Charlotte R. Lane, Chairman
Public Service Commission of West Virginia
201 Brooks Street
Charleston, WV 25301
ROOM 228M
1900 KANAWHA BLVO., EAST
CHARLESTON, WV 25305-0470
PAT.MCGEEHAN@WVHOUSE.GOV
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
June 9,2025
RE: Review ofAffidavits from Weirton Area Water Board Inquiry (PSC Case: 25-0262-W-P)
Dear Chairman Lane.
I have reviewed the recent affidavits submitted to your agency by Mr. Amedeo “Butch” Mastrantoni and Mr. Jesse Alden, with respect to the ongoing inquiry into the Weirton water crisis this past winter. After comparing these filings with public reports, I thought it appropriate to
provide a few observations, as it seems evident that the $44 million water plant expansion, the Weirton Area Water Board, was a project that was speculative in its origin.
The nature of this expansion project reveals its disordered orientation, one that gave priority to “growth” at the expense of residential infrastructure. Years of such an orientation seems to have helped create conditions which culminated in the catastrophic failure of water service for a good
many residents in and around the city of Weirton.
While these affidavits address technical issues, they downplay and at times, omit, a critical underlying factor: the primary driver of the $44 million plant expansion was not to meet residential needs, but to serve future industry that did not yet exist at the time the expansion was initiated. Public statements and documents from city officials have affirmed this. In fact, doubling water treatment capacity in the absence of a commensurate demand strongly implies the speculative “if you build it, they will come” nature of the expansion project in the first place.
This raises essential concerns, for when the justification for such large-scale investment is framed in technical terms that are reactive, what can be concealed is the fact that the means–expanding infrastructure to support possible industrial users for the residents of the community-has displaced the ends, which ought to be maintaining reliable water service for the residents at large. The residents of Weirton experienced a catastrophic system failure-some enduring nearly a month without water-potentially
due, in part, to the sequencing of this speculative project.
This disordered orientation is affirmed by self-admission from Mr. Mastrantoni. In several instances in his affidavit, Mr. Mastrantoni refers to investments in the “distribution system, insinuating that the Weirton Area Water Board would be attending to residential distribution improvements. However, the distinction between existing residential distribution lines-which ultimately failed-and new or commercia1 distribution lines intended to service industrial areas in he hopes of future economic growth, is obscured. Instead, an equivocation of terms seems to be at hand, as the vague use of this term makes it unclear what the actual priorities of the expansion project were.
Instead, the term “distribution system” is used in a vague way, which can give the impression that he entirety of the project is aimed at improvements to the aging infrastructure which failed the residents of Weirton, even though large portions of the $44 million project were to involve building
out new capacity to serve hypothetical future industry. The $44 million water plant expansion project had been steadily planned since at least 201 8. In other words, the WAWB’s water treatment plant expansion was a pre-existing initiative aimed at improving Weirton’s infrastructure to primarily support future economic growth.’
Mr. Mastrantoni states in his affidavit that the expansion project was to first double the capacity of the water treatment plant-from 4.0 MGD to 8.0 MGD-before turning to upgrades of the distribution system. This was apparently necessary to avoid de-pressurization during the replacement of water lines, which was the subsequent part of the project. Only then, could this
second step-a phased process of replacing distribution infrastructure-be undertaken. However, even if Mr. Mastrantoni’s justification was accepted, it does not account for why the most vulnerable portion of Weirton’s infrastructure-the aging residential lines, buried above the frost line, shallow and known to be prone to failure-was not directly addressed first.
This misplaced sequencing is one of the great weaknesses of the speculative expansion project and undermines its entire rationale. Mr. Mastrantoni frames this as some sort of technical necessity-arguing that replacing lines while running near full capacity would risk de-pressurization-but he
nowhere clearly distinguishes between main distribution lines serving current residential neighborhoods, many of which were shallow and failed, and the proposed new distribution lines being added or extended to reach the speculative future industrial customers.
( 1.In public statements since 2022, the WAWB and city officials have increasingly cited Form Energy to justify the water plant expansion project. Indeed, Mr. Mastrantoni cites Form Energy in his affidavit, as evidence for the wisdom of the expansion project. However, Form Energy did not
announce its intent to locate in Weirton until December of 2022. Prior to 2022, there is no public record of any engagement from the company with local officials. For all intents and purposes,before 2022, Form Energy was simply an unknown quantity with respect to local planning. In addition, there is no record that Form Energy’s decision to locate in Weirton was contingent upon the completion of any new upgrade to water infrastructure. Form Energy located in Weirton because of a nearly $300 million subsidy package from the state of West Virginia (everything else is downstream from this). Thus, the chronology of events indicates that Form Energy was never a
basis for the conception of the expansionary project, but, rather, became a post hoc justification for the devotion of resources toward the expansion project. Framing the $44 million project as a response to a known industrial customer-rather than a speculative expansion-is false.)
There is little evidence in the affidavit that major funds were even allocated for residential line replacement, especially in the high-risk areas. In addition, little can be found from the affidavit which makes it clear whether any of the work involved from the $44 million expansion project was ever actually intended to replace the vulnerable residential frost-line pipes, or if such work was aimed solely toward developing industrial infrastructure, in hopes of servicing some sort of future commercial enterprise that is yet to materialize. This ambiguity can indicate efforts to present this $44 million speculative growth project as if it was primarily devoted toward improving direct services to the current ratepayers, while future economic growth was an objective subsidiary to this
While technically descriptive, Mr. Alden’s affidavit seemingly omits the project’s rationale altogether. He acknowledges the vulnerabilities and provides an assessment for the ultimate cause of the breakdown but never explains why the $44 million project was initiated in the first place-
a significant omission from someone contracted to help execute it.
According to these documents, the poor condition of the residential distribution service seems to have been well known to city officials, as well as to Mr. Alden himself, who openly acknowledges that approximately 40% of Weirton’s water lines are buried above the frost line, making them
particularly susceptible to freeze-thaw failures. He also directly attributes the catastrophic failure of the entire system to the combination of shallow line breaks and the plant’s inability to replace lost water fast enough to maintain pressure. If this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt its
accuracy, it is significant that Mr. Alden does not comment on the obvious fact of the disordered sequencing of the $44 million upgrade-nor
does he inform us if any of this project’s resources from the $44 million were intended to improve the vulnerable residential pipelines he clearly
blames for the catastrophe.
Neither affidavit explicitly indicates that any improvements were to be made to these vulnerable residential water lines that ultimately ruptured. Instead, over $20 million in public funds were devoted to expanding the plant’s treatment capacity to meet a theoretical future demand. As detailed in Mr. Mastrantoni‘s affidavit, this figure represents a sum greater than five times that which is needed for the replacement of over 1/2 mile of vulnerable downtown Weirton water lines.
Mr. Alden, too, fails to explain why the project, in this form, was necessary. That the very nature of the project entailed a relationship to meet some sort of future industrial demand is well- documented in public discourse, but even a speculative rationale, an “if you build it, they will come”–or, for that matter, any rationale at all for the expansion project-is missing from his affidavit. These omissions are notable as Mr. Alden is merely a private contractor, paid at great expense to carry out this speculative expansion project in the first place.
(2 The $8.8 million referenced within the affidavit, spent on the “distribution system” over ten years. may indeed be accurate, in a nominal sense. However, when compared against the extent of known vulnerabilities to residential infrastructure-along with the figure of $44 million to pursue the “if you build it they will come” project -this number seems to be insufficient. Since no breakdown is given in the affidavit to demonstrate whether this money benefited the residential areas that failed, this insufficiency seems to be all the more telling.)
The central failure of the system this past winter was certainly not speculative. Many residents were left without water for extended periods, some for almost a month. Why wasn’t the first phase of this multi-million-dollar investment project focused on the most pressing and well-known
concern: repairs to the aging lines in shallow depth that failed residential service? To reiterate, Mr. Alden concedes this vulnerability, yet, despite acknowledging that 40% of Weirton’s water lines are highly vulnerable to winter conditions, nowhere does he elaborate with any detail as to why
repairs to this known vulnerability of shallow residential lines were not prioritized.
Throughout both affidavits there seems to be a subtle pattern of deflection, along with one of omission. Claims that Ranney Well, (which was taken offline) could have prevented the catastrophic breakdown are extensively refuted, but a discussion of the broader failure of strategic planning for the old vulnerable pipelines is inadequately addressed. Most strikingly, however, the role of future industrial development, which drove the years of planning this $44 million project from the get-go, is hardly acknowledged (even though this is a matter of public record).
To summarize these affidavits, Mr. Mastrantoni acts in the capacity of an administrator, defending technique-a system where decisions are justified by institutional momentum, along with the appearance of progress, over and against present need. The use of ambiguous language like ”distribution system” and other such terms, allows technical infrastructure intended for speculative industry to be conflated with utility service to residents. Technical rhetoric like this can often tend to serve disordered institutional ends of “growth” and “prestige,” but not necessarily the proper
ends of reliable residential service. On the other hand, Mr. Alden’s statements are from the perspective of a technician, and as such, his affidavit is technically descriptive. While the technical failures of the water system are outlined, he does not question the policy decisions that failed to
correct those vulnerabilities. In both cases, the absence of serious questioning of the overall policy in the first place perhaps stems from their respective functions.
This, then, could be the very root of the problem presented. Administrators manage appearances, while the technicians simply service the machinery of the system. The inherent functions of these two men leave them unable to ask the essential question-whether the planned expansion project as designed actually served the common good of the community. Overall, the structure and content of the two affidavits present a story which downplays the speculative nature of the expansion project. Ultimately, this can muddy an otherwise clear link between the consequences of this disordered orientation.
(3 Mr. Alden’s firm, Thrasher Engineering, appears to have designed the first proposal for this speculative expansion project. In a letter dated December 10, 20 17, this proposal was rejected by the Public Service Commission, precisely because of this disordered nature: “The stated need for the project relates to potential future needs of the area. Staff notes that the Commission policy is historically been that the party benefitting from the expansion should “pay their own way’)
This misallocation may also be explained by the structural incentives that surround the undertaking of such speculative capital-intensive expansion projects, despite their uncertain financial rewards for taxpayers. Prestige in the form of reputational benefit can often accrue to city officials and
engineers from major capital undertakings that are highly visible—especially those that carry the label of rhetoric such as “economic development” or “job creation.” Such capital-intensive projects also tend to bring higher compensation for private engineering firms-which in addition to these
tangible financial rewards, also reap the intangible benefit of adding high-profile works to their portfolios from these speculative expansions. These benefits often do not seem to accrue from the more modest projects that consist in mundane-but necessary-repairs service to existing residential services.
Of note, this pattern is likely not unique to Weirton. It could reflect a development throughout parts of West Virginia, whereby capital investment is justified to court future industrial users-real or perceived-while infrastructure necessary for basic residential service is put off. Thus, the means become the ends. The proper ends, ie., improved service for the current ratepayers who fund these systems in the first place, are abandoned-and those ratepayers are left to bear the consequences of the disordered ends – those speculative enterprises done in the name of “job creation.”
Given the foregoing, I respectfully request that the Commission investigate whether the sequencing of treatment capacity expansion before repair of known vulnerable water lines was appropriate in this instance. In addition, I also request the Commission to investigate whether the general orientation towards speculative expansion ventures could be a cause for failures to attend toward basic upkeep of primary residential utility service. Doing such could also help determine whether this is indeed a phenomenon that is not isoIated to the present case of Weirton.
Sincerely
Pat McGeehan
Majority Leader
(4. In fact Mr. Mastrantoni’s affidavit explicitly cites the attraction of federal and state authorities to fund projects for “job creation” as one reason for the pursuit of their speculative expansion project)
