In a blow to transparency and good governance, the PSC decided to side with Meta and allow the company to continue withholding critical information about Entergy Louisiana’s proposal to build seven additional gas power plants to power Meta’s Hyperion data center campus in Richland Parish.
Recently, in response to a request AAE, UCS, and Earthjustice made, a judge ruled that Meta must turn over key information it has been hiding from the public about its current proposal, including its level of economic investment, permanent job creation, and the actual amount of electricity load the enormous AI data center will need.
Meta has been fighting this ruling in an attempt to continue concealing this critical information from the public. Additionally, in an attempt to circumvent the normal regulatory process, Meta requested that the matter be determined by the PSC.
Yesterday, the Commission voted 3-1, with Commissioner Lewis opposing and Commissioner Campbell absent, to overrule the judge’s interlocutory ruling to issue a subpoena to Meta requiring them to turn over evidence supporting their claims about economic investment, job creation, and the amount of electricity the data center currently under construction in Richland Parish will need. This ruling allows Meta to continue to operate in secret and withhold critical information about this project.
Meta’s request for interlocutory review was a request that there be a review of the judge’s decision to issue the subpoena. Separately, Meta had also asked to quash the subpoena (with or without the review), but that motion to quash is now rendered moot because of yesterday’s decision by the PSC.
We stand with the over 40 residents who took time out of their day to come to the PSC’s meeting to urge the Commission to deny Meta’s request for secrecy.
“How can you make a public determination without the facts? A very limited narrow scope of facts — job creation, energy demand, and what the impacts will be to the ratepayers of this state,” asked James Hiatt, founder of For a Better Bayou. “Pledges and promises without teeth, that have no enforceable action, like the governor has tried, does not provide for the ratepayers. This is very simple, they’re asking for the information that led to the determination of is it going to be 12 jobs is it going to be 10,000.”
Rebecca, a resident from Baton Rouge, reminded the PSC, “We’re just crossing our fingers that a giant corporation that operates in its own interest is telling us the truth. This raises the question, is Meta’s party the welfare of working class Louisianans or its own bottom line? I think we know the answer.”
Mary Anne Mushatt from the League of Women Voters of Louisiana implored the Commissioners to consider their legacy; “Take a moment to consider where you will stand when history records this moment, because it will, and your grandchildren ask what you did for all of us.”
We’re disappointed the PSC sided with a trillion-dollar corporation’s right to secrecy over the public’s right to know the facts before billions of dollars in costs and risks are locked in.
Particularly since Entergy Corporation has a documented history of misleading the public — from paying actors to testify in support of a gas plant in New Orleans East, to abandoning their plan at Little Gypsy that left ratepayers with a $200M bill. Entergy’s track record is exactly why Louisianans and regulators cannot simply take Entergy and Meta at their word now.
The Alliance will continue to fight for transparency. Regulators and the public need real evidence to determine whether Meta’s promises about benefits and risks will hold up for years to come.
Meta and Entergy are seeking approval from the PSC (docket U-37882) to build billions of dollars worth of fossil fuel infrastructure to power Meta’s AI Data Center currently under construction in Richland Parish.
The PSC already granted Entergy Louisiana approval last year to build three new gas plants to power the data center. But Meta now plans to double the size of its AI data center, pushing energy demand to more than twice the level previously disclosed, all while receiving $3.3 billion in tax breaks.
Entergy is now seeking to fast-track PSC approval for seven more gas plants for the data center. We expect the PSC to vote on this application in December.
Cleco has submitted an application with the PSC asking for permission to increase rates through a formula rate plan. A Formula Rate Plan, or FRP, is a method used by utilities and regulators to adjust rates outside of a typical rate case. Yesterday, the PSC hired United Professional Company as a consultant to assist in this matter.
Typically, utility rates are set through a year-long process called a “general rate case.” Rate cases are how regulators set allowed profit margins, set expectations for operations and maintenance spending, and ensure our utilities have enough money to make investments needed to keep the electric grid running.
Some states conduct general rate cases any time a utility asks for an increase (sometimes annually), and others set them when a regulator sees a utility is collecting more money than necessary from their customers. There are even states that set the rates and haven’t touched them in decades (hey there Alabama). A full rate case can cost $6-8M or even more, and those costs (the utility’s costs and regulators costs) are covered by all ratepayers.
Formula rate plans allow for regulators and utilities to adjust rates annually, without going through a full general rate case, and are typically revisited on a three year basis.
Whether our rates go up or down usually depends on whether the utility earned the profit margin it was allowed by the PSC. If the utility earns more than the allowed amount, the rates are required to decrease based on a formula for the next year to ensure the utility doesn’t continue to “over earn/overcharge” customers. If the utility earns less than they were allowed, they are allowed to use the formula to increase their rates to give them an “opportunity” to earn their allowed profit.
The current FRP from 2025 sets Cleco’s allowed rate of return on equity (profit) at 9.7%, but they have earned 10.26%.
Magnolia Water customers have been experiencing and reporting numerous issues with their water service for some time now. Many customers on the Northshore have been engaged in a fight since last year to get clean water at a fair price.
At the PSC’s June meeting residents raised concerns about brown water, sewage leaks, and billing overcharges. In response the Commission decided to move forward with an audit. Learn more about the June conversation and the issues residents raised on our previous blog.
Today the PSC hired Eisner Advisory Group as a consultant to assist with an audit of Magnolia’s billing, customer-service, and general practices since taking over different municipal water systems.
At the request of Chairman Skrmetta, The Commission evaluated whether to direct utilities to spend $5 to $6 million on researching and exploring untested nuclear power options, including the feasibility of small modular nuclear reactors. If approved, this would result in a $0.20 additional charge (rider) on all customer bills, including residential, commercial, and industrial bills.
Upon urging by Commission Coussan, the Commission decided to defer this matter to next month.
We want to be clear that if approved, this money would come from ratepayers, from everyone with a utility bill. The Alliance does not support spending ratepayer funds on research and development. If the Commission wants to explore the feasibility of nuclear power, the money needs to come from the Department of Energy or from the companies who are interested in this research.
At a time when ratepayers are struggling to afford their power bill month to month, the PSC needs to prioritize investing in proven affordable solutions like energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, and battery storage.
