By: Lydia Crawley
The Parsons Advocate
Some new information has come out of Charleston in the continuing saga of the Ridgeline Project. Reports have come to light this week that the Speaker of the West Virginia House Roger Hanshaw, an Attorney with prominent Charleston based Bowles Rice, has filed with the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia to represent Fundamental Data, LLC, the company behind the Ridgeline Project. In separate news out of Charleston related to the Project, the Governor’s Office has released a “Fact vs. Fiction” sheet on what it is terming “Intelligence Centers” outlining what it is viewing as the facts surrounding Data Centers.
Hanshaw, a Republican, it has been reported, along with two other attorneys with his firm, informed the Court of their intent to represent Fundamental Data, LLC in paperwork filed with the Court dated March 16th, just days following the end of the 2026 legislative session.
Citizen action groups have spoken out against Hanshaw’s representation of the company, but admit that it appears to be legal, if ethically ambiguous. Representatives of various organizations have spoken out against Hanshaw, claiming the act to be a blatant conflict of interest in opposition of the best interest of the people of West Virginia and regardless of legalities surrounding the decision, “it looks really bad.”
Tucker United along with the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and The Sierra Club filed a Notice to Appeal with the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals March 6th to challenge the February 5th decision by the West Virginia Air Quality Board regarding the proposed Ridgeline Power Plant Project that upheld a decision approving the project’s Air Quality Permit.
Fundamental Data is a Delaware-chartered entity registered on April 18, 2024 authorized to do business as a foreign limited liability company in West Virginia on July 16, 2024. Its main offices appear to be in Virginia and it seems to have been established solely with the purposes of constructing the proposed Ridgeline Power Plant slated for construction between Davis and Thomas near the Landfill.
In other news out of Charleston, the Governor’s Office has released a document on Data Centers it titles “Intelligence Centers: Fact vs. Fiction.” The document provides what it describes as “quick, clear answers to the most common concerns” such as water usage, environmental standards, local control, electricity costs, where does the money go? and the bigger opportunity.
The fact sheet aims to target many of the concerns raised by such community action groups as Tucker United, The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and the Sierra Club, who have maintained that the Ridgeline Project will drain the local aquifer, pollute the air, land and water and impact the area’s vital tourism economy. The groups have also been vocal opponents of House Bill 2014 that many both in and out of government have claimed strips local governments and communities of power.
While the document is a “fact sheet,” it does not provide sources for the facts it provides. It provides many statistics for various industries, but does not provide where those numbers came from. It also does not provide references to where within HB 2014 collaborating sections can be found in sections where mention to the legislation is made to further validate any claims made.
On the issue of water usage, the document states that “Many facilities use little to no water.” It goes on to list air cooling systems that use no water, closed loop systems that reuse the same water and systems that use recycled and non potable water sources.
The document gives estimates that high end 1-GW facility can use 1.09 billion gallons of water per year. It compares that number to the Thermoelectric industry that uses 375.7 billion gallons annually, the Chemical industry that uses 131.7 billion gallons annually and Mining that uses 13.5 billion gallons annually.
“A mid-sized intelligence center using roughly 300,000 gallons per day uses LESS water than a typical 18-hole golf course,” the document claims.
The Environmental Standards section of the document is the first inclusion of HB 2014 the document sources.
“Nothing in HB 2014 or its rules exempts intelligence centers from state or federal environmental laws,” the document states.
The document goes on the state that air quality standards still apply, water discharge permits are required, Federal Clear Air Act and Clean Water Act standards still apply and state environmental permitting and enforcement remain in place. The document even states, “This is not deregulation,” due to these factors.
HB 2014 is further addressed in the Local Control section of the document. The section claims that it is a myth that the state is forcing intelligence centers on counties and eliminating local control.
“HB 2014 provides siting certainty because billion-dollar projects will not come to a state where the mix of overlapping and different local ordinances can delay or hinder development,” the document claims.
The document further justifies that large scale investments require predictable rules and that companies have been investing elsewhere due to approvals being overturned by shifting local politics. The document claims this has lead to other states profiting from billions in private investment, expanding tax bases and strengthening schools and upgrading infrastructure while less competitive states fall behind.
“Without regulatory certainty, these projects do not come – and neither do the jobs, revenue, tax relief or infrastructure investment,” the document claims, but does not go into concrete specifics on jobs, tax relief or revenue. The document does state “many communities want the statewide tax relief and shared revenue” and credits statewide authority with providing consistency and stability for large scale investment.
On the subject of electricity costs, the document claims that large, stable customers will help to lower costs and will be required to pay for their own build-out. It is claimed that the utilities will recover grid costs regardless of demands, more electricity sold will equal costs spread over more kilowatt hours and per-unit cost pressure would decline.
Again HB 2014 is mentioned as it pertains to the subject of electricity. The document claims that utilities cannot pass microgrid construction costs to existing customers, transmission upgrades must be borne by the intelligence center, generation infrastructure must be funded by the project, and grid interconnection costs cannot be shifted to households. In short, the document says, “If new electricity infrastructure is required, the project pays – not families or small businesses.”
Perhaps one of the largest points of debate when it comes to HB 2014 is the matter of Where Does The Money Go? The document claims that it is a myth that 75% of the money generated is kept by the State. The Governor’s Office document claims the following:
“* 50% to Personal Income Tax Reduction (benefits ALL taxpayers statewide)
-
30% to the Host County
-
10% to All Other Counties
-
5% each to Economic Enhancement Grants and Electric Grid Stabilization Fundamental”
The document claims that in the end, 40% goes to the counties, 50% goes to the taxpayers and 10% is invested in to infrastructure and economic development and names such projects as water and sewer upgrades, industrial site development and community infrastructure projects. The Electric Grid Stabilization Fund is listed as supporting grid planning and reliability, infrastructure upgrades and long term system resilience.
In the end, the document claims that “Intelligence Centers” will provide the following:
-
Pathway to eliminate personal income tax
-
Hundreds of permanent high-wage jobs (~$100,000 average)
-
Thousands of construction jobs lasting years
-
Economic diversification beyond legacy industries
-
Modernized grid and infrastructure investment.
