has been issued plans to: construct the facility using engineering
design plans different than those filed with its original Siting certificate
application; modify the footprint of the 24-2- l(c) generating facility;
increase the transmission or generation of the 24-2- l(c) generating facility;
make any modification to the 24-2-1(c) generating facility with a potential
for environmental impact, then the owner or operator must obtain prior

8

 Commission approval of such modification. If the owner or operator
believes that when considering the totality of the circumstances
surrounding any such modification, the modification is not material or that
the modification will not materially affect the viewshed impacts, noise
levels, emissions, or other environmental impacts, it may petition the
Commission for a waiver of the requirement to obtain a modification or
amendment to its Siting certificate. The Commission may deny or grant
such request or it may limit the information required to be filed, depending
on the circumstances of the proposed modification.
As the Commission stated in Lowview Power LLC, Case No. 03-1860-E-CS-CN,
materiality is not an absolute concept. It is necessary to look at the surrounding
circumstances. February 16, 2007 Commission Order at 27-38,41, Conclusion ofLaw 5.
See also AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, Case No. 10-1824-E-CS-PC (Commission Order
June 29, 201 1 at 6); Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Case No. 14-0273-E-CS-PW (June 24,
2014 at 7); New Creek Wind, LLC, Case No. 14-1905-E-CS-PC-PW(Commission Order
December 30,2014 at 4).
Engineering Design Plans and Footprint of Project
Moundsville Power’s Siting Certificate grants approval for the construction and
operation of the proposed Facility of a nominal capacity of approximately 549 MW. In
its Siting Certificate application, Moundsville Power verified that it intends to utilize
state-of-the-art clean-burning natural gas-fueled electric generating equipment consisting
of two combustion turbines (CT) driving two combustion turbine generators (CTG),
connected to two heat recovery steam generators (HRSG) that utilize exhaust heat from
the CTs to generate high-quality, superheated steam to drive a single steam turbine that
will drive a steam turbine generator (STG) also generating electricity. Moundsville
Power further verified in its application that the Facility design also has cooling towers, a
switchyard, a water treatment building, a maintenance building, and other associated
auxiliary structures.
In this Application, Moundsville Power explained that the electrical generation
process and overall design of the Project have not changed from its siting certificate
application. Moundsville Power is continuing to use the same GE equipment with two
GE 7FA.04 equivalent gas turbines and a GE D11 steam turbine. The locations of the gas
turbines, steam turbine, exhaust stacks and cooling tower will not materially change.
No additional generating units are being added to the Facility, and the perimeter footprint
(including the transmission line) will not change. Application at 3. Moundsville Power
explained that the reliability improvements and upgrades that AEP intends to make to the
surrounding transmission system and to its George Washington substation, which is the
termination point of the Project’s approximately 500-foot 138 kV (less than 200,000
volts) interconnection line, will allow Mouudsville Power to increase the electrical
9

 generation from the Facility and transfer it to the adjacent George Washington substation
for insertion into the electrical grid, allowing Moundsville Power to operate at its full
design potential. With the additional transmission capacity and additional exhaust gases
from the combustion turbines, the Project will be able to increase its generating capacity
without any change to the electrical generation process or design of the Project.
Staffs review of the Application resulted in a determination that the generation
equipment specifications remain the same, and the Project remains within its original
footprint. Technical Staff Memorandum at 3.
Thus, increasing the generation capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW will not
materially change the engineering design or the footprint of the Project.
Generation and Transmission Capacity of Project
Moundsville Power stated that at the time of the filing of its siting certificate
application, it was believed that the capacity of the plant would be limited to 549 MW
because of transmission limitations and electrical constraints in the region of
Moundsville, West Virginia. Application at 2.
AEP’s plans to make reliability
improvements and upgrades to the transmission system and its George Washington
substation will allow Moundsville Power to realize the full potential of the gas turbines
and steam turbine and thus increase generation without changing the design of the
Project, because Moundsville Power will no longer be constrained by the point of
interconnection. @. at 3. Moundsville Power proposes to increase the generation
capacity of the Project by 124 MW, from the approved 549 MW to 673 MW. Id.at 8.
Potential for Environmental Impact
Viewshed
The Project Site is approximately 37 acres, is located about three miles south of
Moundsville, and is bounded by Route 2 on the east, the Moundsville Country Club golf
course on the south, the Williams Ohio Valley Midstream Fractionation Plant on the north
and remaining portions of the Honeywell Supefind site on the west. The plant itself will
occupy about 17 of the 37 acres. Siting Certificate Order at 13. The Visual Resource
Assessment (VRA) prepared by Potesta and submitted in the Siting Certificate case
determined that of the approximately 325,954-acre study area, only 0.9 to 1.0 percent have
some visibility of the Project. Visibility analysis was conducted under both bare earth and
mature cover scenarios. Visibility of the Project beyond 11 miles was not detected under
either scenario. The VRA concluded that visibility of the Project is limited by geographic
location (in the Ohio River Valley bottom), low elevation, and tree cover in the surrounding
area. A 1,200-foot high ridge between the City of Moundsville and the plant shields the
Cities of Moundsville and Glen Dale fi-om any view of the Project. Additionally, the airports
IO

 in Marshall County and Wheeling will have no visibility of the Facility. Id.at 14. No state
parks, national wildlife preserves, state refuges, state wildlife management areas, national
landmarks, national parks, national recreation areas, scenic rivers, scenic highways, or other
sensitive features have visibility of the Project. Id.
Potesta prepared the 20 16 Visibility Analysis to determine whether the Project
visibility would be affected in any way by Moundsville Power's proposed generation
capacity increase. The cumulative visibility analysis for the proposed Project estimates
the percentages of area of visibility would be the same as in the VRA submitted in the
Siting Certificate case - a range from 0.9 percent (Mature Cover) to 1.0 percent (Bare
Earth) of the 325,954 acre study area. 2016 Visibility Analysis at 13. Potesta stated that
this area of visibility is a relatively small portion of the study area and is similar to the
results found in the initial viewshed analysis. M. Visibility beyond 5 miles was not
detected for Bare Earth or Mature Cover. The Cities of Moundsville and Glen Dale will
continue to have no view. @. at 10. The results of the 2016 Visibility Analysis are
consistent with the conclusion in the 2014 VRA and the formal site visit conducted by the
Commission on November 19, 2014, that the Project would have no material impact on
the viewshed. Increasing the generation capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW will have no
material impact on the Project viewshed.
Noise

In the Siting Certificate case the Commission reviewed the submitted Noise Study
that evaluated pre-construction, construction, and operational noise. The Study found that
the closest residences are within 350 feet of the Project boundary and about 400 feet from
the Facility, and with shielding from the Facility, these residences would have Ldn2 values
that range from 68.3 dBA to 70.8 dBA, or values that are within the ambient noise levels.
Siting Certificate Order at 17. The Siting Certificate Order includes a condition that
requires Moundsville Power to plant trees along the Facility side of Route 2, and
Moundsville Power has offered to plant trees along the Washington Lands' border of
Route 2. The trees will dampen and buffer noise. Id. The Commission concluded that
the Project will not substantially increase ambient noise levels in the area, and to the
extent that construction or operation noise results in negative impacts, those negative
impacts are expected to be as minimally disruptive to existing property uses as is
reasonably possible, and are not unreasonable. M.

The Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn), expressed in decibels, is used to define the level of
noise exposure on a community. The Ldn represents the average sound exposure during a
24-hour period, with 10 decibels (dB) added for the nighttime hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and
does not represent the sound level for a specific noise event.
11

 The 2016 Noise Study demonstrates that for most measuring points the
A-weighted and C-weighted Ldnmeasurement values have been reduced from the values
in the 2014 Noise Study. This includes the three sensitive receptor locations in the
Washington Lands community across Route 2 from the Moundsville Power site and the
adjacent Moundsville Country Club where Ldnhas been reduced by 2.4 dBA to 6.6 dBA.
2016 Noise Study at 2. The fourth sensitive receptor location, Woodland Knolls
Apartments, is over 3,500 linear feet from the Plant’s nearest structure, and will not be
affected by power plant noise due to distance to this location. Id.at 8, 10. Although the
Ldn is reduced by several decibels at various measurement locations, the 2016 Noise
Study continues the recommendations from the 2014 report that a I O dB noise reduction
be achieved through onsite noise reduction, tree planting and other forms of shielding, all
of which Moundsville Power has previously agreed to do in the original siting certificate
application and conditions. Id.at 2. Increasing the generation capacity from 549 MW to
673 MW will have no material impact on the noise impact of the Project.
Air Emissions

In its siting certificate application, Moundsville Power stated that the Project has
the potential for air emissions from several components. Moundsville Power has
obtained an Air Permit from the WV DEP, Division of Air Quality. Commission Siting
Certificate Order at 17.
Moundsville Power has now received an air permit from DAQ for up to 63 1 MW,
and is seeking an additional modification to the air permit to allow for the proposed
output of the Facility. Application at 7. Emissions from the Facility will comply with all
applicable rules and regulations and Moundsville Power will continue using best
available control technology (BACT). While Moundsville Power will see an increase in
emissions, the WVDEP has assessed and will assess the changes in generation and will
establish emission limits as it deems appropriate for the protection of health and
environment. Id.
Other Environmental Impacts
The proposed increased generation will not have any other material environmental
impacts.
Applicability of Siting Certificate Conditions

In the Final Joint Staff Memorandum, Staff recommended that the Commission
condition approval in this case on Moundsville Power’s compliance with all the
conditions placed on Moundsville Power’s Siting Certificate, including the requirement
to obtain an air quality permit for the Project. Moundsville Power concurs with Staffs
recommendation that the conditions set forth in the Siting Certificate continue to apply to
12

 the Project. Moundsville Power Response to Final Joint Staff Memorandum at 2. Staffs
recommendation is reasonable and will be adopted.

In summary, we return to the requirements of Siting Rule 6.1. Moundsville
Power’s planned generation capacity increase does not require engineering plans different
from those filed with the Siting Certificate application, nor does it modify the Project
footprint. We conclude that the proposed capacity increase will not change in any
material manner the viewshed or noise impacts. Concerning other environmental
impacts, to the extent that the proposed capacity increase requires Moundsville Power to
obtain a new or modified air quality permit, the determination as to the permit required is
under the auspices and jurisdiction of the DEP, not the Commission. As a condition to
the Commission’s grant of the Siting Certificate to Moundsville Power, the Commission
required Moundsville Power to file a verified statement, at least 30 days prior to
beginning construction or any activity on the Project, providing proof that all permits,
approvals, certifications, notices, and consultations required prior to the start of
construction or activity have been obtained, including an air quality permit. The
proposed capacity increase will not change in any material manner any environmental
impacts from those anticipated in the Siting Certificate Order.
Although the net generation capacity is proposed to increase, under the totality
of the circumstances, the increase is not a material modification to the Siting
Certificate. The Commission will require Moundsville Power to comply with all of the
conditions it placed on Moundsville Power’s Siting Certificate, thus Moundsville
Power must obtain any and all environmental permits needed prior to beginning
construction of the Project.
With respect to OVJA’s Petition to Specially Intervene, a review of the Petition
reflects that the only issue presented is OVJA’s concern as to air emissions related to the
Facility. OVJA has pursued, and continues to pursue, its challenge to the Facility’s air
permit granted by the DEP before the appropriate entities, Le., DEP, AQB, Circuit Court.
In response to the Joint Staff Memorandum, OVJA clearly stated its desire to litigate the
air quality issue before the Commission. Those other forums, not the Commission, will
determine the appropriateness of an air permit for the Facility.
OVJA requested the Commission condition any Siting Certificate or modification
on Moundsville Power’s obtaining an air Permit to Construct as required under the Clean
Air Act and the West Virginia State Implementation Plan under 45 CSR 14. The
Commission conditioned the Siting Certificate on a requirement to obtain all necessary
permits, including an air permit, and such conditions remain in place. These conditions
will be sufficient to ensure the Facility will be constructed and operated within
environmental law requirements, and to protect the public. Accordingly, the Commission
denies OVJA’s Petition. The Commission will require Moundsville Power to file a
verified statement that it has satisfied all previously established conditions and that it has
13

 obtained all amendcd permits and approvals that are necessary to construct and operate
the Facility.
The Commission will grant the requested waiver without a hearing, and thus also
denies the petition to intervene of the Council.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Moundsville Power holds a Siting Certificate pursuant to W. Va. Code
the construction and operation of a combined cycle natural gas-fired
wholesale electric generating facility of approximately 549 MW in Marshall County,
together with an approximately 500-foot 138 KV (less than 200,000 volts) related
transmission support line, associated interconnection facilities, and other necessary
appurtenances.

I.

3 24-2-1 I C for

On August 5 , 2016, Moundsville Power filed an application for a waiver of
2.
siting certificate modification requirements, or in the alternative, for modification of
siting certificate and related requests for relief. In its Application, Moundsville Power
proposed an increase in generation of approximately 124 MW of nominal capacity to the
Facility, from 549 MW to up to 673 MW. Application at 1-9.
3.
Moundsville Power represents that implementation of the proposed
capacity change is not a material modification within the meaning of Rule 6.1 of the
Commission’s Siting Rules.
4.
Moundsville Power requested the Commission waive any requirement that
Moundsville Power obtain an amendment or modification of its Siting Certificate in order
to implement the increase in generation, or in the alternative, for a modification to its
Siting Certificate to allow an increase in generation capacity and transmission to up to
673 MW. Application at 8.
5.
Moundsville Power did not submit a filing fee pursuant to Commission
rulings that a filing fee is not necessary for a waiver application unless the Commission
determines that a material modification of the Siting Certificate is warranted.
Moundsville Power will submit a fee should the Commission determine one is required.
Application at 2.

6.
AEP intends to make reliability improvements to the surrounding
transmission system and upgrades to its George Washington substation, which is the
termination point of the Project’s approximately 500-foot 138 kV (less than 200,000
volts) interconnection line. Application at 3.

14

 7.
The reliability improvements and upgrades will allow Moundsville Power
to increase the electrical generation from the Facility and transfer the increased
generation to the adjacent George Washington substation for insertion into the electrical
grid, allowing Moundsville Power to operate at its full design potential. With the
additional transmission capacity and additional exhaust gases from the combustion
turbines, the Project will be able to increase its generating capacity without any change to
the electrical generation process or design of the Project. Jd.

8.
The electrical generation process and overall design of the Project have not
changed from the Siting Certificate Application. The same GE equipment with two
GE 7FA.04 equivalent gas turbines and a GE D11 steam turbine will be used; the
locations of the gas turbines, steam turbine, exhaust stacks and cooling tower will not
materially change; no additional generating units are being added to the Facility; and the
perimeter footprint (including the transmission line) will not change. @.

Moundsville Power has an Interconnection Services Agreement with PJM
9.
for 545 MW and is proceeding through the interconnection process with PJM to further
increase the Facility’s capacity. Application at 3-4.
10. Moundsville Power represents that the increase in the Facility’s generation
capacity is not material and will not materially affect the Project’s viewshed impact,
noise levels, emissions or other environmental impacts. Application at 4.
11. Moundsville Power represents that the generation capacity increase will not
cause any material physical change to the Project’s footprint, and that the tallest
structures on the site have not increased in height. Application at 6.
12. In its September 19, 2016 Order the Commission stated that the subject
matter of this proceeding relates to the proposed modifications to Moundsville Power’s
original Siting Certificate, and the Commission will not re-examine the entire, original
project in the context of this application. Order at 2.

13. The DEP’s DAQ issued a Class I1 Administrative Update on August 14,
2015, to Moundsville Power’s Permit to Construct issued by DAQ on November 21,
2014. OVJA Petition at 6, 8, Ex. A 7 12.
14. OVJA appealed the issuance of the Administrative Update to the AQB.
The AQB issued a Final Order July 18, 2016, slightly modifying and affirming the
Administrative Update. k a t 8.
OVJA appealed the AQB’s Final Order to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, a civil action currently pending in that Court. Id.at 9.
15.

15

 Moundsville Power stated that the increase in the Facility’s generation
capacity will not have any impact on the environment, other than the revision to the air
permit, and that it will continue to consult with DEP, together with any other applicable
agency, to ensure that no further permitting is required. Application at 7.
16.

17. Moundsville Power published the Notice of Filing on September 22, 2016,
in The Moundsville Daily Echo (Marshall County), and in The Charleston Gazette Mail
(Kanawha County). Affidavits of Publication (Filed September 28,2016).
18. OVJA filed a Petition to Specially Intervene and Objections to Application
to broaden the issues in the original proceeding to specifically consider the air emissions
impact. OVJA is a public interest organization whose mission is to promote and protect
jobs in the Ohio Valley region and related public interests. Petition at 5.
19. OVJA requested that the Commission condition any Siting Certificate or
modification on Moundsville Power’s full compliance with all air permit requirements.
Id. at 15.
20. The Council filed a Petition to Intervene to ensure that the interests of its
members are represented and that the construction of the Plant proceeds and is not
unnecessarily delayed or imperiled. Petition at 1-2.
2 1. Staff recommended the requested waiver be granted, conditioned on
Moundsville Power’s compliance with all conditions placed on the original certificate,
including the requirement to obtain an air quality permit for the Project. Final Joint Staff
Memorandum at 5.
22. Letters supporting Moundsville Power’s requested waiver were filed by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO Local Union 141, the Road
Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and
Allied Workers Local No. 188, the Iron Workers Local Union No. 549, the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers Local 667, the General Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Union No. 697, the Laborers’ International Union of North
America Local #1149, and the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local #83.
case file,
generally.
23. Increasing the generation capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW will not
change the engineering design or the footprint of the Project. Application at 3; Technical
Staff Memorandum at 3.

24. The results of the 2016 Visibility Analysis are similar to the results of the
2014 Visibility Analysis, finding that the area of visibility of 0.9 percent (Mature Cover)

16

 to 1.O percent (Bare Earth) remains the same. Visibility beyond 5 miles was not detected.
2016 Visibility Analysis at 13.
25. Increasing the generation capacity by 124 MW will have no material impact
on the Project viewshed.
26. The 2016 Noise Study demonstrates that for most measuring points,
including the three sensitive receptor locations in the Washington Lands community and
the Moundsville Country Club, the A-weighted and C-weighted Ldn measurement values
have been reduced from the values in the 2014 Noise Study. Noise Study at 2.
27. The fourth sensitive receptor location, Woodland Knolls Apartments, is
over 3,500 linear feet from the Plant’s nearest structure, and will not be affected by
power plant noise due to distance to this location. Id.at 8, 10.
28. The 2016 Noise Study continues the recommendations from the 2014 noise
report that a 10 dB noise reduction be achieved through onsite noise reduction, tree
planting and other forms of shielding. Id. at 2.
29. Increasing the generation capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW will have no
material impact on the noise impact of the Project.
Moundsville Power has received an Air Permit from DAQ for up to
63 1 MW. Moundsville Power is seeking an additional modification to the air permit to
allow for the proposed output of the Facility. Application at 7.
30.

3 1. There is no evidence of any other material environmental impacts resulting
from Moundsville Power’s proposed increase in generation capacity.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the proposed increase
1.
in nominal generating capacity from 549 MW to 673 MW constitutes a material
modification to the Moundsville Power Siting Certificate, and if so, whether the Siting
Certificate should be modified to incorporate the capacity increase.
2.
The Commission’s Siting Rule 6.1 sets forth the requirements for seeking a
waiver of modification to an existing siting certificate, or a modification to an existing
siting certificate.
Siting Rule 6.1 provides that the owner or operator of an electric wholesale
3.
generating facility may petition the Commission for a waiver of the requirement to obtain
a modification or amendment to its Siting certificate if the owner or operator believes that
17

 when considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding any such modification,
the modification is not material or that the modification will not materially affect the
viewshed impacts, noise levels, emissions or other environmental impacts.
For purposes of determining whether a proposed modification is “material,”
4.
materiality is not an absolute concept. It is necessary to look at the surrounding
circumstances. Longview Power. LLC, Case No. 03- 1860-E-CS (Commission Order at
pp. 27-38, 41, Conclusion of Law 5, February 16, 2007); See also AES Laurel Mountain.
Case No. 10-1824-E-CS-PC (Commission Order June 29, 201 1 at 6); Beech Ridge
Enerpy LLC, Case No. 14-0273-E-CS-PW (June 24,2014 at 7); New Creek Wind, LLC,
Case No. 14-1905-E-CS-PC-PW (Commission Order December 30,2014 at 4).

u,

5.
The proposed modification to increase the Facility’s net generating capacity
will not use engineering design plans materially different than those filed with the
original siting certificate application.
The proposed modification to increase the Facility’s net generating capacity
6.
will not modify the footprint of the approved W. Va. Code 5 24-2-1(c) generating
facility.
The proposed modification to increase the Facility’s net generating capacity
7.
will not materially affect the viewshed impacts or noise impacts.
The Project has the potential for air emissions from several components.
8.
Moundsville Power has received an air permit for the Project from DAQ for up to
631 MW, and is seeking an additional modification to the air permit to allow for the
proposed output of the Facility.
The only issue presented by OVJA is one related to air emissions because
9.
of the proposed modification to the Facility, an issue currently being litigated before the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County pursuant to OVJA’s appeal of AQB’s Final Order on
Moundsville Power’s air permit.
10. The Commission will not consider whether the Facility’s air emissions are
material or appropriate because this question is within the jurisdiction of the DEP, DAQ.
W. Va. Code § 22-5-1 etseq.
11. It is reasonable to require Moundsville Power to verify that it has satisfied
all previously established conditions and that it has obtained all amended permits and
approvals necessary to construct and operate the Facility.
12. The interest that OVJA has presented in its Petition, Le., the impact of air
emissions, is properly being reviewed and determined by DAQ. Furthermore, OVJA is
18

 currently litigating before the Circuit Court of Kanawha County the same issue that it has
requested to litigate before the Commission.
13. OVJA’s interest in the impact of the air emissions from the Facility is
protected by state law that requires Moundsville Power to obtain an appropriate air
permit from the DEP DAQ. Because the DAQ has jurisdiction over the issuance of an air
permit for the Facility, and because the Commission requires in this Order that
Moundsville Power satisfl all previously established conditions and that it has obtained
all amended permits and approvals necessary for construction and operation of the
Facility and submit verification in the same manner and within the same timeframes as
stated in the conditions set forth in the Siting Certificate Order, the Commission denies
OVJA’s Petition to Specially Intervene in this proceeding.
14. The requested waiver is granted without a hearing, thus the Commission
denies the Council’s petition to intervene in this proceeding as moot.
The proposed modification to increase the Facility’s net generating capacity
will have no other material environmental impacts.
15.

16. Because the proposed modification to the Siting Certificate does not
constitute a material modification of the Siting Certificate, Moundsville Power is not
required to pay an application fee.
17. Based on the entire record and the analysis contained in this Order, the
Commission concludes that the proposed increase of 124 MW in net generating capacity
of the Facility does not constitute a material modification of the Siting Certificate, and
the Commission therefore grants Moundsville Power’s requested waiver, subject to the
conditions adopted in the Siting Certificate Order, including an appropriate air permit
issued by DAQ in accordance with the Clean Air Act and the West Virginia State
Implementation Act, and further subject to all other ordering paragraphs in the Siting
Certificate Order.

ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the proposed increase of 124 MW in net
generating capacity of the Facility is not a material modification to Moundsville Power’s
Siting Certificate issued on February 13, 2015, within the meaning of W. Va. Code
8 24-2-1(~)(5)and Siting Rule 6.1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Moundsville Power’s application for a waiver
of its Siting Certificate is granted, and the Siting Certificate shall be modified to reflect
approval of net generating capacity of up to 673 MW.
19

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Facility and Moundsville Power continue to
be subject to each and every condition and all ordering paragraphs set forth in the Siting
Certificate Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Moundsville Power must comply with
previously established conditions in the Siting Order and obtain all necessary
amendments to existing permits and approvals necessary for construction and operation
of the Facility and file a verified statement that it has done so in the same manner and
within the same timeframes as stated in the conditions set forth in the Siting Certificate
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon entry hereof, this case shall be removed
from the Commission's open docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Executive Secretary of the Commission
serve a copy of this Order by electronic service on all parties of record who have filed an
e-service agreement, and by United States First Class Mail on all parties of record who
have not filed an e-service agreement, and on Commission Staff by hand delivery.

Ingrid Ferrell

Executive Secretary

CLWIsk
161075ca.doc