A FERC proceeding seeking approval to purchase an old oil-fired power plant in southern Maryland has drawn multiple protests because its buyer wants to co-locate a data center (EC26-58).
Data center development company TeraWulf announced plans to buy the Morgantown Generating Station, a 216-MW plant made up of four units, in February and asked FERC for approval by April 2. But the commission can take several more months before acting, and numerous filings opposing the deal have given it an ample record to review.
The company’s business model is to turn old industrial sites into data centers. According to a news release on the deal, the company said it planned to add 500 MW to the site initially, which would support a data center that will have demand of 1 GW.
In its protest — the first to be filed — PJM’s Independent Market Monitor argued that the Pepco zone, where the plant is located, is constrained and needs to preserve existing generators while adding new capacity.
To submit a commentary on this topic, email forum@rtoinsider.com.
“TeraWulf’s plans for new data center load at Morgantown fail to address whether the Morgantown units will be removed from the PJM capacity market to serve data center load,” the Monitor said.
The company is not new to the PJM market: It had planned to build a Bitcoin mine at Talen Energy’s Susquehanna nuclear plant, which set off a major dispute on co-location during the Biden administration. (See FERC Rejects Expansion of Co-located Data Center at Susquehanna Nuclear Power.) TeraWulf has since sold its share in a related joint venture to Talen.
The Monitor argued that TeraWulf should be required to disclose any plans for the Morgantown units and commit to provide a notice of material changes if the deal goes through, given that PJM is going to be short of its reserve margin in June 2027.
“There has been significant interest from owners of existing capacity and from data center operators in acquiring existing PJM capacity resources and diverting them from wholesale market participation to instead serve onsite load under co-location or power purchase agreement structures, rather than offering that capacity into the PJM market,” the IMM said. “This strategy shifts the reliability risk from data centers to all other PJM customers.”
TeraWulf said it plans to operate the existing units as net positive energy suppliers, so its ability to allocate output between data center load and the market could affect prices, the Monitor said.
FERC received many other protests on the application, including from individual citizens, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel and the Sierra Club.
The OPC’s protest echoed concerns from the Monitor about market power and noted that the filing lacks any guarantees about actually building new supply at the Morgantown plant.
“A bring-your-own-new-generation (BYONG) approach can be pro-competitive if done correctly,” the office wrote. “But the PJM market rules on BYONG are currently in flux, and execution of BYONG will require nuance to ensure that the supply and demand balance within PJM is not disrupted. The proposed transaction’s lack of detail regarding applicant’s BYONG approach does not inspire confidence that its approach will be procompetitive. It is unclear how or if the proposed 500 MW would participate in PJM markets.”
Morgantown is home to two retired coal units that produced 1,299 MW. The OPC said it is worried those might restart after having been retired earlier this decade after running for 50 years.
The Sierra Club, which has long been campaigning to close coal plants, also echoed that sentiment.
“The transaction encompasses the site where two large coal-fired units were retired in 2022, and TeraWulf’s CEO has publicly discussed plans to ‘repower’ the coal units, which would have severe implications for the health of an already-overburdened community,” the organization said. “The application says nothing about these plans, about environmental obligations at the site, about the impact of intensified generation operations on the surrounding community, or about the impacts to Maryland’s clean energy goals.”
Even running the oil plants more often to provide power to a co-located data center will increase pollution in what is “among the most environmentally burdened” communities in Maryland, it added. Restarting the coal units would reimpose additional health burdens on that community.
TeraWulf pushed back on the protests by arguing that the only issue in front of FERC is whether to approve its purchase of the plant.
“The transaction will have no adverse effect on competition, rates or regulation or result in any cross-subsidization concerns and is therefore consistent with the public interest,” it said.
The proper venue for debating whether to site a data center at the power plant is at the state and local level, not in front of FERC, TeraWulf said. But any changes to the plant’s interconnection rights or capacity rights under a co-location arrangement would be subject to another case at FERC.
“This proceeding is not the time nor the place to raise such arguments, and the commission’s entertaining of such arguments in this proceeding that are generally applicable to the industry as a whole would be unduly discriminatory to the applicant,” TeraWulf said.
The Monitor responded to TeraWulf by saying the development plans at the site directly implicate market power questions that FERC needs to address in the proceeding.
“The current market power mitigation rules in the PJM tariff do not explicitly address the removal of capacity resources from the capacity market to serve data center load,” it argued. “Unless and until the market rules change, market power issues must be addressed case by case.”
After the initial back-and-forth, Public Citizen, the NAACP and the Port Tobacco River Conservancy filed a motion to dismiss April 1, claiming TeraWulf failed to disclose an equity stake Google has in the company. The tech giant signed a deal involving two other data center projects TeraWulf owns in New York and Texas.
“Both projects involve a three-party framework in which Fluidstack, a private AI cloud company, serves as the primary tenant of TeraWulf’s Lake Mariner and Abernathy projects while Google backstops Fluidstack’s lease obligations and certain loan commitments,” the groups said. “In exchange for taking on those obligations, Google obtained warrants controlling 73.5 million TeraWulf voting shares — equal to 14% of TeraWulf’s equity. Google received those shares at a strike price of 1 cent/share.”
The groups said the complex financial arrangement is to keep liabilities and Google’s potential regulations off its books.
“Google obtains strategic control over AI infrastructure capacity without directly owning real estate, building data centers or appearing as a regulated utility — while TeraWulf carries construction and operational risk,” they argued. “Google backs Fluidstack’s lease obligations but does not have to recognize them as a liability on its books — while Google obtains nearly zero-cost control over 14% of TeraWulf’s equity.”
TeraWulf responded to the motion to dismiss April 8, saying that deal does not mean Google is its part owner. Two deals with Google were publicly disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under which TeraWulf issued “warrants” giving Google the right to buy shares of its common stock, it said.
“Google holds warrants that provide a contingent right to purchase shares of TeraWulf common stock in the future, subject to specified terms and conditions,” it told FERC. “The Google warrants do not confer any present ownership interest, voting rights or control over” the company.
Google is not stockholder unless it exercises its rights under those warrants, meaning it does not qualify as an affiliate of TeraWulf. FERC defines voting securities for its affiliate rules as “any security presently entitling the owner or holder thereof to vote in the direction or management of the affairs of a company,” the data center developer noted.