Decision Model and Forecasting

Powering Meta's Evest Data Center in Louisiana

Will Entergy Get Approval to Build New Power Plants to Serve Meta’s Louisiana Data Center?

Evest Data Center, LouisianaLPSC Docket U-37882

Louisiana regulators are deciding whether Entergy may build seven generators totaling 5,278 MW, batteries, and major transmission facilities in connection with serving Meta’s Project Evest data center and how the costs and risks should be handled.

Project Evest decision timeline

Select any party to view its public record and request reasoning access.

45 / 45 decision points

● Past decision✓ decided× not taken○ Upcoming◆ Expected★ Goal-Optimal

  1. Past decision point.

    Entergy files for certification of seven combined-cycle generators, three battery systems, and a ~150-mile 500-kV line under the Lightning Initiative.

    File now on the expedited Lightning trackFile on the standard track with a full ALJ recommendationDefer until load evidence is public
  2. Past decision point.

  3. Past decision point.

  4. Past decision point.

    LEUG intervenes to represent industrial customers exposed to Entergy's rates and service.

    Intervene and build a protection postureStay out and rely on Staff
  5. Past decision point.

    AAE intervenes for residential and small-commercial ratepayers.

    Intervene as consumer advocateStay out
  6. Past decision point.

    UCS serves its intervention petition.

    Intervene and bring system modeling to a named projectStay out; keep to statewide policy work
  7. Past decision point.

  8. Past decision point.

    SREA enters the proceeding.

    Intervene for renewable procurementStay out
  9. Past decision point.

    ALEC petitions to intervene for electric cooperatives.

    Intervene to protect cooperative allocationStay out
  10. Past decision point.

    1803 Electric Cooperative petitions to intervene.

    Intervene to protect wholesale positionStay out
  11. Past decision point.

  12. Past decision point.

  13. Past decision point.

    The Commission adopts the procedural architecture: original/primary jurisdiction, AHD compiles a record with no formal recommendation, Dec-16 target — by a 4-1 vote.

    De novo review, no ALJ recommendation, Dec-16 targetStandard track with a full ALJ recommendation
  14. Past decision point.

    Walmart moves for late intervention (internal owner Steve W. Chriss).

    Intervene late and preserve optionalityRely on other customers
  15. Past decision point.

  16. Past decision point.

    Sierra Club files a substitute intervention motion.

    Intervene to contest fossil build-outStay out
  17. Past decision point.

  18. Past decision point.

  19. Past decision point.

  20. Past decision point.

    GSREIA seeks late intervention.

    Intervene late for the renewable industryStay out
  21. Past decision point.

    AAE and UCS (via Earthjustice) move for a subpoena compelling non-party Meta to produce evidence on investment, jobs, electric load, load variability, sustainability discussions, and guaranty support.

    Seek a subpoena to Meta for the underlying evidenceRely on the public record and SEC/credit sources
    Join the subpoena to obtain project-specific evidenceKeep to statewide modeling
  22. Past decision point.

  23. Past decision point.

    Oral argument on the AAE/UCS subpoena to Meta; Entergy opposes and Staff files comments.

    Oppose the subpoena to protect customer confidentialityConsent to a narrowed, protected production
  24. Past decision point.

  25. Past decision point.

    The ALJ partly grants the Meta subpoena — ordering substantiation of expected investment, permanent jobs, and electricity demand while denying other requests.

    Grant the subpoena in fullPartly grant — compel core investment/jobs/load, deny the restDeny the subpoena
  26. Past decision point.

    Meta makes a limited appearance and moves to quash the subpoena, requests immediate Commission review, and seeks a stay.

    Comply with the narrowed productionMove to quash + seek immediate review + stay
  27. Past decision point.

  28. Past decision point.

    AAE and UCS ask that named client representatives be allowed to review material Entergy designated Attorney's-Eyes-Only.

    Seek AEO access for named client representativesAccept counsel/expert-only review
    Seek AEO access for Paul Arbaje and Jeff DeyetteAccept counsel/expert-only review
  29. Past decision point.

  30. Past decision point.

    Entergy opposes broader access to Attorney's-Eyes-Only material.

    Oppose expanding AEO accessConsent to a controlled client-access protocol
  31. Past decision point.

  32. Past decision point.

    LEUG files direct testimony (James Dauphinais).

    File protective testimony proposing concrete conditionsPursue an early settlement instead
  33. Past decision point.

    Walmart files direct testimony (Michael Marchand).

    File positioning testimony and preserve leverageMove straight to a negotiated settlement (as in Laidley)Participate minimally
  34. Past decision point.

    LPSC Staff files a memorandum opposing Meta's motions to quash and for immediate review.

    Oppose Meta's motions to keep the evidence path openTake no position on the subpoena challenge
  35. Past decision point.

  36. Past decision point.

  37. Past decision point.

  38. Past decision point.

  39. Past decision point.

    The ALJ declines to reconsider the July-10 subpoena ruling, refers it to the five Commissioners for immediate review, keeps the stay in effect, and leaves the AEO-access motion undecided.

    Reconsider and resolve the subpoena at the AHD levelRefer to the Commissioners, keep the stay, leave AEO unresolved
  40. Past decision point.

    Sierra Club files direct testimony (Devi Glick).

    File testimony contesting the fossil build-outParticipate minimally
  41. Past decision point.

    SREA files direct testimony (Jason Hoyle).

    File testimony pressing renewable alternativesParticipate minimally
  42. Past decision point.

    LPSC Staff files direct testimony (John A. Chapman; R. Lane Sisung via United Professionals Company).

    File testimony testing need and framing conditionsEndorse the application as filedRecommend denial
  43. Scheduled milestoneUpcoming.

    Staff and intervenors file cross-answering testimony addressing the contested certification record.

    The scheduled cross-answering milestone occurred on August 19. The alternatives, expected moves, goal-optimal alternatives, and reasoning below remain the model recorded from evidence through August 18; they are not presented as adjudicated descriptions of the filed testimony.

    Select any move to see how the forecast changes. ◆ Expected is the move the model expects. ★ Goal-Optimal is the best fit to that party's modeled objectives.

    Expected and Goal-Optimal for AAE. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with AAE's modeled objectives.
    Expected and Goal-Optimal for LEUG. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with LEUG's modeled objectives.
    Expected and Goal-Optimal for UCS. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with UCS's modeled objectives.
    Goal-Optimal for Walmart. The model expects Walmart to make a different move; this alternative is best aligned with Walmart's modeled objectives.Expected for Walmart. The model expects Walmart to make this move, while a different alternative is Goal-Optimal.
    Expected for Entergy. The model expects Entergy to make this move, while a different alternative is Goal-Optimal.Goal-Optimal for Entergy. The model expects Entergy to make a different move; this alternative is best aligned with Entergy's modeled objectives.

    Forecasted outcome · Commission decides December 16

    Staged / conditional certification

    Likelihood Most likelyTiming On the December 16 schedule

  44. Scheduled milestoneUpcoming.

    The evidentiary hearing before the AHD — cross-examination tests customer commitment, load-ramp timing, resource alternatives, cost allocation, and stranded-investment protection.

    Second curated future junction. The record is tested live; the applicant's load forecast and need timing are the controlling questions.

    Expected and Goal-Optimal for Entergy. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with Entergy's modeled objectives.
    Expected and Goal-Optimal for AAE. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with AAE's modeled objectives.

    Forecasted outcome · Commission decides December 16

    Staged / conditional certification

    Likelihood Most likelyTiming On the December 16 schedule

  45. Decision pointUpcoming.

    Targeted Commission consideration and possible final decision on certification.

    The climax. Five Commissioners decide de novo, with no formal ALJ recommendation, on the compressed schedule. After this junction the intervenor/renewables actors likely exit.

    Expected and Goal-Optimal for LPSC. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with LPSC's modeled objectives.
    Expected and Goal-Optimal for AAE. The model expects this move, and it is best aligned with AAE's modeled objectives.

    Outcome of this decision point

    Staged / conditional certification

    Likelihood
    Most likely
    Timing
    On the December 16 schedule
    Certified now
    Load-verified subset (final MW set by validation)
    Conditions
    Milestone validation · monitoring · cost-allocation
    Appeal exposure
    Lower than an unconditional full approval

    Forecast recorded August 27, 2026 · Resolution pending · Resolves December 16, 2026

Use this decision model in your work.

Bring us into the decision, or request the structured decision data.

Bring this to your decisionLicense the underlying decision data

Illustrative analysis from the public record. This is a fallible forecast of the Commission’s disposition, not a prediction of any individual commissioner’s vote. Not legal or investment advice.