Kentucky Public Service Commission approves Kentucky Power plan for new cooling tower at coal-fired plant

Kentucky’s utility regulator has approved Kentucky Power’s plan to construct a new cooling tower and begin partial demolition of an older tower at a coal-fired power plant the company co-owns near Moundsville, West Virginia, according to a Friday order. The Kentucky Public Service Commission authorized the investor-owned utility to move forward with what the commission described as a replacement cooling tower project tied to an aging cooling structure at the facility, as reported by Kentucky Lantern.

The order permits Kentucky Power to proceed with building a replacement tower and to partially demolish the existing one, an approach aimed at updating key plant infrastructure while managing the transition between the old and new cooling systems. Cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from the electricity-generating process, and utilities commonly schedule major cooling equipment work around regulatory approval, design completion, and operational sequencing to avoid extended outages.

While the order approved the project steps, the specific engineering timetable and any phased operational changes were not detailed in the short report summary. The commission’s action nevertheless reflects Kentucky’s role in reviewing utility infrastructure projects and determining whether utilities may proceed with plant modifications that can affect reliability, safety, and customer costs.

Kentucky Power, which operates in the state and is regulated by the Kentucky Public Service Commission, sought permission for the construction work under the commission’s jurisdiction over utility practices and proposed plant-related changes. The commission’s approval indicates that, at least at the approval stage, the regulator found the plan sufficient to proceed to the construction phase rather than requiring additional filings or denying the request outright.

The work is tied to a coal-fired facility located across state lines in West Virginia, underscoring how Kentucky utility oversight can extend to generation assets even when they are not located within Kentucky. Because the plant is co-owned, the project likely involves coordination among the co-owners on design decisions, construction contracting, and operating schedules, even as Kentucky Power remains responsible for the aspects of the project that fall under its regulated activities.

The project’s practical effect for customers will depend on how construction schedules play out and how any associated expenses are handled within the utility’s rate setting and regulatory framework. In Kentucky Power’s case, that typically means the company’s costs and implementation details are subject to further review depending on how the project is structured, though the reported summary focused on the commission’s permission to proceed with the replacement and partial demolition.

As the utility moves from regulatory approval into the construction and demolition phases, regulators and stakeholders typically look for clear public communication around safety controls and any operational impacts. The next milestone will be implementation of the approved work and any subsequent reporting or filings required by the commission for project execution and cost recovery.

Overall, the Friday order advances a specific, infrastructure-focused change at the co-owned coal plant, with Kentucky’s commission authorizing the utility to replace aging cooling equipment. The approval highlights the ongoing regulatory process surrounding power plant maintenance and upgrades, even as utilities increasingly face pressure to manage plant reliability and equipment lifespan.