Meta Hides Data Center Info As it Pushes More Risks to Entergy’s Customers

The controversy surrounding Meta Platforms’ expensive data center expansion in northern Louisiana is intensifying. Stakeholders are now evaluating the powering strategy for this large facility. Meanwhile, Meta is contesting a subpoena aimed at enforcing greater transparency regarding its data center plans and is facing setbacks. State regulators will vote on this matter this Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 at 9 AM in Baton Rouge. Here’s what you need to know.

Some quick context

In April 2026, Entergy Louisiana, the state’s largest utility, applied to state regulators to build seven additional gas-fired power plants to support Meta’s expanding AI data center in Richland Parish. These plants, along with new transmission lines and other infrastructure, are in addition to three gas plants approved last year for the data center. Entergy and Meta claim the data center requires 10 new gas plants, each with a 754 megawatt (MW) capacity. For perspective, 7,540 MW is sufficient to meet New Orleans’ annual peak demand six times over.

The regulatory proceedings at the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) are underway, with stakeholders examining Entergy’s proposal for the seven additional plants. Entergy argues the plan serves the “public interest,” claiming it will benefit existing customers rather than lead to rate hikes, a scenario already seen elsewhere and anticipated in Louisiana.

However, this alleged benefit for ratepayers does not hold up under scrutiny. Meta’s resistance to transparency efforts regarding the data center project is not surprising.

Meta is fighting transparency, but Louisianans can make their voices heard

On August 4^th, 2026, an LPSC administrative law judge denied Meta’s move to quash a subpoena requested by Earthjustice for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Alliance for Affordable Energy (AAE), a Louisiana-based consumer advocacy group. The subpoena requires Meta to provide evidence of:

1. Meta’s investment level and permanent job creation; and
2. The electricity demand of the data center.

Since Meta is not a formal party to these proceedings, UCS, AAE, and other stakeholders have been unable to question the company legally. They can, however, question Entergy, which filed the infrastructure application. When pressed on claims of job creation and the need for seven additional gas plants, Entergy refers to Meta’s assertions without providing additional data.

Consequently, the judge ordered Meta to formally substantiate these claims last week, while also allowing the full Commission to review the matter.

The bottom line: Louisiana’s five elected Commissioners are set to vote on whether Meta must answer these crucial questions at the Commission’s Wednesday, August 12^th public meeting, starting at 9 AM at 602 North 5th Street, Baton Rouge, LA in the 1^st Floor Natchez Room.

Residents of Louisiana, except those in New Orleans (where utility rates are regulated by the city council), can make their voices heard by contacting their Commissioner or attending the Baton Rouge meeting. Attendees can provide public comments to the Commissioners, and this article offers ideas for those unsure of what to say. Even without speaking, simply being present signals to the Commissioners that people are attentive to their decisions.

Let’s delve deeper into why this proposal is a risky venture for Louisiana ratepayers.

Ratepayers still on the hook

To begin with, Meta has not committed to covering all costs of powering this data center. This could result in Louisianians shouldering the expense of ten new, polluting gas plants, including the seven under consideration.

The deal between Meta and Entergy is structured to offer Meta flexibility to exit the data center project before infrastructure costs are fully settled, potentially leaving ratepayers to cover residual expenses. Even if Meta remains committed long-term, ratepayers are poised to subsidize operational costs at the new plants.

Testimony from the Current Energy Group (CEG), filed on behalf of UCS and AAE, indicates that Entergy’s claimed benefits are founded on overly optimistic assumptions that could quickly give way to increased ratepayer costs—potentially reaching billions—when factors like data center demand and fuel costs are examined. Furthermore, Entergy’s evaluation of power grid reliability was inadequate, failing to explore solutions that could reduce costs and emissions.

Specifically, Meta intends for the data center’s peak electricity demand to reach approximately 5,000 MW, comparable to New York City’s average load. Yet, similar to last year’s situation, Meta is not engaging to clarify this proposal. Let’s review what’s on the table.

Large construction costs go untested

Investor-owned utilities like Entergy profit from construction projects, known as “capital costs.” The more they build, the more they profit. Entergy aims to construct over $15 billion in new capital infrastructure, detailed in the table below:

Entergy proposes four gas plants in Richland Parish and three in Point Coupee Parish, totaling 5,278 MW, as well as additional battery storage capacity and transmission infrastructure.

If approved, these construction projects could yield Entergy’s shareholders an estimated $8 billion in extra profits over 20 years.

Additionally, Entergy seeks to expedite this project through LPSC’s new “Lightning Amendment,” which waives the requirement to demonstrate that the proposal is the least-cost option for meeting Meta’s needs—a process generally mandated before infrastructure projects gain LPSC approval. This could lead to inflated project costs.

20-year contract, but…

The proposal entails Meta receiving electricity from Entergy under a 20-year contract, including “minimum charges” intended to offset costs to other ratepayers. These charges cover annual capital costs, shareholder and debtholder returns, fixed operating and maintenance costs, taxes, and insurance. However, while Meta will cover its share of Entergy’s “fuel adjustment clause” (FAC) charge, this charge is excluded from Meta’s minimum charge, with operating costs distributed among all customers.

Even if Meta remains for the contract’s full term, ratepayers are not fully relieved of capital costs. Three out of the seven proposed gas plants in Point Coupee Parish will not be fully depreciated (paid off) until 32 years after activation, leaving ratepayers responsible for over a decade of capital costs if Meta does not renew the contract. The remaining four plants in Richland Parish near the data center will depreciate over 20 years but will only be about 90% paid by the contract’s end, as it takes effect in 2028 before all plants are fully constructed.

Entergy projects that the gas plants and smaller battery storage projects will be around 75% depreciated by the contract’s end. The company’s cost allocation method remains unclear due to redacted public filings, but 25% of these total costs amounts to $3.4 billion. Ratepayers could be left with this bill post-contract, excluding other costs like operating expenses and the ~9.7% profit margin Entergy’s shareholders earn on construction projects.

However, Meta could exit this contract early. If Meta chooses to do so, a loophole permits Entergy to seek “retained generator” status, allowing the utility to bill ratepayers for any outstanding costs. This is troubling, as Entergy has a financial incentive to retain the plants and continue earning its 9.7% profit margin on the capital infrastructure. Moreover, given the uncertain future demand for AI services, regulators must seriously consider the possibility of Meta’s withdrawal.

CEG’s testimony concludes that ratepayers could bear the full financial risk of these Meta-driven plants if Entergy retains them. Ratepayers did not instigate these significant expenses, so Entergy’s shareholders should share this risk, and the LPSC should clarify this expectation upfront (especially considering the $8 billion in profits shareholders are projected to earn). This would motivate the utility to seek any unrecovered funds from Meta, which is causing the extra costs. If Entergy is wagering that these costs will pay off, the company should be using its own money, not the ratepayers’.

“Benefits” quickly turn into costs

Even assuming Meta remains for the contract’s duration, Entergy’s claim that the proposal will benefit other ratepayers is questionable. The utility estimates $28.5 billion in total costs over 20 years, compared to $30.4 billion in total revenue. This is how a “benefit” of about $1.9 billion (roughly 6.5%—shown in the table below) is derived if Meta renews its contract. If Meta exits after 20 years, the benefit drops to $991 million, or about 3.5%. A mere 3.5% increase in costs or decrease in revenues could erase any benefit and result in a ratepayer subsidy for Meta. For comparison, the projected capital costs of Entergy’s previously approved project to power the first phase of Meta’s data center rose in May from $3.9 billion to $4.4 billion, an increase of about 11.7%.

There are significant uncertainties with this large-scale proposal that could lead to higher costs or lower revenues, yet Entergy did not adjust any of these variables to assess their impact on results compared to their optimistic assumptions. One uncertainty is the actual energy demand of Meta’s data center. Efforts to uncover this through the aforementioned subpoena are ongoing, yet Entergy relied solely on Meta’s provided number without exploring alternative scenarios.

The expected “load factor” of the data center—which denotes the average percentage of time it operates at peak load—is confidential. However, CEG testimony suggests the assumed load factor is “very high for any load, leaving no room for upside in the analysis but resulting in significant downside exposure if actual operations fall short of that level.”

We are not the first to note utilities using excessively high load factors in their projections. With the uncertain future of AI services and Meta’s ongoing strategic hedging on data center usage, Entergy should test scenarios with lower demand levels to evaluate their impact on cost-benefit analyses. Indeed, Entergy appears to anticipate lower demand outside of that analysis; the companies’ contract permits Meta to lower its average contracted demand to avoid a “windfall” benefit for other ratepayers at Meta’s expense.

However, windfalls seem to be moving the other way under the current proposal. The testimony highlights another crucial variable Entergy did not thoroughly examine: fuel and other operating costs at the plants. The utility’s fuel adjustment clause (FAC) charge encompasses not only fuel costs for the gas plants but also significant maintenance costs—about $10.3 million annually at each of the seven plants—and gas transportation expenses. The utility would distribute FAC costs to all customers immediately, and many cost estimates are redacted from public records.

The proposed gas plants would have “firm,” or uninterruptible, gas transportation service via pipeline, necessitating Entergy to pay a gas pipeline operator to reserve capacity. This fixed cost will be recovered through the FAC. However, if Meta uses less electricity than anticipated, its revenue contributions to the FAC may not align with costs, leading ratepayers to subsidize Meta’s fuel expenses.

Entergy also acknowledged that three plants in Point Coupee Parish will likely require new pipeline infrastructure. These additional costs stem from this Meta-driven project, yet Entergy will distribute costs across its customer base through the FAC, further subsidizing Meta’s fuel requirements.

Power-grid reliability solutions go unexplored

A second piece of testimony, submitted by engineering consultancy HickoryLedge for AAE and UCS, highlights various grid solutions that Entergy overlooked or only superficially examined. These solutions could potentially reduce the number of gas plants and project costs, while enhancing grid reliability. However, the company appears focused on increasing fossil fuel use.

For instance, for the proposed transmission aspects of this project, Entergy plans to employ 20-year-old transmission line designs. Newer, advanced lines could carry about 30% more power, potentially improving access to renewables with minimal impact on capital costs.

Another possible solution is data center load flexibility, which involves decreasing demand during peak hours a few times yearly to reduce overall infrastructure requirements. This approach could lower overall costs, lessen the risk of stranded assets, and bolster grid reliability. Yet, Entergy dismissed this option because Meta was uninterested. The companies seem to have abandoned this massive project prematurely.

LPSC must prioritize ratepayers in this risky proposal

The LPSC has considerable work ahead to adequately safeguard ratepayers. With the enormous scale anticipated, the risks are substantial, and much is shielded from public view.

The Commission should mandate Entergy to further explore the grid-reliability issues mentioned above, among other details in the testimony, and develop a monitoring plan for the data center’s grid impact if it becomes operational. The seven gas plants should not be evaluated simultaneously; a staggered review schedule is more fitting for a project exceeding $15 billion with such substantial ratepayer investment at risk. This would also allow additional time for the Commission’s standard request for proposal process, enabling third-party power providers to offer potentially cleaner, cheaper solutions to meet demand. The testimony contains further recommendations for readers interested in advocating to the LPSC.

If you’re in Louisiana, outside of New Orleans, you can contact your Commissioner and urge them to protect ratepayers rather than prioritizing Entergy and Meta shareholders. You can also attend the Commission vote this Wednesday, August 12^th, starting at 9 AM at 602 North 5th Street, Baton Rouge, LA in the 1^st Floor Natchez Room.

Attending signals to the elected Commissioners that the public is monitoring their decisions. You can also provide a public comment advocating for Meta’s transparency. It’s time for the LPSC to hold these billion- and trillion-dollar companies accountable.