Company: EAI
Filing Date: 2025-10-31
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000065984-25-000132
Chunk: 309

Company: ENTERGY ARKANSAS, LLC
Filing Date: 2025-10-31
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 7
Chunk 309
---
 the same intervenors filed a motion requesting the LPSC to require the customer and its parent company to be joined as parties to the proceeding or dismiss the application.  In April 2025 the ALJ issued an order denying the March 2025 motion, and the moving parties filed a motion asking the LPSC to review and reverse the ALJ’s decision.In February 2025, Entergy Louisiana filed supplemental testimony with the LPSC stating that the third combined cycle combustion turbine resource presented in the October 2024 application (Waterford 5 Power Station) would be sited at Entergy Louisiana’s Waterford site in Killona, Louisiana, alongside existing Entergy Louisiana generation resources.  The testimony also notes that Entergy Louisiana is negotiating with the customer in response to the customer’s request to increase the load associated with its project in north Louisiana.  The testimony indicates further that the additional load can be served without additional generation capacity beyond what was presented in the October 2024 application, but that additional transmission facilities, which will be funded directly by the customer, are needed to serve this additional load.

40

Table of ContentsEntergy Corporation and SubsidiariesNotes to Financial Statements

In April 2025 and May 2025 the LPSC staff and certain intervenors each filed their direct testimony and cross-answering testimony, respectively.  The LPSC staff’s testimony discussed the significant projected benefits associated with the data center project; however, both the LPSC staff and such intervenors also identified purported risks associated with constructing the requested resources based on the terms and conditions under which the customer would be taking service.  Both the LPSC staff and such intervenors also recommended that the LPSC impose certain conditions on its approval which, if adopted, would support approval of Entergy Louisiana’s application.  The LPSC staff’s recommendations included a condition that would require, under specified circumstances, certain sharing of net revenues from service to the project with Entergy Louisiana’s other customers.  The LPSC staff also recommended that the LPSC deny approval of the corporate sustainability rider terms providing for the customer to supply funding toward the cost of installing carbon capture and storage infrastructure at Entergy Louisiana’s Lake Charles Power Station.  The Louisiana Energy Users Group and other intervenors recommended that the LPSC require various changes to the terms of the electric service agreement with the customer that would shift additional risk and cost to the customer rather than Entergy Louisiana’s broader customer base.  Certain intervenors also challenged approval on the basis that Entergy Louisiana did