Kentucky Attorney General filing says data center plan near Ashland could reduce cooling-tower costs tied to West Virginia project

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman’s office said in a legal filing that a proposed data center near Ashland could help lower the overall cost of a cooling tower project associated with an energy facility in West Virginia. The statement appears in Coleman’s office filings connected to the Mitchell cooling tower effort, where the AG’s team argued that additional demand and infrastructure provided by a data center could affect project economics.

The office identified TeraWulf as the company behind the proposed data center located in the Ashland area. In its filing, the Attorney General’s office described the data center as a factor that could support the economics of cooling infrastructure, pointing to the possibility that the facility’s operational needs may allow costs to be spread or reduced compared with a cooling tower built for the Mitchell project alone.

Cooling towers are large, purpose-built structures used to move heat away from industrial systems, and they can involve significant capital costs. Coleman’s office did not describe, in the summary of its position, specific dollar amounts or construction-phase figures tied to the Mitchell cooling tower. Instead, it framed the proposed data center as a way to offset costs as the cooling tower project is evaluated in associated proceedings.

The AG’s office position also situates the cooling tower discussion across state lines, with Kentucky involvement tied to a West Virginia facility plan. That matters for parties and regulators because it can raise practical questions about who bears costs, how infrastructure is sized, and how projects in one state can affect the financial and operational assumptions used for major equipment in another.

TeraWulf’s proposed data center near Ashland has been described in the filing context as having potential to change the cost picture for cooling infrastructure. If the assumption holds through permitting, financing, and final engineering decisions, the cooling tower could be built under different cost-sharing or utilization expectations than originally contemplated for the Mitchell project.

The filing does not, based on the available report summary, indicate what specific approvals or regulatory steps are pending, nor does it specify whether the AG’s arguments are intended to resolve a particular objection or to support a particular construction and budgeting plan for the cooling tower. The next steps would depend on how the relevant reviewing authority considers the filing and whether related parties incorporate the data center into revised project models or conditions.

Coleman’s office emphasized the linkage between the data center proposal and the cooling tower cost outlook, seeking to influence how the Mitchell cooling tower project is assessed. For Kentucky stakeholders, the argument also underscores how major industrial and energy-related investments can connect the state’s permitting and infrastructure discussions to projects beyond its borders.