The Commission approved a funding disclosure rule requiring intervenors to disclose foreign funding from certain countries of concern, approved a program enabling utilities to recover funds from ratepayers for nuclear research and development, and approved a new transmission line intended to improve reliability and reduce costs. They also discussed SLECA and their efforts to permanently abandon service for nearly 300 residents.
The Commission approved a funding disclosure rule intended to create transparency around where organizations who intervene in PSC dockets receive their funding.
The approved rule requires intervenors to either certify that they did not receive any funding from a “foreign country of concern,” or disclose that they did. Intervenors must demonstrate they have made a “reasonable inquiry” to determine the origin of their funding.
Louisiana has already defined “foreign countries of concern” through state statute, which includes any government or non-government person labeled a “foreign adversary” by the federal government’s Secretary of Commerce.
According to the federal regulation, “foreign adversaries” are any governments and foreign non-government persons who have “engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons.” Those include:
Disclosure is required of secondary and tertiary funding sources as well, who themselves may be or receive money from these foreign entities. Investor owned utilities must disclose shareholders from foreign countries of concern who own more than 5% of the company.
For these foreign funding sources, intervenors must list the purpose of their contribution, which aims to reveal whether the funding is for a reasonable purpose or a sign of foreign influence.
The certifications must be updated on a yearly basis by March 31st. Failure to comply with the order could result in an intervenor’s status being denied or revoked.
This is the fourth version of this rule. The initial rule was much broader, requiring all parties to disclose any and all out-of-state funding. That would have been not only the amount and sources of money received from sources based abroad, but also money received from any out-of-state individuals and entities. Intervenors would have been required to submit statements and sworn affidavits each and every time they participated in the regulatory process, which would have been a tall order for any organization, let alone for smaller, community-based groups or individual residents with fewer resources.
This would have had a chilling effect on non-profits and individual Louisianans, impairing their ability to represent themselves in front of the Commission all while holding corporate utilities and industrial customers to a far lower standard. At a time when the Commission is facing several decisions that will shape our energy system for years to come and organizations like the Alliance and others are asking hard questions, a rule like this seems to seek to hurt our ability to advocate on behalf of the public.
After pushback from groups like the Alliance as well as utilities themselves, the Commission’s final rule is more reasonable, cutting the out-of-state and frequent filing requirements. However, it is not without its critiques. While AAE has always supported more transparency at the PSC, this rule could make it harder for regular citizens like you to engage at the PSC. The Alliance advocates for fewer barriers, not more, and the act of yearly certification and making “reasonable inquiries” are additional steps groups and individuals have to take just to be able to have a seat at the table. Another concern the Alliance has is the Commission’s authority to limit or eliminate intervenors’ participation based on their compliance with the new rule. While the Commission might have a basis to do so if a party doesn’t properly comply, we have seen the Commission act arbitrarily when applying their own rules.
Nevertheless, this revised and pared-back final rule is a win for transparency, and for Louisianans speaking up at a time of great uncertainty.
The Commission approved a proposal enabling utility companies to charge ratepayers for “prudent” (i.e. appropriate) activities related to nuclear research & development. The funds can be used for feasibility studies, potential site assessments, and economic modeling on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and microreactors.
Back in August, at the request of Chairman Skrmetta, the Commission evaluated whether to direct utilities to spend $5 million on researching and exploring untested nuclear power options, including the feasibility of small modular nuclear reactors. If approved, this would have resulted in a $0.20 additional charge (rider) on all monthly customer bills, including residential, commercial, and industrial bills. At the time, Commissioner Coussan suggested there may have been a way around imposing costs on residents, such as via appropriations by the state legislature or solely charging industrial customers.
Utilities are allowed to recover $2 million of prudent costs every three years from base rates, or what they already collect from bills. Importantly, they are not able to use this cost recovery mechanism to reach their allowed Return on Equity if the utility failed to recover that amount through bills. They also cannot charge more than that allowed ROE, such that rates cannot be increased as a result of the program.
The Alliance does not support spending ratepayer funds on research and development, especially when it is intended to serve industrial customers. Nuclear is an incredibly expensive generation technology and notoriously unreliable, and it is unfair to ask residents to foot the cost of potentially expanding that technology. If the Commission wants to explore the feasibility of nuclear power, the money should come from the Department of Energy or from the companies who are interested in this research or have a higher energy demand.
The Commission approved three new rate schedules for Southwest Electric Power Company.
The first tariff affects supplemental, backup, maintenance and as available power to ensure that SWEPCO’s existing customer base is not subsidizing larger customers who build interconnected generation facilities. Some industrial or commercial ratepayers with high demand may produce their own power and have supplemental, backup, and other power resources. This tariff helps allocate costs properly in the event that their own power is insufficient and they need to draw power from the grid.
The second tariff is a tool designed to be used in peak demand situations, when demand on the grid is high. SWEPCO can incentivize those ratepayers with a load of at least 300 kV to curtail (reduce or eliminate) it during high demand situations to avoid even higher peaks. They do this by offering a bill credit for curtailing their load. With less demand on the grid, SWEPCO is able to better deliver power throughout the system, increasing overall system reliability.
The last one is a bill credit for new customers with at least 300 kW of load who employ a certain number of workers. This aims to incentivize employment and acts as a form of economic development, according to SWEPCO. In this case, SWEPCO was requesting the 300 kW threshold be lowered. However, it was unclear how many jobs are required to be created to trigger the credit. 300 kW is a relatively small load, so this could wind up giving away bill credits to relatively small commercial customers. For example, a lot of new big-box stores could meet the demand criteria, and receive an unnecessary “incentive” that costs other ratepayers in the future.
A settlement between Entergy and Commission Staff regarding Entergy’s request to build a new transmission line was certified. The settlement made way for Entergy to move ahead with construction of the Babel-Webre Transmission line, a 147 mile long 500kV line that runs from east to west through Iberville, Point Coupee, St Landry, Evangeline, Avoyelles, Rapides and Vernon parishes. The new transmission line will connect the upgraded Webre 500-kV Switching Station in Louisiana to the 500 kV switching station to be constructed in Texas.
This line is being built to improve reliability and resilience across the state, relieve congestion on the grid (when more power is being moved than the grid can reasonably handle), and reduce load-shed events. A load-shed event, like what happened to New Orleans over Memorial Day in 2025, is a last-resort controlled power outage ordered by the Midcontinent System Operator (MISO), the regional grid operator, in order to prevent larger, uncontrolled blackouts. It’s a way to balance supply and demand for our power grid.
The grid works like a highway system, and similarly, when there are more cars than the number of lanes can handle, traffic jams can occur (and in this case, blackouts). Without enough “lanes” for electricity to move from producers to customers, “load pockets” are created – which increase costs for consumers and can make the grid more vulnerable to failures. The 2025 outage was a demonstration of what can go wrong when there is not enough transmission to handle that “traffic,” and this line can be thought of as an extra lane to keep that traffic moving.
There was some question of whether this is being built to serve AI data centers. Commissioners repeated that is not the case; the Midcontinent Independent System Operator found the project was necessary to meet certain reliability standards. It will help the entire system become more reliable, bringing new power in, enabling 2000 MW of new power to be connected, and creating redundancy in case of emergencies.
This will be an expensive project – that’s undeniable. Rates will increase to cover the cost of the line, but not until the line is operational. Construction is expected to begin in 2027 with the line commencing operations in August 2029. In the first month of operation, a 1000 kWh ratepayer would pay an additional $3.74 on their bill. In the line’s 15th year, they would pay $2.82.
But there are costs associated with outages and congestion, too. Food can spoil, medicine can go bad, and people can lose access to life-saving medical devices. On top of that, there are massive savings that come from being able to access less expensive fuel; in this case, $290 million to $350 million over a 20-year period. The Alliance believes the improvement to reliability outweigh the costs, and is glad to see the Commission approve lines that prioritize resident-centered benefits.
South Louisiana Electric Cooperative Association was called to share an update on the status of service restoration to the nearly three hundred households who have been without power since Hurricane Ida hit in 2021 and damaged a critical distribution line.
Following the storm, three badly damaged segments of the “Lake Line” were never repaired, leaving residents in Lake Fields Island, Lake DeCade, and Grand Pass without electric service. Despite promises that the line would be rebuilt, SLECA ultimately asked the Commission to allow them to abandon service, arguing the cost of restoration was too high.
In February, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that SLECA failed to meet their burden of proof of explaining why total abandonment is in the public interest, and also failed to identify affordable alternatives to restoring power or financing as is required by PSC rules.
During last month’s PSC meeting, Commissioners brought relief to hundreds of families who feared service would never be restored when they rejected the utility’s request to permanently abandon electrical service. While SLECA was allowed to abandon service to one group of residents, three others were assured SLECA could not abandon them, too.
The Commission asked SLECA to share an update because they did not want residents to wait any longer than they already have for progress towards restoration. However, the status update was brief and offered no clarity around what SWEPCO is actually doing to bring homes back online.
“SLECA is weighing all its legal and regulatory options in light of the Commission’s actions,” a representative for SLECA said.
What’s clear is that SLECA is still fighting against the order to restore service. In Exhibit 21, SLECA sought to have the Commission revisit and reconsider their request to abandon service. However, the exhibit was deferred and not discussed at this month’s meeting. Depending on the outcome of the court case and the Commission’s own decisions, it’s unclear whether a reconsideration will occur next month or not.
SLECA also appear to be up to their old tricks, moving in the background without sharing their thinking with residents. While Commissioners sought to ensure that SLECA’s monthly board meeting is open to any member who wishes to attend and comment, property owner Sara Boudreaux argued the meetings are anything but accessible.
“I searched high and low to find out where the next board meeting was,” Ms. Boudreaux shared, claiming she and members of the community could not find any information online nor by calling SLECA directly. “They’re not out in public for me to go and participate because I have tried.”
Meanwhile, Ms. Boudreaux asked that if deals or agreements were in discussion with the Commissioners, that she and other impacted residents be included in those conversations. Whether a “deal” is even possible is a question. Unless relieved by regulators, utilities have an “obligation to serve” and a deal with individual residents may not relieve the utility from its obligation to future residents.
AAE urges PSC to push SLECA to explore other alternatives like solar + storage, which could restore power without the high cost of rebuilding the line. We will continue to advocate for these more affordable solutions in future PSC meetings and encourage resident involvement in the decision-making process.
The uncertainty and chaos residents are still being forced to endure demonstrates why the Commission must work to establish protections for Louisianans so that no utility can ever treat their ratepayers like SLECA did. Specifically, rules are needed to define whether and how utilities are required to notify customers and seek the approval of the PSC about their intent to abandon electrical service. Without these rules, many more Louisianans could face arbitrary disconnections, which can have serious to fatal consequences. With the rise in extreme storm damage due to climate change we know this won’t be the last time the system fails.
