MOUNTAINEER WIND ENERGY CENTER
OperatingWind power plant
- Capacity
- 66 MW
- Primary fuel
- Wind
- County
- Tucker County
- Operator
- AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER
- Status
- Operating
- Commissioned
- 2002
- EIA plant ID
- 55986
- Generators
- 1
- Technology
- Onshore Wind Turbine
- Net generation (2024)
- 66.5 GWh
- Capacity factor (2024, EIA nameplate)
- 11%
- Data vintage
- EIA-860 2024 final; EIA-923 2022-2024 final
- Coordinates
- 39.1829, -79.5371
MOUNTAINEER WIND ENERGY CENTER, a 66 MW Wind power plant in Tucker County, West Virginia. Operated by AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, commissioned 2002.
How MOUNTAINEER WIND ENERGY CENTER compares
With 66 MW of capacity, MOUNTAINEER WIND ENERGY CENTER ranks 20th among the 31 operating power plants Bywatts maps in West Virginia and 4th of the 5 operating Wind plants in the state. It accounts for about 11% of West Virginia's operating Wind capacity and 0.4% of all operating capacity in the state. Nationally it is the 337th-largest of the 708 operating Wind plants in the database. Commissioned in 2002, it is newer than 74% of the 31 operating West Virginia plants with a recorded commissioning year.
EIA-860 lists 1 generator at the site with 66 MW of nameplate capacity, all onshore wind turbine technology. Net generation was 66.5 GWh in 2024 (an 11% capacity factor), down 22% from 2022.
Grid neighborhood
The nearest named substation is MOUNT STORM (500 kV), about 14.3 miles away; the closest transmission line found within 10 miles is a 500 kV line, about 1.1 miles away. Another 6 operating power plants totaling 2,205 MW sit within 25 miles; the largest is MT STORM (1,681 MW, Coal).
Computed by Bywatts from HIFLD power plant, substation and transmission line records and EIA-860/923 survey data; distances are straight-line. Sources and methodology
Weather peril exposure
MOUNTAINEER WIND ENERGY CENTER is a 66 MW wind power plant in Tucker County, WV, operated by AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER, commissioned in 2002. Tucker County carries elevated modeled catastrophe exposure in the FEMA National Risk Index, scoring 2.7 of 5 at the 44th national percentile. Riverine flooding is the leading peril, rated Relatively Low by FEMA at the 97th percentile.
The Bywatts loss layer is calibrated to solar PV hardware, so it is not applied to a wind plant. The ratings below are the FEMA National Risk Index county hazard ratings for this location.
Tucker County hazard ratings
| Peril | FEMA rating | National percentile | Peril score | Events per year |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverine flooding | Relatively Low | 97th | 4.9 of 5 | 1.2 |
| Winter weather | Relatively Low | 80th | 4.2 of 5 | 26.5 |
| Hurricane | Very Low | 61st | 3.5 of 5 | 0.02 |
| Strong wind | Very Low | 56th | 3.2 of 5 | 1.6 |
| Hail | Very Low | 54th | 3.1 of 5 | 1.7 |
| Lightning | Very Low | 48th | 2.9 of 5 | 41.7 |
| Ice storm | Very Low | 32nd | 2.3 of 5 | 0.28 |
| Wildfire | Very Low | 31st | 2.2 of 5 | <0.01 |
| Earthquake | Very Low | 26th | 2.0 of 5 | <0.01 |
| Tornado | Very Low | 16th | 1.6 of 5 | 0.06 |
| Heat wave | Very Low | 8th | 1.3 of 5 | 0.05 |
Perils not assessed in Tucker County
These perils carry no usable National Risk Index figure for this county, so they are excluded from the scoring rather than scored zero. A zero would claim the peril was assessed and found benign.
| Peril | Why it is not scored |
|---|---|
| Coastal flooding | FEMA rating is "Not Applicable" for this county |
Model hail, wind and flood exposure for Tucker County in the weather risk calculator
Ratings are the FEMA National Risk Index county hazard ratings; the peril score is a Bywatts transform of the FEMA national percentile. Full data sources and the solar vulnerability methodology are in the weather risk calculator.
Modeled estimate for screening and negotiation. Built from FEMA National Risk Index county hazard data and a solar vulnerability layer documented above. Not a quote, a binder, or actuarial advice, and not a substitute for a carrier's own model. Hazard data: FEMA National Risk Index December 2025, synced 2026-07-24. Resolution is county level, not site level.