They made three big decisions.
The simplest way for people to understand this is that Entergy is asking for a quick review process for this Meta project without fully understanding whether or not this is the best possible deal for people.
By now you’ve probably heard that Meta is asking for more electricity to power a second gigantic data center in Richland Parish. To power the facility, Entergy is asking the PSC for permission to build seven new gas power plants, over $22 billion in energy infrastructure.
This is in addition to the three gas power plants already approved by the Commission last year to power Meta’s first data center, “Project Hyperion.”
Yesterday, the Commission started the process of reviewing Entergy’s application, but not in the way they typically would. They voted to fast-track it under a new process established earlier this year by Commissioner Coussan’s “Lightening Directive.” This lighting process allows Entergy to bypass the standard competitive bidding process meant to ensure the cheapest options are considered, while the Commission reviews the application on an accelerated timeline in under 8 months. The Commission is expected to make a decision in December.
Additionally and alarmingly, the PSC has agreed to let Entergy skip over the standard review process that requires a recommendation from an Administrative Law Judge — removing an additional layer of independent scrutiny of the project. The purpose of the judge’s recommendation is to determine whether this project is in the best interest of the public.
While 8 months may sound reasonable to those not familiar with utility applications, The Alliance feels strongly that it is not enough time to adequately review the lengthy application and unprecedented buildout of fossil fuel power plants that will impact our electricity bills for the next 30 to 40 years.
We can’t yet even understand the ways in which this much new gas would impact not only Entergy’s fleet, but our power system as a whole. Investing in more gas at a time when gas prices are high and we expect the price volatility we’re seeing to continue — because of the war in Iran, demand from data centers, and LNG exports — is a risky bet and bad investment.
The bottom line is Entergy and Meta are focused on increasing their profits. The PSC’s responsibility is to protect Louisiana residents. Fast tracking a project of this magnitude raises serious concerns about whose interests are being prioritized.
To justify this massive investment in fossil fuels Meta and Entergy have pointed to the upfront investments, charitable contributions, and other payments that the companies say add up to $2 billion in savings. The reality is we don’t have a way to verify those claims about benefits because the agreements between Entergy and Meta are being kept secret from the public. As consumer advocates we’ve not been able to see the full agreements despite being assured by Commission Staff we’d have an opportunity.
Entergy is trying to dupe us and leave us holding the bag again. Time and time again the PSC has allowed Entergy to make decisions that prioritize their profits over what’s best for Louisiana residents.
Y’all remember what happened in 2009 with the Little Gypsy power plant in Montz, Louisiana? Entergy spent roughly $300 million converting a gas plant to coal before abandoning the project. The PSC allowed them to recover more than $200 million from customers.
Commissioner Skrmetta put forth a directive requiring all organizations intervening in a Commission proceeding to provide detailed information on their funding sources, including any money received from China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
The directive was approved unanimously and Commission Staff will now get to work writing a draft rule with instructions for who needs to disclose their funding sources and how. We expect Staff to present a draft rule to the Commission in June. The Commission will then discuss and vote on whether to move forward and establish the mandatory funding disclosure process.
The Alliance values and supports transparency in all Commission proceedings. We have been the strongest proponents of transparency at the Commission for 41 years, and disclose our funding sources in a public 990 filing on an annual basis.
Beyond our support for transparency, we do have concerns about whether a mandate like this is even constitutional.
At a moment when questions are emerging about non-disclosure agreements and back-door deals tied to major projects, transparency is more important than ever.
It is also why we’re urging the Commission not to fast track approval of $21+ billion in new energy infrastructure to serve Meta alone. Decisions of this scale and consequence demand full public scrutiny, not accelerated processes that limit meaningful review and public engagement.
Three co-ops initiated their 20-year planning process to ensure they can meet future electricity needs and demand. This is a mandatory process known as integrated resource planning.
The Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process is a powerful tool for ensuring that Louisiana energy consumers receive affordable and reliable electricity service that does not compromise the health of their communities or the environment..
At the LPSC, IRPs happen every 4 years. The investor owned utilities — Entergy Louisiana, SWEPCO, and Cleco — have already initiated this process as well.
