Ohio River Valley Institute

ADVISORY

September 9th, 2026

Ohio Power Siting Board Denies Company Request to Block Expert Testimony Describing Potential Impacts of 800MW Gas Plant

PowerConneX Sought to Secure Approval with Limited Information

 

ASHVILLE, Oh. — Developer PowerConneX asked the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) to block scheduled testimony from an Ohio River Valley Institute researcher, an environmental expert, and six local residents just days before they were scheduled to testify in front of OPSB staff. PowerConneX seeks approval of an 800MW behind-the-meter gas-fired power plant tied to a data center project in Ashville, Ohio.

Last week, PowerConneX asked the board to strike the testimony of experts drawing attention to the costs, questionable economic benefits, and environmental impacts of its proposed gas plant. The company then moved to block testimony from residents that would be impacted by this facility. Earlier today, the OPSB denied the company’s motion to block testimony from these experts and will later rule on the motion to block testimony for the remaining witnesses whose testimony was challenged by the company.

Four of the six residents plan to testify on behalf of Teays Valley Community Alliance (TVCA) on Thursday, September 10th. A researcher, an economist, and a research scientist will also be providing testimony on behalf of TVCA. A summary of the expert testimony is included below:

• An independent analysis indicates that the project’s economic impact could depend on various factors, including whether any stages of the project receive tax incentives. According to the testimony of Nick Messenger, Ph.D., Senior Economist with the Ohio River Valley Institute, the company potentially overstated the project’s contributions to local job growth and failed to initially disclose the data needed for independent verification of its analysis. 
• As described, PowerConneX’s proposed plant would be highly inefficient and cost-ineffective relative to standard on-grid gas-fired power plants, requiring 32% more fuel and up to $200 million in additional operating costs annually. According to the testimony of Sean O’Leary, Senior Researcher with the Ohio River Valley Institute, excessive fuel costs and demand for skilled labor may result in inflationary impacts.
• The project’s human health impacts due to emissions of fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and other air pollutants are estimated to cost from $83 million to $280 million. According to the testimony of John Bangsund, Ph.D., Director of Science & Technology at the Better Data Center Project, the pollutants expected from the facility’s operations are associated with numerous health impacts ranging from cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses to premature mortality.

Written testimony submitted by residents on behalf of TVCA can be found here, here, here, here, and here. The project has been met with staunch community opposition, including a resident-led referendum to repeal a municipal development supply agreement with PowerConneX.

WHO: Ohio Power Siting Board hearing on Case 26-0196-EL-BGN regarding PowerConneX, Inc.’s application for a behind-the-meter gas-fired generating station to fuel a data center project in Ashville, Ohio

WHAT: Testimony from residents and environmental and economic experts on behalf of Teays Valley Community Alliance.

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th, 9:00 AM ET

WHERE: Continental Office Building, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

###

The post Ohio Power Siting Board Denies Company Request to Block Expert Testimony Describing Potential Impacts of 800MW Gas Plant appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro shifted from aggressively courting tech investments, to signing an executive order on August 18, 2026 that embeds enforcement mechanisms into his previously announced voluntary standards for data center development. The Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) Standards are a set of requirements around energy costs, transparency and community engagement, economic development, and environmental protection for new data center projects.

The week of the executive order, the Ohio River Valley Institute fielded a statewide representative survey  of Pennsylvania adults. Many findings corroborate a growing body of research that shows the public is rapidly souring on data center development. This work further illuminates what Pennsylvanians want policymakers to do about it.

Top takeaways:

1. An overwhelming majority (94%) of Pennsylvanians say the state should pause, strongly regulate, or discourage data center development altogether.
2. Pennsylvanians are split on Gov. Josh Shapiro’s executive order to regulate data center development: on first impression, some say it strikes the right balance (45%), while others say it doesn’t go far enough (40%). Just one in seven (15%) feels it goes too far.
3. There’s strong opposition to building new gas plants specifically to meet the demand of data centers in Pennsylvania. 83% of respondents prefer either pursuing alternatives first, or not building new gas plants at all.
4. Most Pennsylvanians believe data center development would raise energy costs (74%)  and harm the environment (54%), though some (48%) anticipate job growth, as well.

Top impressions are overwhelmingly negative

• Before respondents were given any prompts or language about the issue, their initial associations with data centers were almost universally negative.
• Respondents referenced local opposition, energy use and costs, water use, and environmental impacts.
• Concerns appeared across political ideologies, urbanicities, and demographic groups.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

Nearly 7 in 10 oppose data center construction in Pennsylvania, similar to the national rate.

• 65% oppose the construction of data centers in Pennsylvania, (33% somewhat, 32% strongly).
• Women are slightly more likely to oppose.
• Open-ended responses surfaced anti-corporate sentiment and a sense that “we just don’t need it,” in addition to concerns about energy and water impacts.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

Pennsylvanians expect higher energy costs and environmental harm—but also some job growth.

When asked about the possible impacts of data center development:

• 7 in 10 said energy costs would go up.
• Half of respondents predicted jobs would increase some (38%) or a lot (13%)
• 54% said data centers would have a moderate (24%) to significant (30%) negative impact on the environment.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

There is broad appetite for limiting development

Respondents were split roughly three ways between preferring the state to pursue a full moratorium, stronger regulations, and discouraging development altogether, with the largest share (36%) preferring to discourage data center development in Pennsylvania.

• Demographic differences are relatively small, with men and women evenly split
• Views are relatively consistent across political ideology.
• Younger respondents are slightly more inclined to discourage development.
• Older respondents are more likely to favor stronger rules.
• Just 4% preferred to “encourage more development.”

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

Most Pennsylvanians believe that the ones who benefit from data centers most, are the companies developing them.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

There’s strong opposition to building new gas plants specifically to serve data centers.

• 83% favor either pursuing alternatives first or not building new gas plants at all. When asked how Pennsylvania should meet new energy demand from data centers,
  • 59% said Pennsylvania should prioritize energy efficiency and renewable energy before building new gas plants.
  • 24% said Pennsylvania should not build new gas plants to meet data center demand.
  • 16% said building new gas plants should be allowed.

Shapiro’s executive order is viewed as reasonable—but support for stronger action grows with more information

• A plurality of Pennsylvanians think the move, as described by the Governor, strikes the right balance
• After respondents were presented with facts about remaining challenges for local voice, and the tax break that remains available, there was an approximately 10-point shift away from “strikes the right balance” and toward “regulations don’t go far enough.”
• But some respondents are still questioning what compliance, accountability, and enforcement looks like.

(function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})();

Affordability is the clear priority for Pennsylvania’s economic future.

• When respondents were asked to think more broadly about their priorities for Pennsylvania’s economic future in a multi-select question, 54% prioritized keeping energy, housing, and other household costs affordable, making it the single standout priority.

What the findings tell us and what we’re still trying to understand

As we processed these results, we wanted to look beyond the topline numbers and consider how Pennsylvanians’ expectations compare with what ORVI’s own research tells us about data centers and economic development: that these projects are poor job creators and stand to raise costs across the board.

Much of what we found reinforces a growing body of public opinion research – people are deeply concerned about how these developments could impact their bills, their health, and their communities. And as is the case across the country, these concerns transcend any particular political ideology or demographic.

But several of our findings stood out – especially the strength of support for limiting development and related gas buildout, demand for local control, the way respondents weigh jobs against other costs, and the extent to which affordability and questions about who benefits seem to shape people’s views.

Opposition translates to appetite for limiting development

An open-ended question on data center development revealed serious concerns about data centers’ local impacts, like the thrumming noise pollution and round-the-clock security floodlights that have made headlines and driven pushback in host communities across the country. But even when asked about data center construction statewide, not necessarily in their own communities, the percentage of Pennsylvanians opposed to development outnumbers those in favor nearly two to one, our survey finds. Resistance to nearby data center development likely would have registered even higher.  One only needs to look to the extreme building-related flooding in Mason County, WV to see the gap between the economic promises made during the proposal phase and the stark realities communities experience once construction begins.

In Pennsylvania, negative feelings towards data centers appear to translate into a pervasive desire for policymakers and leaders to do more to prevent harm. Respondents were roughly split between a preference to pause development, implement stronger regulations, or discourage development in the state altogether. Consequently, less than a fifth of respondents in the state feel that Governor Shapiro’s executive order “went too far.” And the more they learned, the more they desired even stronger protections.

Moratoriums and permitting pauses are already happening in municipalities across the state. While Governor Shapiro’s order falls short of a full moratorium – which our poll suggests is politically palatable at the statewide level –  it does tie eligibility for the state’s generous sales tax exemption to compliance with his GRID regulatory standards, which are meant to protect energy affordability and encourage community engagement on data center projects. Across the country, there’s growing support for stronger regulations on data centers, including among MAGA voters and “AI-optimists” –  people want robust policies that protect natural resources, increase transparency and accountability, and protect ratepayers from higher utility bills. And the Pennsylvania legislature has an opportunity to do even more on this front.

But voters appear to be increasingly skeptical of the old economic-development model where governments give large corporations tax breaks, subsidies or preferential rates in exchange for promises of jobs and investment. Across states and the country, there’s rising opposition to tax benefits for Big Tech and data center developers. And despite the Governor’s new order, one thing that stays on the table is the sales tax exemption for permitted data centers, the cost of which keeps ballooning, costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

When we clarified this to respondents, and told them that some communities are still worried about their ability to have a say in approving developments, we saw a ten-point increase in the belief that Shapiro’s order “doesn’t go far enough.”

Pennsylvanians may be more optimistic about data center jobs than the evidence warrants.

Data centers have made a bad first impression.

Communities across the region are already experiencing the direct impact to air and water that can come with building large data centers, and the infrastructure to power them. Meanwhile, about half of the Pennsylvanians in our survey anticipated a negative environmental impact from data center development in the state. Nearly 75% of respondents believe data center development would impact utility costs, digging into the pocket books of everyday families. In Pennsylvania, residential electricity rates are already rising, driven largely by data center demand. Pennsylvania’s Independent Fiscal Office reported in July that the average electricity bill has already increased more than 20% since 2024.

About half of our respondents believed data center development would increase jobs in Pennsylvania at least somewhat. But research shows data centers are actually poor job creators in the long term. They require enormous amounts of capital, land, and electricity, but relatively few workers once construction is complete. The US economy’s “information” sector — driven largely by AI and data centers — has tripled its economic output since 2005 as the data center boom continues to inflate, our previous analysis shows. Yet, in the same period, jobs have actually shrunk. Meanwhile, data centers are driving up electricity bills, cutting into families’ disposable incomes and further negating the sector’s jobs impact.  Our shale gas research tells a similar story. Pennsylvania has become one of the country’s largest natural gas producers, yet the counties responsible for much of that production have not experienced employment, wage, and population growth commensurate with the industry’s enormous output.

Pennsylvanians aren’t buying the case for new gas buildout

One of our more surprising findings is how strongly Pennsylvanians reject the idea that rising electricity demand from data centers should automatically mean building more natural gas power plants.

That is striking in a state where natural gas has long occupied an outsized place in the political conversation. For nearly two decades,  political and industry leaders have repeatedly portrayed shale gas as both an economic engine and an essential part of the state’s energy future. More recently, projected electricity demand from data centers has become part of the case for a new wave of highly polluting gas-fired power plants and related infrastructure.

When asked how Pennsylvania should meet new energy demand from data centers, 83% favored either pursuing alternatives first, or not building new gas plants at all. Nearly six in 10 (59%) said the state should prioritize energy efficiency and renewable energy before building new gas plants, while another 24% said Pennsylvania should not build new gas plants to serve data centers at all.

For years, Pennsylvania’s political debate has often treated expanding gas production and gas use as synonymous with expanding economic opportunity. Yet the economic reality is much more complicated —and previous ORVI polling has similarly found Pennsylvanians considerably more skeptical of fracking’s economic benefits than the state’s political narrative might suggest.

Data centers may therefore be exposing a larger shift worth watching. Pennsylvanians appear reluctant to commit to another major wave of fossil fuel infrastructure simply because a new industry is promising economic growth. Instead, most want the state to ask first whether that infrastructure is actually necessary—and whether there are less costly ways to meet the demand.

What is successful economic development?

Our poll suggests that Pennsylvanians are thinking critically about  the use of public money to lure and support development. They are concerned about development inflating household costs, failing to produce lasting jobs and meaningful benefits, and taking away their say in their community’s future.

Simply promising investment and jobs may no longer be enough. People appear increasingly interested in the other side of the ledger: what development costs, who pays those costs, who receives the benefits, who has a say, and whether the result actually leaves communities better off.

About this research

This research was conducted using GrowProgress’ Pulse Survey, a rapid survey tool used to help understand public opinion around quickly developing events.

This survey polled 400 Pennsylvania adults between Friday, August 21, 2026 and Sunday, August 23, 2026. The margin of error ranged from 1.7% to 5.0%

GrowProgress gathers participants for rapid message tests, audience understanding surveys, and pulse surveys through partnerships with reputable online panel companies and marketplaces. These partners recruit participants through a diverse set of digital ads, loyalty or coupon programs, and other methods, collecting basic demographic information and utilizing weighting to ensure survey respondents are representative of the target population.

The post Most Pennsylvanians Want Data Center Development Paused, Strongly Regulated, or Discouraged Altogether appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

This analysis is an expanded version of a presentation to the Ohio River Valley Institute.

Appalachia is poised for a renewed buildout of climate-killing infrastructure as gas companies, emboldened by sweeping regulatory rollbacks, double down on investments in gas-fired power plants, LNG export terminals, and the pipelines that connect them.

Regulatory rollbacks

On May 21, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced plans to advance a set of comprehensive reforms that would reduce regulatory hurdles and make it easier for developers to build new pipelines across the US. If enacted, the proposal would weaken project-specific oversight, waive environmental reviews, and limit public involvement for major expansion projects. The new rules are particularly alarming as gas companies, encouraged by surging energy demand from data centers and LNG exports, double down on an unprecedented buildout of new gas-fired power plants, storage facilities, and the pipelines that supply them.

At the center of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which outlines the agency’s draft rule, are “blanket authorizations,” or the ability of pipeline companies with existing blanket certificates to undertake projects on their pipelines and related infrastructure without undergoing the full certificate process as required by the National Gas Act. Historically, blanket authorizations have allowed interstate pipeline companies to perform routine construction and facility upgrades without obtaining a specific, case-by-case certificate. The types of projects previously allowed were limited by scope and cost thresholds, which prevented significant increases in mainline capacity.

The draft rule proposes to more than double project cost limits, broadens the types of projects to which blanket authorizations can apply, and allows pipeline companies to finance projects by charging higher rates. One legal analyst described the proposal as “the most significant natural gas permitting reform in two decades–and its practical implications reach every segment of the industry.”

If it were its own country, Appalachia would be the third largest producer in the world, behind only Russia and the US. Still, Appalachian gas producers have been hamstrung by pipeline takeaway capacity limits for years, holding the region’s gas production steady between 34 and 36 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). FERC’s rules could change that, unleashing a renewed buildout of pipelines across Appalachia that could connect the region’s producers to new gas-fired power plant additions and LNG export terminals expanding along the Gulf Coast.

Plans for pipeline expansions

Nearly every major interstate gas pipeline system that crosses through Appalachia is now  subject to expansion proposals. At least 14 pipeline projects originating in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, or neighboring states could expand Appalachia’s takeaway capacity by as much as 8.3 Bcf/d. They would do so by installing looping (adding a parallel line to an existing pipeline), adding compression, and replacing existing pipelines. All would qualify for blanket authorizations under FERC’s proposed rule.

In May, Canada’s TC Energy announced plans for a massive, $1.5 billion expansion project along the Columbia Gas Transmission system, which runs through Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The so-called “Appalachia Supply Project” would add 0.8 Bcf/d of capacity for new gas-fired power generation driven by data centers, and would be scalable up to 2.0 Bcf/d through future expansions. According to the Canadian gas giant, gas demand in Ohio alone is projected to grow 30% over the next decade, driven by power generation and over 40 new data centers.

New pipelines target Pennsylvania

Further north, Enbridge is planning to expand the Algonquin Gas Transmission, a 1,130-mile, 3.1 Bcf/d pipeline that transports Appalachian gas from Pennsylvania to New England, through a series of upgrades that could be potentially sanctioned under FERC’s expanded blanket authorizations.

 Revived pipelines expand takeaway capacity into New England

Meanwhile, Williams revived two major projects: the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, which would expand capacity along the Transco pipeline, and the Constitution Pipeline, a 125-mile greenfield pipeline that would run from northeast Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, New York.

Though still in early development, Boardwalk has expanded the scope of its proposed Borealis Pipeline, a 2 Bcf/d greenfield pipeline that would install 200 miles of new gas pipeline in Ohio and add another 265 miles of new pipeline along the Texas Gas Transmission system, a 6,000 mile interstate pipeline network that links the Midwest and Gulf Coast. The projects would increase the flow of Appalachian gas into southeastern Ohio and Indiana, states with significant behind-the-meter data center development, as well as link Appalachian gas producers with customers in the Southeast and Gulf Coast.

Pipelines to increase takeaway capacity to Midwest & Southwest

Global energy supply shocks boosts US LNG

To say the first half of 2026 has been rocky for global LNG markets would be an understatement. The US-Iran War and the extended closure of the Strait of Hormuz stranded significant volumes of LNG and crude oil, and temporarily took Qatari LNG offline, effectively reducing the global oil and gas supply by 20%. The conflict caused LNG prices to spike globally, and they have remained persistently high apart from a temporary cease-fire in June.

Despite the global volatility, Henry Hub prices–the benchmark price point for US natural gas–have remained largely insulated from the price fluctuations seen in Asia and Europe, making US LNG all the more attractive to international buyers.

LNG exports draw Appalachian gas south

In April, the Department of Energy authorized two LNG export terminals to increase export capacity to countries lacking free trade agreements. But US LNG facilities are already running at high utilization rates, and a significant increase in exports can only increase at the pace of terminal and pipeline buildout. Though nearly all of the planned capacity additions are concentrated along the Gulf Coast, a slew of pipeline expansions that connect Appalachian gas to Gulf LNG terminals is underway.

US LNG capacity expands, pulling Appalachia gas south

In its 2026 Annual Energy Outlook, the US Energy Information Administration confirmed that LNG exports continue to be the fastest-growing source of domestic natural gas demand. Seven LNG terminals will add 6.3 Bcf/d of export capacity through the end of 2027, in addition to capacity additions through 2030 that will increase overall capacity to 27.7 Bcf/d.

Proposed data centers drive up gas demand, pipelines follow

It is becoming clear that gas industry buildout is closely aligned with data center development. As data center developers double down – prioritizing reliability and speed to market by sourcing natural gas-fired generation over renewables – gas companies are incentivized to undertake major expansion projects.

Earlier this year, TC Energy CEO Francois Poirier told investors, “Ohio’s projected natural gas demand growth of more than 30% over the next decade is the largest increase nationally outside of LNG-exporting states.” He added, “Growth is being driven by power generation, industrial expansion and grid reliability needs, including significant incremental load from more than 40 new data centers.”

For instance, SB Energy is proposing to build a 10 GW gas-fired power plant in Piketon, Ohio that would serve a neighboring data center. If built, the so-called PORTS Energy Center would be the largest operating gas plant in the country.

Map of TC Energy’s Columbia Gas Transmission system and planned data centers

These pipeline expansions could be accelerated and harder to fight if FERC’s proposed rule to expand blanket authorizations is adopted.

An RBN analysis indicates there could be a very large increase in gas demand for power generation, especially as existing power plants utilize more of their capacity. But the demand could be much greater if “behind-the-meter” (BTM) mega projects are constructed, such as the Shippingport Power Station in Beaver County, Pennsylvania or the Nscale Monarch data center in West Virginia. According to the analysis, just a handful of BTM facilities could trigger more than 1.2 Bcf/d of demand, if they achieve their planned capacity (which may be unlikely). Still, the projects identified in this analysis represent only a fraction of proposals under consideration for the region. Just as importantly, each of these massive BTM projects would necessitate a network of pipeline expansions within the Appalachian region, including the construction of new laterals to the new facilities.

Petrochemicals temporarily boosted by global conflict

US petrochemical companies saw a brief spike in profit margins following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the ensuing disruptions to global trade of refined oil and gas products. This marked a huge turnaround from baseline conditions in early 2026, which had been marked by oversupply and underwhelming demand growth.

The longer disruptions continue, the greater the likelihood of a renewed push to expand the petrochemical, plastics, and ammonia industries in the US.

Still, most experts believe the boost will be temporary. By early June, ethane cracker margins had come back down, driven by lower feedstock prices. Patrick Penfield, Professor of Supply Chain Management at Syracuse University, noted that “once the conflict ends and supply chains normalize, the industry will likely revert toward those pre-war dynamics rather than sustaining today’s elevated margins.”

Government forecasts for major production growth depend on pipeline buildout

Gas production in Appalachia is expected to increase by just 1 Bcf/d between 2025 and 2027, according to the EIA. Looking ahead into the next decade, however, the picture looks much different. In this year’s Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA increased its long-term production forecasts for Appalachia. The agency predicts Appalachian gas production could reach 66 Bcf/d to 73 Bcf/d by 2050–doubling today’s volumes.

While rising demand from within Appalachia will support some of the projected production growth, the agency warns that “major growth can only occur if new pipelines are built to transport gas out of Appalachia.” And, FERC’s newest reforms could make it easier for developers to build them.

The post Q2 Appalachia Gas Outlook appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.