All around the country, people are grappling with the development of large artificial-intelligence (AI) data centers, many of which have been shrouded in secrecy. With tech companies wanting to keep certain information from both their competitors and the public, even signing a slew of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with public officials, getting clarity on data center projects and their impacts has been an uphill battle. Some advocates have had to go to court to get more information.
That’s where we’ve found ourselves recently in Louisiana. In late September 2026, Earthjustice filed an appeal of a regulatory decision that allowed Meta Platforms to conceal information about its North Louisiana data center project, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Louisiana-based Alliance for Affordable Energy (AAE). The filing is now under review by a state district court in Baton Rouge.
As detailed in our appeal, the state’s main utility regulatory agency, the Louisiana Public Service Commission, erroneously overrode a ruling by one of the agency’s own administrative law judges. The judge had ruled earlier in the summer, and reaffirmed with a second ruling, that Meta had to hand over documents demonstrating both the level of investment and permanent job creation expected from the data center, as well as the data center’s electricity demands.
More transparency on jobs and electricity demand is needed
Gaining clarity on these two areas, with real evidence, is crucial for informing whether this proposal should go forward.
This is first because the state’s largest utility, Entergy Louisiana, is currently moving through the Commission’s new fast-track approval process for the data center’s power infrastructure, all in the name of economic development and job creation.
And secondly, the amount of power infrastructure Entergy is proposing—most of which is fossil fuel infrastructure—is enormous, withan initial price tag of more than $15 billion. In attempting to justify building this much, Entergy points to Meta’s claim that the data center will demand a large city’s worth of electricity supply. Because Louisiana residents are on the hook for the cost of this new power infrastructure (more on that in a little bit), the companies should be providing evidence demonstrating the data center will in fact demand that much electricity. This should be a basic requirement for determining whether the proposal is “in the public interest” and should therefore be approved by the Commission.
How we got here
For some context, this proceeding at the Commission started in March 2026, when Entergy filed its application for seven more gas plants, plus some battery storage and new transmission projects. The utility told the Commission in its application that the need for the new fossil fuel plants was being driven by an expansion of Meta’s data center currently under construction near Monroe and Rayville in Richland Parish—an undertaking that would more than double the power demand of the facility.
Entergy already received approval for three new gas plants last year for the first phase of the data center. If the next seven were to be approved, Entergy would be building 10 gas plants—all for a single data center development by Meta. The plants would all be 754 megawatts (MW) of power, for a total of about 7.54 GW. That is enough to power the entire city of New Orleans six times over, and is more than the average demand of New York City.
From the beginning of the proceeding, Entergy sought to fast-track the approval of these seven gas plants through a new Commission process created in late 2025 by the so-called “Lightning Amendment.” UCS opposes this policy, as it opens the door to more polluting and more costly power infrastructure in the state, potentially allowing 75% of data centers’ power costs to be subsidized by other ratepayers. Our partners at AAE recently called on the Commission to withdraw it, asserting that it was passed in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.
Because the Commission approved Entergy’s request to fast-track the plants through the Lightning Amendment, the Commission is currently set to wrap the proceeding in less than nine months—the final vote is currently set to take place in December—and Entergy will not have to seek competitive bids for constructing the plants. That’s because the Lightning Amendment bypasses the Commission’s normal rule that utilities must solicit bids from third-party power providers, meaning that Entergy can proceed with building the plants itself at a potentially higher cost.
Additionally, there will still be substantial costs that remain unpaid at the end of Meta’s 20-year electricity supply contract with Entergy. The utility estimates that the roughly $13.6 billion in new generation capital costs—the gas plants and the much smaller amount of batteries—would be about 75% paid down at the end of the contract term, leaving about $3.4 billion to be paid for by other customers. Louisiana ratepayers would be the ones stuck footing the bill, effectively acting as co-signers on a lease they’re not even permitted to view, because the electricity supply contract is kept confidential. If folks want more detail on this and additional costs ratepayers could be on the hook for, I suggest reading the second half of my previous blog, which goes into the testimony AAE and UCS submitted in this case.
Commissioners squash Meta subpoena without any explanation
With all the ratepayer costs, fossil fuel emissions, and grid reliability risks at stake, getting more information directly from Meta is essential. But unlike Entergy, Meta is not a formal party to the proceeding. So, UCS and other stakeholders aren’t able to get details from Meta via discovery requests or cross-examination. As a result, Earthjustice requested a subpoena to Meta on behalf of AAE and UCS.
As I mentioned in the intro, the administrative law judge overseeing this Commission proceeding partially granted our request, ruling that in order for the Commission to determine whether Entergy’s proposal is in the public interest and should therefore be approved, Meta must demonstrate 1) the level of investment and permanent job creation expected from the data center, and 2) the data center’s electricity demands. Meta attempted to have the subpoena cancelled, but the judge rejected the company’s arguments, reaffirming that this information is pertinent to the proceeding.
However, the judge also granted the Meta’s request to have the full Commission review the issue, giving the elected Commissioners the option of overriding the judge’s ruling. And in a packed room on August 12, 2026, more than 20 community members and stakeholders provided an hour and a half of public testimony to the commissioners, all in favor of letting the subpoena stand so that more transparency is required of Meta.
Nevertheless, three out of four commissioners—Eric Skrmetta, Jean-Paul Coussan, and Mike Francis—voted to deny the subpoena. (Commissioner Foster Campbell, who represents District 5, was not present.)
None of the three Commissioners offered any explanation at the August meeting as to why the judge’s rulings were incorrect, and the Commission’s subsequent written order did not provide any rationale either.
The Meta subpoena should be restored
To use the legal terminology in our appeal, the Commission’s decision to override the subpoena was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore unlawful. The state district court should restore the administrative rulings to require basic transparency from Meta on this data center project, which—as the administrative law judge noted—calls for electricity resources “larger in scale than any previous request before this Commission.” The appeal also calls for additional actions by the court, including stopping all activity in the Commission case, and requiring the Commission to reopen the record once Meta has handed over the information the judge ruled it had to produce.
Meta wants Entergy to build seven more fossil fuel plants for its data center, with potential grid reliability risks, a large city’s worth of pollution, and billions of dollars in ratepayer costs on the line. Meta should have to back up its claims about the proposal’s drivers and impacts. If the company can’t support them, Louisiana regulators and residents deserve to know.